Jump to content

Does AstroPhotography Have to be Expensive?


Recommended Posts

I've read this so many times.

'If your getting into serious Astrophotography, Expect to spend BIG bucks'.

But why? Surely a solid tracking mount, a good CCD camera like the Nikon D40, or a webcam and Registax, is enough for good shots.

Where do the 'Big Bucks' come in?

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I largely agree with what your saying...

I suppose it comes down to what you consider to be big bucks and what you ultimately want to achieve.

If you set realistic goals and go for the widefield, lunar and planetary then you can image on a budget...

My widefield setup is based around an EQ3-Pro and DLSR's using camera lenses I noramlly use it unguided. The reason I bought the "Pro" version is that I had a HEQ-5 without a hand controller and the same Controller works with both mounts...

The cost ramp up when you want to start thinking about narrowband imaging of smaller targets at long Focal lengths and slower Focal Ratios where exposure times become much longer and the demands put on the kit that much greater...

Peter...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the big bucks come in 'over time'.

You do not need to spend a lot of money to take astro photographs that you will enjoy and be happy to show other people.

With time you will want to improve and buy better equipment.

After a couple of years it is easy to have gradually spent a couple of grand!

But you've enjoyed it, and got the most out of it, so what. I know people that would probably spend that much watching away game fooball or playing golf.

Perhaps it should be, "'If your're getting into serious Astrophotography, Expect to eventually spend BIG bucks".

Alternatively, you could go out and spend £2k tomorrow:eek:.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

depends on the definition of "serious astrophotography"

You can start the adventure with nothing more than a DSLR on the tripod.....

It's when you start thinking about high resolution, full LRGB colour and long exposure times that the monkey begins to bite!

- larger more accurate mounts

- guide scopes/OAG and a suitable camera

- better quality cooled CCD imaging cameras

- Collection of filters (and filter wheel)

- focal reducers/ flatteners

- image aquisition and processing software

etc etc etc

HTH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its the deep sky stuff that costs the money. I have been an observer for a long time and enjoyed photography for a long time but only just decided to get into astrophotography.

I have done it just about as cheap as I possibly could and this is what I have spent

HEQ5 and a 200p - second hand £600

2nd hand ST80 - £66

flashed SPC880 and mounting £34

I already had a DSLR but if you don't then you need around £300

T ring and adapter £20

I genuinely don't think you could shoot fainter deep sky objects cheaper than that, maybe I am wrong though and someone will correct me.

What else do I want?

this is where it gets expensive

I want a mono dedicated astrophotography CCD - could pick up something reasonably decent 2nd hand for around £350. Ideally I would want a large CCD ATIK, which would cost me over £1000

With the above I would need a full LRGB and hubble pallette set of filters and a filter wheel £500 at least

I would like to swap my reflector for a refractor. I think a 100ED would be best bang for buck £450

I think at that point I would be happy enough to stop spending for a good while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guys. It seems that this statement is some sort of warning or deterrant for beginners. But I don't see much in the way of substantial differences on show. Like this photo is taken with a 10k rig and this is taken with a 1k rig. None of us are going to get 'Hubble' like images no matter how much we spend. I'm just wondering if the big bucks statement has any substantial proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Sabana it all depends on what you are happy with, there is a law of diminishing returns, as with any optics / photography products. If you spend £500 on all your kit or £1500 the difference of what you could achieve would be mind blowing. the difference between £1500 and £3000 much less so.

I have found the more I understand the failings in what I have achieved the less happy I am with my images but if I show the images to non astro friends they are blown away and think they are great. Size of stars and roundness of stars, sharpness at the edge of the field, contrast, noise, fine detail.

The more I get into the photography side of things these issues really bug me when I look at my photos, whereas 6 months ago I would barely have noticed them in astrophotos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree 1k rigs and 10k rigs all the pics are the same and all the scopes are the same every one as the same eq,ccd cam ect so all pics look the same but they are great pics even if they all do look the same i will stick with my 2 pound web cam hahaha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest investment to improve the quality of the final image is your own time. Time spent in preparation, in capturing the data and in post processing. If you take any shortcuts the final image will suffer.

At some point you will reach the optical and physical limit of what you can achieve with the equipment you have. This limit will be reached much quicker if your equipment is based on relatively low cost hardware.

When you reach this point you have to spend a significant amount and invest even more time to be able to take the next step up in image quality. If you don't upgrade you stay at the level you have reached and be happy or frustrated depending on your own personal goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Sabana's observation is an interesting one regarding cost. I'm fairly active on the 'welcome' and 'beginner' sections and I think part of the reason you often read the cost 'warning' is because many people assume that to get into imaging, it's simply a matter of sticking a camera on the end of the scope and pulling the trigger. I have consistently advised people to research first, especially using the book, "Making Every Photon Count" as a way of providing a photographic 'map' of where everything is in order to help people to decide where and how far they go with it. Part of the success of imaging is that has made fantastic views of the universe so easily accessible to us all, that some people mistakenly read this as being the same as easily achieved. I also notice in the cost analysis that is offered to those wishing to start, that a lot of focus is put on the cost of data collection with hardly a mention of any cost connected to the processing of the data by software that is not always free. One other detail that is often overlooked, is whether the imaging rig is fixed or whether it has to be setup each time its used. Autoguiding has made a significant difference to the tracking capabilities of those with a mobile set up and so this in turn makes imaging more accessible to those without an observatory but which will inevitably include an additional cost that then gets added to the list.

