Tight Budget Scope and Camera options?

[perkil8r]

Hello,

I am very new to this, and so far have 10x50 bins to start off on my voyage beyond the atmosphere. I want to buy a scope which will get me heading in the right direction. I've read about as much as any one person can in a few days on here and on the rest of the web, but I'm struggling to decide so need a bit of help please.

I have, as above the 10x50's, I also have a Canon 300d (not the rebel) DSLR which I can use with a reletive amount of skill for shooting terestrial objects both still and moving. I'd like to be able to do some form of AP but would I be better with the camera I have, or buying a webcam? If I am better off with a webcam, which one would be best to start off with?

Scope: I am thinking Newtonian Reflector with a mount/tripod. I'm thinking 130ish, is this a size that will give me enough to learn with and slightly beyond, or would I be better spending a similar amount on a second hand set up of a bit larger size? I've been looking at the CELESTRON ASTROMASTER 130 so that gives an idea of my budget (quite small I know). What can I reasonably expect to see and photograph with the above or something second hand of a similar price range? A DOB is not something I've considered due to not having anything suitable to mount it on.

[Merlin66]

You might want to consider starting with a camera (your 300D) and a camera lens on a small EQ mount (EQ2/3 with a simple RA drive would do) and image some wide field DSO stuff.

Then you can decide when to move up to imaging with a scope - a coompletely different ball game $$$$$$

[E621Keith]

I think you should forget tracked DSLR astrophotography for now. It needs a good equatorial mount, a HEQ5 is consider the minimum requirement. If you want to do a bit of astrophotography, you can try doing some star trail for now.

With a limited budget, I think you should buy a dob, such as the SW Heritage 130p. A dob comes with a dobsonian base (which is why they are refer to as dob rather than Newt), so you won't need a separate mount.

The Astromaster series is Celestron's department store line and it is best avoided. I doubt the Astromaster's EQ mount will last more than a year and it's certainly not good enough for astrophotography.

[perkil8r]

I answered a call whilst typing the OP, I meant to say in there that I want to observe mainly with the scope, but have the ability to get some shots off it to share with the Mrs etc. Thinking that in the past where AP would have been a bit more tricky and expensive with wasted film etc, it seems a waste not to try and capture the moment so I can look back from time to time without having to set up and try and find the object all over again, since digital cameras / webcams offer a great opportunity to capture 1000's of shots at no extra cost in film and processing etc.....

[Stephen]

As above. Most who buy the 130 (and I know there will be exceptions) have had terrible focus problems and have sold it on!

I like Merlins suggestion of just putting the camera on a small mount and starting there.

Also pick up a copy of Making Every Photon Count : invaluable if you want to get into the dark arts

[zainraza]

I would recommend saving for a better scope or trying a different brand.

For viewing its alright (saying that though I don't need much to keep me satisfied) but I wouldn't consider taking images with it purely based on the mount.

[perkil8r]

With respect to a better scope or different brand, what would be a reccomendation? Dobs kinda put me off as I don't have anything to stand it on, I'm assuming a table wouldn't be a great idea?

[Stephen]

With respect to a better scope or different brand, what would be a reccomendation? Dobs kinda put me off as I don't have anything to stand it on, I'm assuming a table wouldn't be a great idea?

You don't need anything to stand it on so long as you are able to lean forwards a little

150 or 200 Dobs are great first scopes.

[Astronut1982]

Hi.

A dob just sits on the ground as level as possible bud.

They are also very quick to set up & move around the sky. Another plus is that they give you the most aperture per pound which means you'll be able to see fainter objects.

Jeff

[ollypenrice]

Dobs stand on the floor as long as it's level. A paving slab is fine.

The deep sky pictures you see on here are mostly taken with very long multiple exposures stacked together. Mounts are high end equatorials usually with autoguiders. You can make out objects in single one minute long exposures but they are very limited. The problem with photograhing the deep sky is the mount. It needs an almost ludicrous degree of precision, unfortunately, and this is expensive.

Olly

ollypenrice's Photos

[perkil8r]

You don't need anything to stand it on so long as you are able to lean forwards a little

150 or 200 Dobs are great first scopes.

Any reccomendations?

[E621Keith]

I answered a call whilst typing the OP, I meant to say in there that I want to observe mainly with the scope, but have the ability to get some shots off it to share with the Mrs etc. Thinking that in the past where AP would have been a bit more tricky and expensive with wasted film etc, it seems a waste not to try and capture the moment so I can look back from time to time without having to set up and try and find the object all over again, since digital cameras / webcams offer a great opportunity to capture 1000's of shots at no extra cost in film and processing etc.....

Film astrophotography would be cheaper than digital. A film SLR is pretty cheap and you can take exposure several hours long without worrying about noise. Minor guiding error won't be recorded, because the recording medium is so insensitive. You can get away with using cheaper mount. Film is also more forgiving on field curvature and coma than digital sensors. Also, with exposure lasting several hours, it will take a while to go through a single roll of film.

The reason why film die out so quickly was because manufacturer stop making them and because of its lack of sensitivity. It required very long exposure to do what CCD can do in minutes.

