Rant about EQ3-2

[RikM]

Everyone knows you can't use an EQ3-2 for imaging and it is not worth pointing a camera at the sky unless it's sat on at least £1200 worth of mount and guide system.

It seems that everyone really just buys the best mount they can afford and then justifies it by stating it is the minimum you need for imaging. It would be better if they said it was the minimum they felt they needed to get images of the standard they wanted to achieve.

The EQ3-2 really is the absolute minimum for imaging because it is the smallest mount with a polarscope. Obviously, you don't want to use the absolute minimum unless you have to but does that mean it should be dismissed as worthless? Serious imaging needs serious kit and a serious budget, no question. But what if you don't take it so seriously?

The images below were taken with a 150P / Canon 1000D on an EQ3-2.

How much of an improvement would I be able to get just by putting the scope on an HEQ5? (Okay, so I might get better tracking and wouldn't loose so many subs because of the wind but that is about efficiency rather than picture quality)

To get any meaningful improvement in the images I would also need to spend the same again on a guide system, and then the same again on a modded camera.

With my finances that is a three year plan and I am not convinced it is worth it (to me).

Does that mean I should quit altogether or keep taking images like these, that I should be ashamed to display in public?

What can I do to improve that does not involve spending money? I can work on better focussing, better polar alignment, I can spend more time taking more subs and being more selective over which subs make the cut. How much more improvement is there to be made before I reach the limit of what is possible with kit that's impossible to use for astrophotography?

[virtualpilot45]

I can't really say much about imaging because I've never really got into it, but those pics are really great, especially the M81/M82 picture!

[ollypenrice]

The pictures are good. The best are M42 and the Owl. In those the stars are very nearly round and so, presumably, the resolution elsewhere is close to what any mount would deliver. On your mount you have, quite obviously, done very well indeed. I don't see any need to rant. But, the fact remains, that with an autoguided HEQ5 or whatever you would do even better. When you say 'How much of an improvement would I be able to get just by putting the scope on an HEQ5? (Okay, so I might get better tracking and wouldn't loose so many subs because of the wind but that is about efficiency rather than picture quality)' I would say that a sub lost is some noise gained. It's that simple.

If you want to improve M13 and M81/82 you need to sort out the colour. At present both images are overly blue and this does not represent the objects properly but has nothing to do with the mount. Anyway, getting good star colour in a DSLR defeats most people so M13 is probably always going to be tricky. I find colour calibration is excellent in Pixinsight but I appreciate that this isn't free. You could work on the colour by using other software.

M42 is very good indeed. You need more subs to improve it. You could get stronger signal in the fainter parts that way. You have got pretty good dynamic range but if you want to improve it then have a look at this; Compositing 2 Different Exposures via Layer Masks

You may also have a good EQ3/2. A highly reputed UK imager, much published, uses a modified version of your mount for travel imaging and does not get the sort of tracking he really wants. I'm going to continue to say that the HEQ5 is the minimum mount if you want to get the best out of the rest of your setup but your post does show that you can still get good pictures from less.

Really, I know how you feel about the rant thing though. In my case I keep reading that 16 bit processing is absolutely vital. I only have a version 7 copy of Photoshop which is largely 8 bit. I don't see what is wrong with the resolution in this though: http://ollypenrice.smugmug.com/Other/Galaxies/i-q9fN3Zv/0/X3/LEO-TRIPLET-in-TEC140-X3.jpg

We all have to decide where we call a halt to spending. In my case I have the excuse that I do it for a living but I wonder how different I'd feel if I didn't. Not very, I don't think!

Stop ranting and get posting. Your stuff is good.

Olly

[ronin]

It is rather like tuning cars.

The first 5% increase is relatively cheap and easy.

The next 5% is much more expensive and more time..

The final 5% costs a huge amount and takes a lots of time.

The get beyond that you build a car as a full custom job with specialist items throughout almost nothing standard and the cost is Horrific.

If you want your image that 5% better then at present, then there is no choice, you buy that standard item that is that little bit better and gives that small improvement. That is the change from EQ3-2 to EQ5 or HEQ5.