Given that imaging will certainly cost you something, the last and probably the most important 'driver' in costs will be the need to future proof kit, whether that is to save money on any future changes in kit configurations or whether it is to help secure and maintain future interest in producing better images. This naturally will mean spending more now in order to save money in the longer term, especially where the mount is concerned and where software such as EQMOD can lead the choice of which equipment to buy in order to help regulate and promote better data collection and more accurate tracking. If I had a pound for every person that said, "....I'm only interested in taking the odd picture" who then later appears regularly in the imaging sections requiring advice on what is the best cooled CCd camera or field flatteners, I might be able to afford to have a go myself! :rolleyes:

When people talk about cost, I don't think it is done in a away to deter people from getting started, I believe it is advice that is meant to help people understand that imaging is certainly a bit 'moorish' and as my remarks often state, "...you don't want your first image of a black hole being the one in your wallet!":D

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read this so many times.

'If your getting into serious Astrophotography, Expect to spend BIG bucks'.

But why? Surely a solid tracking mount, a good CCD camera like the Nikon D40, or a webcam and Registax, is enough for good shots.

Where do the 'Big Bucks' come in?

Thanks

The key word is "serious". Yes, sure: if you already have a half-decent mount and telescope you can stick a webcam on it and trail a lead to your computer and get some images for maybe £50.

But to get serious, that's another matter.

Reckon on £1grand for your mount, another for the OTA and another for an entry-level astro-CCD. If you haven't got one, you'll need a laptop and £600 for photoshop. Add on accessories: filters (either colour or narrow-band, or both), filter wheel better focuser and other bits and that's another £1grand spent.

So for £5 thou' you have a nice little imaging rig that will take you an hour a night to set up - better budget another £1000 or more for an observatory+pier with power, internet and some desk-space, too.

Which sounds to me like it's starting to get "serious" :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big bucks makes imaging easier and more comfortable. However, you *can* do it without spending huge amounts - you just have to be prepared to put more effort it. I reckon all you really need for Messier/Caldwell objects is:

(a) a computer

(:rolleyes: a mount capable of tracking the stars (cheap alt-az will do)

© a telescope (3inch will be fine)

(d) a camera (doesn't have to be DSLR) capable of doing at least ~15sec exposures which can be triggered remotely or has a timer

(e) some way of connecting (d) to ©.

NigelM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good advice James. I thoroughly understand the noob appeal and how people get carried away right at the start. I still though would like to see the difference between the rig set ups in image quality. Like a side by side comparison between a 10k rig and a 1k rig. The differences would be so helpful for people wondering how much money to spend and the results they (might) get. I put might in brackets as the skill of the astronomer/photographer, and location/conditions etc.

The last point on conditions I feel is extremly relevant to this debate as not everyone has access to dark sky areas and investing in higher end rigs in poor sky conditions with much light pollution is like....wasted money?

Just my 3 cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I class my setup as being fairly near the bottom of the ladder of dedicated CCD imaging.

HEQ5 - £747

ED80 - £475

SXH9 - £1600

Filterwheel - £295

Filters - £265

Filters - £200

OAG - £169

Guide Cam - £295

EQDir - £45

Laptop - £400

Dew Prevention - £90

EL light panel - £50+

Holy cow, that's £4626 - had no idea.

Now you could probably roughly halve that by buying second hand - but that's still around £2500.

Then you have to add in software and a whole host of adapters/leads etc that you will need.

You could cut out the OAG - but then you'd need a second scope and side by side system which will probably cost more...

You could get rid of the filter wheel and change them over manually etc - but the filterwheel is much easier in the dark.

It's difficult to get away (in the end) of spending much less. But I bought all of this stuff a little at a time.

I started with a standard HEQ5 and 300D, then gradually bought / borrowed stuff to get where I am now.

The advantage of buying slowly is that you gain experience along the way, things go wrong and you solve them one at a time, instead of them all ganging up on you at once :rolleyes:

Sorry for going on ;)

The last point on conditions I feel is extremly relevant to this debate as not everyone has access to dark sky areas and investing in higher end rigs in poor sky conditions with much light pollution is like....wasted money?

That's one reason why people in LP skies go for narrow band filters... It cuts out the light pollution.

Ant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After 3 years in budget astrophotography, I think I have got one of the cheapest, relatively stress free set up. Before I tried to do AP for much less. You can do it cheaply, but you have to be prepared to face a lot of wasted clear nights (which we haven’t got a lot here in UK) and results at the beginning will be ok, but after a while you will find yourself in position that these results do not satisfy you.

Ok, so there is my set up with prices:

- EQ5 GOTO synscan you can get one for £300 second hand

- Canon 1000D body - £300 currently I think?

