The Lazy Astronomer

You don't need 2 inch filters unless you're planning to go with a full frame camera (and those are £££££). With a 4/3 sensor size you can actually get away with using 1.25" filters up to about f5, presuming you're able to get the filter close to the sensor (there is some vignetting, but corrects out with flats). If you were looking at aps-c size, then you'd really only need 36mm filters. If you're happy with your scope, I'd say keep it and go straight for dedicated astro cam (and go mono!)

Question (and it may be a stupid one - apologies if so), but why specifically the requirement for 2 inch filters? Side note: the lightness of my wallet tells me the biggest mistake I've made recently is asking this forum what telescope to get next!! 😁

When using reducers/flatteners the back focus number is the optimum spacing required to get the best optical performance. Some combinations of equipment are more sensitive to accurate back focus than others, but it's possible to get perfectly acceptable images with non-optimal spacing*, but you may get some strange star shapes around the edges of the frame and/or you won't get the advertised level of reduction. *when I say 'non-optimal', I mean slightly out. If you're a long way off, your image would probably look terrible.

It's possible to create a synthetic flat in software, it won't correct the dark spots caused by dust, but could help with vignetting and allow you to work with your current image a bit. This is not an easy hobby, but it really is quite incredible it's possible at all, considering you are trying to capture photons of light that are thousands or even millions of years old which have travelled - unobstructed - across unfathomably large distances to get here.

Another +1 for AS!3 for stacking. Have used Registax for wavelet sharpening in the past, but used Startools for a recent lunar image and would probably recommend that over Registax now. Also highly recommend Winjupos for derotation of planetary images (especially useful for a rapidly rotating planet like Jupiter). Not particularly intuitive to use, but will allow you increase detail - check out The London Astronomer's website for a walk through of how to use it (basically take several videos, stack, sharpen, then go through winjupos process which essentially allows you stack your stacks, which in turn allows you do further sharpening). For capture, honestly I find ZWOs own ASI Studio software to be perfectly adequate for lunar/planetary. Very simple interface and very easy to use. Edit: here's the moon image processed with Startools and a shot of Jupiter + 2 moons from last summer.

There are some issues with your image: possible vignetting, dust specs, gradient caused by light polluting/moon (if it was taken in the last couple of nights), a fair bit of noise and probably some hot/cold pixels as well. The vignetting and dust can be corrected by taking flat frames after an imaging session. For the hot and cold pixels, taking darks with a DSLR is not generally recommended, so ideally you'd want to dither between frames. It's possible to do this without an autoguiding system through software such as NINA, but I don't know if it's possible with your specific set up. To reduce the noise, you'll want a combination of more integration time and careful processing. Proper processing should also remove the gradient. Acquiring the images is only about half of what astrophotography entails! If you post up a link to download your stacked image, there are some experienced guys on here will be able to show you what's possible with proper processing of your current image.

The redcat is very highly regarded. If the cost was no concern for you, then redcat would be the one to go for I would say.

Ok, yep, not ideal, but l think my point still stands. Sure, your images from central London probably won't be great, but if you have an outdoor space where you live, it will still allow you to get to grips with things, and fine tune various settings so when you do go to darker skies, everything will just work.

Hi and welcome to the forum ☺ When building up an astrophotography rig, the golden rule is buy the best mount you can afford. Everything else is inconsequential. Due to your portability requirement, you're understandably not going to want to drag a big heavy mount around all the time (it's bad enough just moving mine a few metres into the garden...), so l might suggest you take a look at the ioptron mounts - they're a fair bit pricier than Skywatcher, which is not so good, but they are good mounts and very lightweight. That said though, is your only reason for not wanting to image from home to do with light pollution concerns, or are there other issues (i.e. no access to outdoor space/very restricted views)? - You can do a lot under even quite significant LP, and you can use special filters to reduce its impact also. If you are able to do imaging from home, even if you don't really want to, I'd still recommend you do so in the beginning, so you can get plenty of practice in and resolve any issues (and you will encounter issues! 😁) before heading out somewhere with all your equipment and having a frustrating clear night under a dark sky trying to fix problems.

Hi @Grant, will this one be uploaded to the youtube channel in the next few days? (wasn't able to join live, sadly)

I don't use it myself, so can't comment from personal experience, but Google Drive seems to be a popular choice with other members.

Unfortunately, yes!! 😅

I would say planetary is easier to get started with, but getting really good images is difficult, and relies heavily on very good seeing. Also bear in mind that there's only really 3 planets worth imaging, whereas there are literally hundreds of DSOs. The other thing is, because planetary and DSO imaging are so different from each other, there aren't really any transferable skills between the two (aside from maybe practice in mount set up, and to some extent, some elements of post-processing), so don't get into planetary thinking it will help you that much with future DSO imaging.

Unfortunately, planets and DSOs require different set ups. For planets you want large apertures and long focal lengths (so something like an SCT or mak), but for starting out on DSOs you'd want something like a small refracter. So, you are going to have to decide which interests you more and go from there.

Very nice - l haven't even tried to attempt horsehead fearing my lack of skill to keep Alnitak under control. One thing though: the stars in the top right of the frame are all grey, like they've been completely desaturated?

For planetary imaging it'll be great, for deep sky, not so much. I was playing around with my c6 last night to see if l could get a decent image of m51 (at native f10) and the stars looked awful - quite severe coma in all but the very centre of the frame. The galaxy itself looked quite pleasing though.

Nice! Got the teal colour of the core too (@jager945 will be pleased!)

Which plate solver are you using in NINA? And how are you setting the target in NINA? I've always found it to work absolutely flawlessly, with targets slap bang in the centre of the frame.

I always take the forecasts with a pinch of salt. Sometimes it's absolutely spot on, sometimes it's so wildly wrong it's laughable. There's no substitute for just looking out the window - the only problem with that is that won't tell you what's going to happen in an hour's time!

Yep, you're right, no idea why l thought it was the 85!

Correct, although l don't know where it gets the data from, or how current it is. If you have a lot of new development going on around you (like I do!), I don't know if the bortle rating is still accurate.

Ok, well that's good news, because an RC is still on my wishlist!

Well that's what I thought, but more than one person said they just don't hold collimation very well at all. I like to spend my limited imaging time actually imaging, rather than resolving problems (ha! An AP session without problems - imagine that! 🙃), so I was put off it for now.

I think the Stellamira 85 is what FLO use for the IKI observatory, if you wanted to check out some data (granted those images are from an excellent location, but still...)

Ritchey-Chretiens are definitely deep sky imaging scopes (hubble is a Ritchey-Chretien!). I was very tempted to get one because they seem very good value for their size, especially when compared to a comparable Edge HD from Celestron, but was put off by others bemoaning the constant need for collimation.