Jump to content

Hello there


ickle_janie

Recommended Posts

Hi there,

Another newby here...I've finally talked myself into getting a telescope after wanting one for the last 20+ years, I've settles on 2 that I like the look of...

Saxon 767AZ Astronomy Sky and Land Telescope with Barlow Lens

or

SKYHAWK -1145p

I'd value you any opinions on these and also I'd like to know if I can use my Canon 550D with either

cheers

Janie :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Janie, welcome to SGL :)

Out of the 2 scopes you mention, I would say the SkyHawk is the better one. I'm not a photographer, but I would imagine that you would need a much sturdier mount than the one that comes with either of those scopes for AP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You probably could attach a DSLR to the Skyhawk with the appropriate T-ring and nosepiece.

First Light Optics - T Rings

First Light Optics - FLO 1.25-inch T mount camera adapter

Although, if you are getting the Skyhawk on the EQ1 mount First Light Optics - Skywatcher Skyhawk 1145P, you just need to be aware that the mount does not have a motor drive, so it won't automatically following an object across the sky. I've never used an EQ1 so I'm not sure how well it could cope with the extra weight of a camera attached.

And er, welcome to SGL! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Janie and welcome to the forum. Generally two subject areas for imaging, planets and the Moon and then followed by deep sky objects (DSO's) such as galaxies and nebula. For the first, it would better to use a simple webcam to take a lot of 'frames', reject the blurred and poor quality ones, stack the good ones on top of each other in order to secure a good composite image. Free software like 'Deep Sky Stacker' will help you create that image. Now for the DSO's, you are going to need an accurate mount because the objects are faint and each frame taken by your camera will require much longer exposures. These objects are also further away so the tracking has to be spot on. The EQ1 is not up to the job and the motors that can be purchased with or in addition to it are not of sufficient quality and are really meant to assist observing only. Most newcomers to imaging find that it is the tracking that keeps hampering any success. These mounts also do not facilitate accurate polar alignment which is essential to calibrate the mount's correct orientation to the movement of your chosen object. Many programmes like Stargazing Live, regrettably state that this or that image was taken with a digital camera which in my view is unfair. The truth is that the image is secured from an accurate motorised mounted platform system. The minimum for DSO's will be a mount from Skywatcher called a HEQ5 and isn't cheap, even if bought secondhand.

If imaging is a long term aim, it might be an idea to get hold of Steve Richards book "Making Every Photon Count" (FLO £19.95) that will detail what you need and why you need it to take the level of images that you are after. In imaging, much is made of 'capturing' the data but often little is said of processing it and although there is thankfully many free pieces of software out there, there is also others that will need to be paid for, and so should be reflected in any future budget. Webcam imaging can produce some excellent results but it is important to be truthful about the realities of what is involved with certain types of imaging to ensure that you are not disappointed.

Clear skies

James

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.