Upgrading advice!

[badgerchap]

I like to think it's that the HEQ5 is just an EQ5 for rich people

[Uhwaz]

Ohhh okay! I see now Is the EQ5 just a downsized version of the HEQ5?

More like HEQ5 is downsized NEQ6 from what I have heard

HEQ5 syntrek ( no handheld ) is 773eur

NEQ6 syntrek ( no handheld ) is 999eur

not that much difference imo and with NEQ6 you pretty much sorted unless you going to buy some monster

[Azure]

More like HEQ5 is downsized NEQ6 from what I have heard

HEQ5 syntrek ( no handheld ) is 773eur

NEQ6 syntrek ( no handheld ) is 999eur

not that much difference imo and with NEQ6 you pretty much sorted unless you going to buy some monster

200 is a big difference to me! XD But I do see your point I am mulling over the fact that a good mount is a long term investment, but I don't want a mount that's too heavy by itself. The NEQ6 is over 20 kilograms, and that's going to be even heavier once it has my scope on! But I only have to carry it a short distance (my scope sits next to the back door) so I guess it's not too bad... The EQ6 seems like a nice compromise between the HEQ5 and the NEQ6, priced in between. But it feels a bit pointless buying the EQ6 when the NEQ6 is just £100 more...

[Uhwaz]

on telescope site theres NEQ6 syntrek and NEQ6 skyscan -- as far as i know only difference is handheld ... now for me for example handheld is useless cos i run all thru laptop and EQmod so there`s 100 you can save

so 100 is "just" and 200 is "big difference" ?

[x6gas]

Thanks again, some really usefl stuff there

How about the Celestron CG-5 GT GOTO mount? It's alot cheaper, priced at just over £500, and seems to be not too dissimiliar to the HEQ5, but correct me if I'm wrong?

Those refractor images look really good! But would it be possible for me to buy a new mount, for example the HEQ5, and then attach my current scope to it and have a go at astrophotography with that setup? (I'll have a camera attached with the required adapter and all) Because I don't think I'll be able to buy a new scope and mount at the same time - I didn't anticipate how pricey mounts were!

I have a CG-5 GT and I've been really pleased with it. I still use it for DSO imaging with my 90mm frac and it performs well in my opinion. The SkyWatcher mounts seem much more popular on here, but I've never used them... I have imaged on the CG-5 carrying a 6" newtonian with an ST80 guidescope rig and a DSLR or CCD and I would say that's pretty much at the payload limit for the mount.

I have to say that, from an imaging point of view, I do wish I'd gone down the refractor route sooner. No collimation to worry about, lighter (so less mount needed), less profile to get caught in the wind, more portable and the small aperture and indeed shorter focal lengths are often an advantage for DSO imaging...

When I get a moment (and more clear skies) I am going to do some DSO imaging with my Celestron Travel Scope just to see what can be achieved. These are ridiculously cheap (I'm sure I paid less than 20 quid brand new...) and not that bad optically.

Anyway, as said buy "Every Photon..." and invest in the best mount you can afford.

[swag72]

.... It's alot cheaper .......

The following rambling is nothing more than my opinion based on my experience as a very novice astrophotographer. Please feel free to ignore it if you think I'm talking rubbish

I have seen similar statements of late from people that are wising to get into Astrophotography. New to the hobby I understand that people do not want to fork out loads of money to get an HEQ5 - This is generally considered to be the minimum mount for AP - But, without the right tools for the job, it is extrememly difficult and frustrating, more so than normal. It's a demanding and difficult hobby to do well. We look at the imaging forum and see pictures posted there that are frankly stunning and we want to produce images like that as well. In my opinion, it's just not doable without the right tools, amongst other things. If people are wincing at spending money on a good mount, then maybe they need to think long and hard whether this is for them.

For me AP is about producing stunning images - That's it. For others I accept that they have other requirements. I am not knocking at all those who do this on a budget, my hat goes off to those who do, as I'd not have the skills, patience or determination. I'd go out and buy the right tools for the job and not try to make other things work. Of course there is a place for all of us

I think that people need to be realistic about what AP is going to entail for them. Do they want stunning images? Do they want the feelings of pride I guess, at being able to produce images with far less than normal due to hard work and diligence? We all want to achieve different things, we all have different expectations - That's fair enough, but please ......... lets just be realistic. I'm not saying that you need thousands of ££'s to get the ideal set up, but it does help.