[Bumfluff]

I also have a driven eq 3-2 mount which I use for imaging. I'd be well chuffed with your results. Seems you could be your own worst critic..

On the plus side, having seen your pics. I realised I should be able to get better images using my mount more accurately... so thanks for posting!

What sort of exposure times can you take, I'm still struggling to take 30 seconds without stars turning into kidney beans. But this is what I love about this hobby. It's not easy but the results you get (even what I get!) make it such a rewarding hobby..

Greg

[Adamski]

Rik they are amazing and very inspirational. I have the 150pl and like you i have no regular cash to spend on stuff. I would love to do imaging but i can only afford one good bit of kit once a year, so for me it's going to take 3-4 years to get a dslr, laptop, motors and an observatory. Unless i either win the lottery that i don't buy tickets for or get a well paid job. Mmmmmm, need to get a job me thinks, that's going to hurt as i've been a student for 2 years.

[JKB]

Hi Rik

I know exactly what you mean. I have the same kit. 150p on EQ3/2 plus a 127 that I also use on the 150p. I think the EQ3/2 is a rather underrated mount.

OK it might not cope with a massive, heavy scope but I know good results can be achieved with it. I too have taken photos that I certainly am happy with (as below). I have built a pier to mount the 3/2 on which, admittedly does get rid of some wobble and generally get 120-180s exposures without much problem.

I am just about to venture into autoguiding after building a diy controller interface that allows me to connect the laptop and use PHD to control the motors on the mount. Using 9x50 findersope.

Not sure how much better it will be but for what it cost (around £20) it has got to be worth a shot.

So is it worth upgrading and spending a considerable amount? For me, no not yet! Any image I get with my setup gives me a great feeling and sense of pride, especially when you add up the money (not) spent.

Cheers

Jamie

[twotter]

I'm not into AP but I like your pics, particularly M42

[Macavity]

Some folks see the world in black and white and / or cannot relate to others' circumstances - Others'(!) equipment is seen as "No Good" etc. On the other hand, there can be wisdom in (the sometimes well worn!) adages? Just take comfort that you have demonstrated the "art of the possible", OP...

To some extent, budget astro equipment CAN [iMO] require a "ha'p'orth of tar" to get good (acceptable) results. On the other hand, modifications can render it unsaleable! There is something to be said for future-proofing, when purchasing.

My personal obsession has been with my RoRo observatory. Consumed much of my "savings" too! Though it has not proved entirely a panacea. Hard graft? Maintenance tasks? Permanent installations suggests more expense - Electric focussers, currently! One day, I'll get there... If I don't "torch it" in the interim.

Great guitarists sound good on budget guitars? Amateur radio spawned groups for QRP (low power transmitter) or CW (Morse code!) enthusiasts. Idem, astronomy, maybe? Though schism is never good - You miss out on innovation / revolution. Sometimes the Emperor DOES have no clothes!

[brantuk]

Rik - you've got some great results there and I think it shows just exactly what can be achieved with a 150P on EQ3-2 - great example for newbies - so well done

The advice isn't that EQ3-2's are rubbish (not from me at least). I like to say you'll get better reults from a more solid mount. But as allways, it depends on what an individual can afford, and how high they set their own personal standards.

It's also a case of how far anyone wants to take the skill involved in astro photography to represent the object accurately. Also how much time a person has to devote to it.

As Olly says - not really a case for a rant. More a case of saying "look at what can be done with relatively basic kit". You've every reason to be proud of your results and I think it serves as an inspiration to beginners.

Congrats

[TFC]

I think I understand where Rik is coming from.

I've only been a member here for a short while, but there does seem to exist a degree of "this is minimum equipment required" philosophy - mostly not cheap stuff. Good and well intended advice, but it can give the impression that unless big bucks are spent, you can't get decent images.

Rik has more than shown what is possible with an EQ3 - excellent photographs Rik.

For example, I already have an Olympus E-3 and some Zuiko ED lenses, but all the advice is to have a Canon for astrophotography. Although not said - the impression is that nothing else will give acceptable results.

