Widefield Astrophotography

[lw24]

Hi,

I'm interested in having a go at some widefield astrophotography, but I'm not too sure equipment wise what sort of things I'd need.

I know that a DSLR is needed (any recommendations - maybe under £300 if possible?), along with a fixed tripod (again, any recommendations?), but not a lot else.

So I'd just appreciate some advice on some DSLR models, tripods, and anything else that would be needed to get going.

Thanks.

[Andyfx]

The Canon Eos 1100d is in that price range for the body only and will get you started, this can then be modded at a later date.

The minimum mount for astrophotography is really the HEQ5.

[lw24]

The Canon Eos 1100d is in that price range for the body only and will get you started, this can then be modded at a later date.

The minimum mount for astrophotography is really the HEQ5.

A HEQ5 is needed for widefield astrophotography? I don't want to attach the camera to a telescope...

[themos]

This is one possible package, although a bit pricey

http://www.astrotrac.com/Product.aspx?category=Special+Deals&product=Holiday+Special+Deal

[Andyfx]

As i understand it some people buy the HEQ5, then mount the dslr to it. This is rock solid and also provides a good upgrade route if you do decide to get a scope.

[lw24]

This is one possible package, although a bit pricey

http://www.astrotrac...ay Special Deal

Just to make it clear, do I need a tracking mount? I've read that a fixed tripod will work as long as you keep the exposures relatively short (I've no idea whether this is correct).

[themos]

It all depends on the focal length you are going to use, the shorter it is the more time you have before stars move. Reckon on about 20 seconds maximum for fixed tripod and "ordinary" focal length.

[Andyfx]

If your interest is dso's you wont get any worthwhile results with an unmodded dslr, unless you have some sort of motor drive.

[Digz]

As themos has said it will depend on focal length.

With a fixed tripod you will, at most get an average of around 20-30s, say at a focal length of 10mm. Anything longer will lead to stair trails (which is another option for widefield stuff). The longer the focal length the shorter the sub length on a fixed tripod.

Remember, when looking at DSLRs to get a package which includes a lens (body only is no good unless you have lenses already!), you will also need a memory card and may want to consider a case.

You could pick up a tripod and experiment with sub lengths for little outlay, then you will see for your self what limitations it will have.

[JamesF]

I reckon you'd get away with a Synscan EQ3-2 for reasonable exposure lengths with a camera and lens. I can get up to about three minutes on my EQ3-2 with after-market motors without star trailing using a 200mm lens and that's with fairly average polar alignment.

Didn't you have an AZ4, or did you sell that to get the dob? For exposures of up to twenty or thirty seconds that would probably have been fine at short focal lengths.

A laptop is a boon when doing this sort of imaging. It's not strictly required, but really helps with framing and focusing if you use something like APT or BYE.

James

[Digz]

If your interest is dso's you wont get any worthwhile results with an unmodded dslr, unless you have some sort of motor drive.

A very confusing statement and not strictly true!

Sure a modded camera will get improvements, but an unmodded camera can yield some stunning results on the right target. A motor drive is also a bonus to AP, depending on what exactly the OP wants to achieve.

[JamesF]

It's worth keeping an eye on the classifieds section for suitable DSLRs. They come up every so often.

James

[Andyfx]

@Digz. If you have a fixed mount the subs will be very short and 20secs is a generous estimate in my opinion, therefore at such short sub lengths most dso's would suffer especially when you add an un-modded camera into the mix.

[Digz]

@Digz. If you have a fixed mount the subs will be very short and 20secs is a generous estimate in my opinion, therefore at such short sub lengths most dso's would suffer especially when you add an un-modded camera into the mix.

Perfectly achievable - with a wide focal length - the OP in interested in widefield not DSOs.

Also I dont see how a modded camera will help other than improve the sensitivity to Ha or the red end of the spectrum? Removing the IR filters etc wont make the sensor generally any more sensitive, isnt that what the ISO setting is for?