I remember reading a thread some time ago where someone was new to AP and asking about kit on a budget of a few hundred ££'s. Someone on the foum posted that you'd need a minimum of £2-3k and without that it wasn't doable. As I remember they got slated for saying that they were elitist, putting people off and being unreasonable. That has really stuck in my mind as I feel that a good wedge of money will help produce results that will keep you interested and wanting more, instead of trying to make inadequate kit work for you, frustration setting in and the lot being consigned to the classifieds.

Of course it's more than just good kit. You can have top stuff and still produce rubbish and conversely have budget kit and produce good results. It doesn't stop at image acquistion, far from it. I think we probably ignore that as well. Do we tell people who are looking at starting AP that even once you have got the kit and taken the pictures, it will still take you literally hours and hours sitting infront of a computer screen to try to pull everything you can from that image.

Perhaps we should have a thread where people post an image, then add the time spent on getting that image, including acquisition details as well as how many hours spent on post processing to get there - It would be a estimate of time spent, but boy would it be interesting and eye-watering too I suspect. For a top quality image you are talking a minimum 15 hours imaging time (I would anticipate) but very often far more than that and followed by probably as many hours in post processing.

Now for me, that's being realistic

[Azure]

on telescope site theres NEQ6 syntrek and NEQ6 skyscan -- as far as i know only difference is handheld ... now for me for example handheld is useless cos i run all thru laptop and EQmod so there`s 100 you can save

so 100 is "just" and 200 is "big difference" ?

I thought one tracked and the other had goto too? But how easy is it to run through a laptop?

Aha no £100 is still alot to me, but relatively speaking, in the context of these prices it is a small difference, of around 10%.

[Azure]

The following rambling is nothing more than my opinion based on my experience as a very novice astrophotography...

A very informative and well written 'ramble' there! I don't for one minute doubt that AP requires money to produce high quality images - I'm just trying to get a bearing of what to get and the pricing neccesary. For example, before I started this topic I had no idea what a HEQ5 was! I am fortunate enough to be in a position where I have the opporunity to spend money on this, and the interest too, otherwise I wouldn't be looking into it.

I only want to make sure that while I don't underspend, I do save money where possible, without severely compromising the effectiveness of the kit I buy. Like you say, I want the right tools, but I want to make sure I don't go over the top, is all.

But I do find it very smart how you've actually taken into account the time factor - something I havn't seen anyone do so far. It would certainly be most beneficial if newbies like me were informed of it, although I myself already took that into account prior to this, others might not realise the time required before purchasing all the kit!

And I must say, the images on your flickr are awesome!

[Uhwaz]

I thought one tracked and the other had goto too? But how easy is it to run through a laptop?

Aha no £100 is still alot to me, but relatively speaking, in the context of these prices it is a small difference, of around 10%.

Depends on person i guess. Its a matter of one cable and adaptor mount is connected to laptop

I dont even know where my handheld for EQ5 ended up ( in attic in some box most likely )

Well as I said only difference should be handheld unless i red it wrong ... after all english is my 3rd language so all is possible

[Azure]

I have a CG-5 GT and I've been really pleased with it. I still use it for DSO imaging with my 90mm frac and it performs well in my opinion. The SkyWatcher mounts seem much more popular on here, but I've never used them... I have imaged on the CG-5 carrying a 6" newtonian with an ST80 guidescope rig and a DSLR or CCD and I would say that's pretty much at the payload limit for the mount...

People seem to find newts as too cumbersome for DSO AP, but if I mounted one on a heavy duty mount, like the NEQ6 or similiar, and the wind was low, would it really cause me a problem? I understand the portability factor, as a large newt and an ever larger mount are not exactly easy to carry, but I don't plan on taking it far, and there's always the car for when I do!

Correct me if I'm naive, but I don't really see why people don't use newts for DSO AP? Is it idealistic to assume that I could use my newt (or even a slightly larger one) for AP?

[Uhwaz]

Correct me if I'm naive, but I don't really see why people don't use newts for DSO AP? Is it idealistic to assume that I could use my newt (or even a slightly larger one) for AP?