I did look into buying a used 450D, but I thought I'd give the E-3 a trial before laying out the money for a Canon body plus lenses.

With a single exposure the S/N ratio and the hot pixels from the E-3 seemed to justify investing in a Canon, but using DSS removed the hot pixels and improved the S/N ratio.

Apart from maybe Leica and Ziess, I consider Zuiko lenses to be FAR superior to any 'sensible' price Canon or Nikon lens - so I'll stick to the E-3.

When I bought a mount it was a toss-up between the EQ3 PRO Synscan GOTO at £388 and the HEQ5 SynTrek at £597. I bought the HEQ5, but now wish I'd gone for the EQ3 because of its improved portability. I have no problem with the HEQ5 mechanically, but it is a heavy lump to carry about and portability was a requirement.

I know the advice is to buy the best mount that can be afforded, BUT with a light scope it is proven that the EQ3 is a fine piece of equipment.

Tony

[andrew63]

Keep up the good work you EQ3-2 guys - I guess it's slightly the same with visual - you will not see stars properly unless you have a Nagler eyepiece...

Or more topical that lovely two element will no longer do the job, perhaps with a triplet...

Clear skies, andrew

[Psychobilly]

Now't wrong with those at all...

My most used mount is the EQ3-Pro... would get even more use if they ever got round to sorting out the guide port issues but I have given up all hope of them ever sorting it out...

You certainly have the right idea Rik.. Its all about getting the most you can out of the kit you have... and then if you decide (based on experience) that you need to "upgrade" then go for it...

It can all get too competetive... and thats not what I do it for... I do what I want to do, the way I want to do it and when I want to do it ...

Keep up the good work

Peter...

[RikM]

Thanks for the kind words and the reassurance that I am not going mad.

Depending on the alt. I can generally get 60 sec subs at the equator, 90sec for most objects and 2min near the pole. With just the DSLR on the mount I can get 3min at 300mm, which is the sky-fog limit for my garden. With a Skymax I have only used a webcam so I don't know how long it would track for but I suspect 30sec would be about it.

The M42 image does have a core detail layered into it. I didn't take any short(er) subs, it was all 90sec, but I did a less aggressive stretch on the core region and then layered it back into the main image, where I had stretched the heck out of it to get the detail in the outer parts up. I kept the core fairly bright because it is such an active area and I wanted to portray a 'visual' representation. What I think it might look like to human eyes at that magnification.

I have had a play with the colour balance of the two overly blue images. I could take the M81/82 image further, but I quite like the blue tint in the outer arms.

I will keep at it and I do intend to steadily upgrade the kit. The main reason being that without longer subs and a modded camera, eventually I will run out of objects within reach of my kit.

Thanks again for putting up with the rantings of a miserable old sod.

[Multi-Coated]

Like most things , if it works for you it works for you ! There is an element of individual skill / knowledge / patience required that does not cost anything other than conviction and time.

I'm no imager and would be delighted to produce such pics.Work with whatever you have and be forever happy. ( Although i would like just one more ep...........for now )

[Nexus 6]

Rik, those pics are brilliant! I do not image but think they are superb, very impressed with what can be achieved with such kit.

Clear Skies

[ollypenrice]

Rik, fair point about M42 and the 'natural' look around the Trapezium. I brightened mine up a bit after constructive criticism on the French forum. I thnk the difference, though, is that as you have it the brighness is there but the colour isn't and that's not natural to my eye. That's why I'd go for some shorts. It somehow switches from monochrome to colour if you know what I mean. Anyway, if we are discussing it in this kind of detail it has to be a good image.

Doing 'short' stretches of the same data is a favourite of mine, too, and is worth flagging up (am I really using that phrase???) as a technique.

On galaxies I have a curve routine which sometimes works. In red, raise the top and lower the bottom. In blue do the reverse, raise the bottom and lower the top. Do this after pinning the backgropund sky as it is so the changes only apply above that. Worth a try.

Olly

[Madhatter]

Really great images!