- WO72 refractor - £250 second hand

- Sky watcher field flattener - £60

- CSL light pollution filter - £80 second hand

- T mount adapter - £20

- QHY5v guide camera - £120 second hand

- 135mm Hoya lens as guide scope - £10 car boot sale J

- SERIAL to USB adapter - £15

- Netbook - £200

£1355 all together. OMG! Cant believe I have spent so much!

I think you can go lower to about £800 - 1000 if you will use cheaper mount capable of guiding, older EOS model, tamron/sigma telephoto lens or Reflector instead of ED refractor, not use field flattener or light pollution filter, modded webcam instead of dedicated guider cam and your old laptop. But as said at the beginning, there is a limit. If you will go lower than this limit, then you will most likely not enjoy astrophotography and in the end you will have to spend more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sabana,

"The last point on conditions I feel is extremly relevant to this debate as not everyone has access to dark sky areas and investing in higher end rigs in poor sky conditions with much light pollution is like....wasted money?"

I would argue the more light polluted your skies, the better your imaging set up has to be in order to take advantage of the limited length of exposure before light pollution ruins everything, a faster f/ratio telescope, more sensitive ccd to shorten exposure times etc, etc. For me personally I think the mount is the most important bit of kit, my synscan eq5 and SW 200pl + ccd equipment just isn't a stable platform, this is a mistake I have made, with hindsight I should have saved up an got an eq6 pro minimum and preferably will happily spend up to £2k on a good mount (very soon), the mount is the foundation that the rest of the equipment relies upon.

Sorry for the rant or if I gone off topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all Carl. The mount I thoroughly understand. What I know from my photography background is that many people couldn't tell the difference between a photo taken with a Nikon D3x(6k) and a D40 (£100) with the same lens mounted. Now is it the same in Astrophotography? That is the set up is only as good as the photographer? So someone with 1k set up who is talented will outperform someone with a 10k set up who doesn't know what he is doing? Or is all equal in Astrophotography?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So someone with 1k set up who is talented will outperform someone with a 10k set up who doesn't know what he is doing? Or is all equal in Astrophotography?

There is an element of truth in there...

In the wrong hands even a 10K setup will produce rubbish - so a £500 setup in great hands will outperform other setups in rubbish hands... But with more money comes higher resolution or wider fields, better data etc etc. this combined with processing skills can produce better images.

I think it's fair to say that you are limited by your setup - but their reaches a point where this isn't true as other factors come into play.

£500 Setup

<------------>

£1000 setup

<----------------------->

£10k setup

<----------------------------------------------------->

I was lucky enough to be able to track for 60 minutes for ONE sub the other week. I doubt this would not have been possible on a lesser mount, or with a dSLR (because of noise)....

ant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much detail does one need to resolve? Is there a point where land based telescopes can go no further? Or is astrophotography an astronomical expense because of 'Everest Syndrome'?

I think the question should be "how much detail does one want to resolve?" and then the cost starts to climb as we seek to improve on the last attempt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So someone with 1k set up who is talented will outperform someone with a 10k set up who doesn't know what he is doing? Or is all equal in Astrophotography?
I don't think it works like that :rolleyes:

Very few people would have the opportunity or desire to go from knowing nothing about imaging (even if they had experience as a visual observer) to being the owner of £10k's worth of kit overnight¹. We all start off as the guy with the 1k setup and as we gain enjoyment from our hobby, we hope that by extending the capabilities of our equipment we will be able to improve our skills and results - thereby increasing our level of satisfaction and enjoyment (even if part of that enjoyment involves bragging about the equipment we have ;) ).

[1] Though in these days it's possible to rent high-end rigs by the hour, or spend nights at astronomy resorts where it's all set up for you. In those circumstances, I'd have to say yes: put a newbie (I have been that newbie) in front of a $20k computer controlled, prealigned telescope in NM and they will produce better results than an experienced imager with £1K of their own equipment.

So I'd say that a £10k rig has the potential to outperform a £1k rig every time - environment, motivation and opportunity being equal. Whether we rise to the level of skiil needed to get the best out of our equipment is another question. And whether we have the sheer luck (though as Tiger Woods and others has said: "the more I practice, the luckier I get") to discover that comet, exoplanet or doomsday asteroid is another question entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all equipment has it's limits, a lot depends on what you want to achieve, astrophotography is no different than other areas of astronomy in that it is dynamic and constantly (equipment improves etc) evolves as does technology. Most folks have more than one telescope as there is no one telescope that can master all of our requirements. Different CCD's all seem to have there plus and minus points too not least with regards to cost, but as technology moves forwards, yesterdays technology becomes more affordable and mainstream, the minimal norm if you like for amateurs is constantly a few steps behind that used by the large organisations. when deciding what you want to achieve you also have to take into consideration technical support, a ccd camera that cost £700 5 years ago can now be had for say £150 but may not work with modern computer operating systems. there is a lot of food for thought in this thread but I do believe up to a point you get what you pay for but at some point the rewards start to diminish, the problem is in identifying that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.