People do use newts for DSOs

I never had anything else then my SW200 so i cant say the difference

assume that its just portability on other hand tho theres no glass in path with newts ( they better then refracts in this ? )

You could always ask someone who has both to tell you exactly ... i think Olly P. could know great deal about that topic

[swag72]

A reason why some people don't use newts? Refractors are much easier and require little cool down time in comaprison as well as a lot less fiddling. Newts require collimation whereas a 'frac is good to go once you setup. I personally don't think I'd move away from a refractor for this reason. They are just so much easier. People with Newts say that once you learn it collimation isn't too tricky, I'd dread to have to do it!

[ncjunk]

A reason why some people don't use newts? Refractors are much easier and require little cool down time in comaprison as well as a lot less fiddling. Newts require collimation whereas a 'frac is good to go once you setup. I personally don't think I'd move away from a refractor for this reason. They are just so much easier. People with Newts say that once you learn it collimation isn't too tricky, I'd dread to have to do it!

its a piece of cake with a laser collimator, no problem whatso ever. If you can live with the focuser ending up in strange orientations (not a problem for AP) then it's fine...this is a face you can trust

The only and i mean only problem i have with my newt in comparison to my refractor is that its 1.2 M long and a pain in the butt to move around. get a nice 200mm f4/5 and you're laughing.

[Azure]

Thanks for clearing that up! It doesn't seem too bad, just a bit more time and effort, but I think I'll stay with newts for now

[Davie]

I'm in the middle of upgrading my gear bit by bit. I am using my Skywatcher 130/900 on a second hand HEQ5 which was to be honest a bargin and is unbelieveably steadier than the EQ2 it was on originally.

Although I'm also new at this (dont get to spend much time with the telescope but when i do i enjoy it) I'd go for a good second hand mount first with your 130 and then later upgrade to the scope that you want. Theres so much to learn on the AP side of things that starting with a smaller scope but a good mount is probably going to make it easier on you rather than hamper you.

[robbie c]

If this lot could be got for £500, I'd have 3!

And me

[x6gas]

People seem to find newts as too cumbersome for DSO AP, but if I mounted one on a heavy duty mount, like the NEQ6 or similiar, and the wind was low, would it really cause me a problem? I understand the portability factor, as a large newt and an ever larger mount are not exactly easy to carry, but I don't plan on taking it far, and there's always the car for when I do!

Correct me if I'm naive, but I don't really see why people don't use newts for DSO AP? Is it idealistic to assume that I could use my newt (or even a slightly larger one) for AP?

As said lots of imagers do use Newts - check out the SkyWatcher Quattro, for example. They have the great advantage of (generally speaking) having fast optics which means shorter exposures for any given target. You do need to consider focal length when choosing a scope for DSOs though. Many of the DSOs are pretty big and so you need a relatively short focal length scope (it's focal length that determines magnification and thus, for any given imaging sensor, the field of view). I find this website http://www.12dstring.me.uk/fov.htm really useful and you could do worse than play around with it to see what sort of image scale you'd get with various focal length / image sensor combinations. A 10" Newt is an impressive looking scope, but you will need a VERY capable mount (they weight a ton) and at the end of it the focal length might be too long for many targets (I have made this mistake and my 10" newt rarely gets used...)

People do seem to struggle with collimation but I never found it that tough and to be honest with fast optics there is a little wriggle room for less than perfect collimation. The big downside with Newts is that they introduce coma... and so you'll need a good coma corrector to get round stars right to the edge of the picture and good coma correctors cost as much as the scope, often!

Again, the advice to think about the mount first and foremost is very sound for AP, but do still get a mount that suits your storage space, transportation needs AND your budget. I love my CGEM DX, but it is huge and I never, ever take it more than 15 feet from my back door (and I'm 6'2" and physically reasonably fit...)

[x6gas]

By the way, pictures of my CGEM next to my CG-5 for comparision in http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/118044-new-scope-ordered/page__hl__cgem__st__20 this thread...

[Azure]

Thanks for the info and pics! very helpful

What sort of focal length is good for DSO imaging? My current scope is f/5, I've heard that that's on the fast end of things? Is that correct?

And what's coma? Is it chromatic abberation? I've seen people discussing it, but never looked it up