Camera + Scope?

[maclean]

Just a few simple questions really :-)

Now I bought a canon eos 60d camera recently and my initial goal is to learn photography and spend some time doing some standard usual non astro photography to learn my way round my camera. My main reason for the camera is not astro photos BUT

I'd be lying if there isn't a part of me that wants to combine my scope and camera at some point in the not too distant future.

My scope is the brilliant skyliner 200p dob.

When the time comes I know the Dob mount is not great for deep space photography but will allow me to maybe get away with some moon shots and maybe some planets.

However if in the future I ended up with one of these fancy motorized EQ mounts, is there any reason the skyliner 200P isn't a good scope for imaging some DSOs?

Will my 200p on a motorized eq mount be capible of producing some half decent shots do you think? Or are reflecting telescopes for a reason unknown to me not great for imaging?

I do acknowledge astro photography is an art full of years of trial and error/software/experience, but imo thats reason to get started asap rather than delay lol!

One other question...

These motorized eq mounts, is there a way of powering them when you're in a field? Do they take batteries? Or a car adaptor for them or something?

[Breakintheclouds]

I'm sure you'll get a lot of responses to this, but to get the ball rolling: I've had a 200P for about three years and it's a very capable imaging scope, especially for DSOs. You might want to acquire a coma corrector to really get the best out of it, as this helps avoid distortions at the edge off your photos, but otherwise it's a scope that can take you quite a long way down the imaging route.

Edit: yes, you can power mounts from battery packs or, best of all, a 12V leisure battery of the type used in boats and caravans

[maclean]

appreciate the response mate.... Just like to add, if anyone feels like posting some images they've taken through their 200p then please get them up here!!

[umadog]

Imaging Newtonians tend to be fast (f/4) to reduce exposure duration, improve mounting stability, and increase field of view. They tend to have over-sized secondaries in order to fully illuminate a large chip and avoid vignetting. Although your Dob won't be optimised in those ways it will still able able to take credible images if the mount is good enough. Another alternative is a dSLR with a barn-door mount. I've seen some lovely wide-field shots take this way. Even things such as Markarian's chain come out in such images. The advantage of starting this way is that the mount is cheap and shots are easy to take. You will still learn about image processing. This might be a cheaper and easier starting point than mounting a fairly heavy and fairly long focal length Newtonian onto an EQ mount. Just a thought...

[glowjet]

Have a brows in the Imaging Section, you will find plenty of examples of images taken with a variety of scopes including the 200P, it may be worth your while investing in a copy of " Making Every Photon Count ", available from FLO or direct from the SGL member Author Steve Richards. It will guide you down the correct path and answer a lot of your questions and help avoid the many pitfalls associated with the dark art, as it is affectionately known

John.

[Breakintheclouds]

appreciate the response mate.... Just like to add, if anyone feels like posting some images they've taken through their 200p then please get them up here!!

Follow the link in my signature and look at the photos at the bottom. These are WEAK, experimental examples of what the 200P can do.

[tich]

The 200P is the first scope I have & I have experimented with some DSO's using a Canon 1000D. I'm new to DSLR photography so learning my way round with it. Then there's the processing which I still haven't got much of a clue what to do in Photoshop even after watching tutorials. Anyway here's a few single shots I've managed to do with mine so far.

M31

Dumbell Nebula

Ring Nebula

M42 Orion Nebula

The Globular Cluster

All the shots were unguided & none apart from M31 have been messed around with.

I know they aren't going to win any prizes but I like them & with some more learning I hope to get better at it.

[maclean]

Imaging Newtonians tend to be fast (f/4) to reduce exposure duration, improve mounting stability, and increase field of view. They tend to have over-sized secondaries in order to fully illuminate a large chip and avoid vignetting. Although your Dob won't be optimised in those ways it will still able able to take credible images if the mount is good enough. Another alternative is a dSLR with a barn-door mount. I've seen some lovely wide-field shots take this way. Even things such as Markarian's chain come out in such images. The advantage of starting this way is that the mount is cheap and shots are easy to take. You will still learn about image processing. This might be a cheaper and easier starting point than mounting a fairly heavy and fairly long focal length Newtonian onto an EQ mount. Just a thought...