A few months ago, I was reading an astro classified forum somewhere and saw a listing for Lumicon hyper-sensitising kit. The seller stated it was in working order but was for historical interest only. Kodak hasn't made TP2415 film for years so that nice piece of kit was useless.

It brings back memory. When I started astronomy, I dreamt about owning that type of equipment one day, just like how people now dream about owning a big cooled CCD now.

Anyway, sorry for going off topic.

If you are going to be mainly visual and only wanted to image for record keeping and sharing with your other half, I suggest you should look for a used small short scope mounted on a used EQ5 with a RA drive. You should be able to find one for around £200. It is a reasonably stable mount, not good enough for long exposure, but ok for planets and short exposure up to about a minute long. The result should be ok for record keeping. Don't expect results similar to those posted in the imaging forum.

If you can forget about photography, then I really suggest you to go for a dob. Like I said earlier, a Dob comes with a mount and you just put it on the ground.

[Stephen]

Any reccomendations?

First Light Optics - Skywatcher Skyliner 200P Dobsonian

or the cheaper (smaller) option

First Light Optics - Skywatcher Skyliner 150P Dobsonian

You're also not completely out of imaging with these. Planetary and lunar is quite possible with your DSLR, though probably better with a webcam.

Telescope House Webcam Astro-imaging Kit including Philips SPC

I should also warn you now, with Stargazing Live about to hit the TV screens : neither of these scopes may be particularly easy to source by the end of the month

[perkil8r]

Okay, close to letting my finger press that button, realistically speaking, what difference will I see between the 150 and 200 skyliners? I'm tempted to just buy the bigger, but if I'm not going to notice anything much as a novice am I going to benefit enough to justify an extra £70 or so, or would I be better getting the 150 and seeing how it goes, then putting that £70 towards the next step up some time later? (if any of that makes any kind of sense?!)

The other thing that makes me slightly nervous is ease of use. How easy is it to find what you're looking for with a Dob? With an EQ I presume you can roughly gauge it by the dials? Remember I'm new to this and have very little knowledge on where the wonders are in the sky....

[Walky]

Anyway, sorry for going off topic.

If you are going to be mainly visual and only wanted to image for record keeping and sharing with your other half, I suggest you should look for a used small short scope mounted on a used EQ5 with a RA drive. You should be able to find one for around £200. It is a reasonably stable mount, not good enough for long exposure, but ok for planets and short exposure up to about a minute long. The result should be ok for record keeping. Don't expect results similar to those posted in the imaging forum.

If you can forget about photography, then I really suggest you to go for a dob. Like I said earlier, a Dob comes with a mount and you just put it on the ground.

Why isn't a DOB good for photography?

[E621Keith]

Why isn't a DOB good for photography?

A dob doesn't have tracking, so you cannot track objects across the sky automatically. Long exposure is out of the question. The only option is planetary photography, but it may be difficult keeping the planet in the frame depending on magnification used. Moving it by hand introduces vibrations, so you can only capture when you let go and let the planet drift across the frames. That can happen in seconds at higher magnification.

The dobsonian mount is designed to be a cheap but stable manual mount. This allowed most of the resources to be put into the optics, but sacrificed the ability to image.

It is possible to mount a dob OTA on an equatorial mount, but that would be no difference to mounting a Newtonian reflector on an equatorial mount (in fact that is exactly what it will be). If you're going to do that, you may well just start with a Newt on GEM.

[perkil8r]

Before I spend some money, is it going to be noticable for a newbie like me to have the 200 over the 150, or is the extra money better spent on other equipment or saved towards the next step some time down the line? I realise there is a difference in the amount of light collected etc, but as with so many things, there is a limit to what we can actually notice by the naked eye, so from an observing point of view, will I wish I'd bought the 200 or will the 150 be good enought to get me off on the right foot?

[Stephen]

Before I spend some money, is it going to be noticable for a newbie like me to have the 200 over the 150, or is the extra money better spent on other equipment or saved towards the next step some time down the line? I realise there is a difference in the amount of light collected etc, but as with so many things, there is a limit to what we can actually notice by the naked eye, so from an observing point of view, will I wish I'd bought the 200 or will the 150 be good enought to get me off on the right foot?

Both scopes will give you good views, but with visual bigger is ALWAYS better. More aperture, more light, better views.

They don't sell 20" and bigger scopes for nothing

[Helen]

And just to add that if you buy a solid tube Dob like the ones recommended above you can later buy an equatorial mount and have the best of both worlds (Dob for visual EQ for photography). I'd go 8 inch (200) unless you are limited for space, as it will be a great alround performer for astrophotography too.

Helen

[perkil8r]

Going to leave it a couple of days, there's a possibility I might be able to squeeze the budget a bit further, besides can't use anything at the minute due to clouds so no point rushing in. I'm looking at 200 now though, so thanks for the pointers. May even end up with a 200 with eq5 yet, depends how well I do over the next couple of days.

Plus I have the old hobby I could sell, so if anybody wants to set up in power kiting, give me a shout ;-) lol I've got a buggy, and 5 kites.......