Thank you for your response!

Your cheaper starting point - is the barn door mount that one with the two bits of wood on a hinge with a small screw thread you turn manually? My DIY skills are poor, but I will consider this. As I find some of these wide shots where you can see the whole sky really amazing as well as the telescope nebulae shots.

Focal lengths always get me muddled up, I will be reading your response again googling as I go so I'm following you.

Many Thanks.

Breakintheclouds

I looked at your images and am extremely impressed with your efforts here! Your shot of the veil nebula is my favourite there, I think these shots confirm that this scope although maybe not the most ideal, is still very capable of very decent images. You'll have to update that site when you get round to doing some 'strong' experimental shots cos if these are weak I can't wait to see your full efforts!

John im on my way there straight after this post and I will investigate the book you recommend. Thanks!

tich they are some fantastic images! I think the Oriion nebula is a clear winner there to me, truely impressive. The fact you haven't touched them up tells me that there is more detail to be obtained with some work on the computer?

When you say unguided btw, what exactly do you mean, did you not use a motorized mount?

Thanks guys!

[Breakintheclouds]

Thanks for the kind comments. Unguided means they're taken without using a guidescope - a second telescope and camera that is used to detect, and correct for, small unwanted movements that all mounts are prone to

[maclean]

BTW Tich's shot of M31...Does anyone know if all the stars that can be seen in this shot (and shots similar to it) are from the milky way? I don't know for sure, but it visually looks like some of them are behind Andromeda, but I can't help but think these stars must be part of the milky way, otherwise they would not be visible?

Probably dumb question but I like to check :-)

[umadog]

One of my friends as a commercial barn door mount. I'll find out what it is and post back. All manner of shots are possible, from very wide angle to more detailed, such as Orion or Cygnus.

[umadog]

Ok, here it is: http://www.astrotrac.com/Default.aspx?p=tt320x-ag

Not cheap but very nice.

[ollypenrice]

You could use the 8 inch Newt OTA for imaging, ideally on an NEQ6 mount, autoguided. Alternatively you could use it as a Dob while a new imaging setup took the pictures. The cost of the OTA is a trivial part of the cost of an imaging rig, alas. In the mean time I'd buy and absorb Steve's book, available from FLO, 'Making Every Photon Count.'

If you bought a good mount you could do camera lens imaging as an introduction. My most visited image was done this way, with a fairly cheapo Samyang lens: http://ollypenrice.smugmug.com/Other/Best-of-Les-Granges/i-V9SQcqS/0/X3/ORION-85MM-LENS-HaOSC-6-PANEL-X3.jpg

Olly

[ollypenrice]

BTW Tich's shot of M31...Does anyone know if all the stars that can be seen in this shot (and shots similar to it) are from the milky way? I don't know for sure, but it visually looks like some of them are behind Andromeda, but I can't help but think these stars must be part of the milky way, otherwise they would not be visible?

Probably dumb question but I like to check :-)

All in the Milky Way. Pity! To resolve a Cepheid variable in the Andromeda Galaxy you need the 100 inch Hooker and you'll have a space telescope named after you; http://obs.carnegiescience.edu/PAST/m31var

Olly

[maclean]

You could use the 8 inch Newt OTA for imaging, ideally on an NEQ6 mount, autoguided. Alternatively you could use it as a Dob while a new imaging setup took the pictures. The cost of the OTA is a trivial part of the cost of an imaging rig, alas. In the mean time I'd buy and absorb Steve's book, available from FLO, 'Making Every Photon Count.'

If you bought a good mount you could do camera lens imaging as an introduction. My most visited image was done this way, with a fairly cheapo Samyang lens: http://ollypenrice.s...-6-PANEL-X3.jpg

Olly

Olly, thats a completely breathtaking image! What is this nebula? Can you just clarify, no telescope was used for that shot? Its from a camera lense? I imagine you must have done some image stacking wizadry on a computer to achieve such a detailed colourful image!