[Andyfx]

Perhaps i was generalising a bit. However higher iso introduces more noise, so its far better to have longer subs with lower iso.

[Black Knight]

I tried 20 second subs with my DSLR on a tripod and got very obvious star trailing. Seems a bit of overkill to use my NEQ6, so I may decide to go for a motorised EQ3-2 at some point.

[Digz]

Still generalising there Yes higher ISO introduces more noise but this can be reduced by stacking subs. Most people with DSLRs shoot around ISO800 or higher and have 10min subs (I am one). I wouldnt drop much below that as I just wouldnt capture the photons.

Reading between the lines the OP wants to use a static tripod therefore their limitations will be as outlined - 20-30s subs at a wide focal length and a high ISO. As an example to the OP this is a single 30s sub at ISO3200 @10mm f4.5 which I touch a few weeks back.

[RikM]

This was taken with an unmodded Canon 1000D on a static tripod. Something like 10x 8sec subs, ISO1600, with a 20mm lens. I botched the processing a bit but I was mainly going for star colour. Since I was on holiday and in a hurry, I just used a remote timer for this and focused using live view but it is easier to plug into a laptop and use APT.

[lw24]

Didn't you have an AZ4, or did you sell that to get the dob? For exposures of up to twenty or thirty seconds that would probably have been fine at short focal lengths

Yes, I sold that to fund the dob.

At the moment, I'd say I want to keep strictly to widefield to begin with, but out of curiosity, does anyone have images (DSO wise) of what's possible with say a DSLR mounted on a motorised EQ3-2?

And also, any recommendations of various DSLR models, so that I can be on the lookout for them?

[Ags]

You need a camera (I'm pleased with my 1100D), a tripod (I picked up one for 2 euros!) and a widefield lens - the 50mm F1.8 is very good and is also the cheapest canon lens. I have heard good things about the 35mm F2.0, also cheapish and which would be a little less zoomed in than the 50mm. Another good buy is a programmable shutter remote (30 euros) which will take a sequence of pics for you - great for star trails, time lapse etc, and to keep the camera undisturbed.

Widefield can include star trails, aurorae, shooting stars, comets, milky way, conjunctions... All possible without a driven mount. HEQ5 bah!

My experience of widefield AP is that wide lenses show light pollution gradients very badly, so you need to plan your shots carefully.

Aren't you in Holland - google MPB Photographic. They are a UK site selling second equipment, but they do deliver to NL for reasonable rates - I use them.

I.m not very good, but here is a galaxy taken from a 4SE mount (the EQ3 would be a world better)...

[Digz]

I may be wrong (and I usually am!) but I think Quatermass has some images in his gallery from an EQ3-2 set-up. Alternatively a search of the imaging section of the forum will show some relevant threads.

[Ags]

RikM has some amazing results from an EQ3 too.

[lw24]

Okay, thanks.

Just to get a ballpark figure, is this kind of accurate?

Camera (something like a 1100D) - £300

Lens (50mm F1.8) - £80

Tripod - £?

= £380 + Tripod cost

Also, what sort of tripod would work; is something like this needed, or is that overly heavy duty?

[JamesF]

Perhaps it would be sensible just to clarify what you mean by "wide field" here.

A DSLR such as the 1100D with a 50mm lens will probably get you an image around 45 degrees across the diagonal IIRC. Even a large DSO such as M31 will be lost in the middle of an image like that. On the other hand it can produce some very nice images of good chunks of the Milky Way.

So, when you say "wide field", what is it you have in your head as an idea of what you want to achieve?

James

[lw24]

Perhaps it would be sensible just to clarify what you mean by "wide field" here.

Ah, sure

Images of constellations, and parts of the Milky Way is what I'm thinking of.

From replies earlier, it seemed that if the camera was mounted on a driven mount, DSOs could be a possibility (I guess this is wrong?). So, the plan I had in mind was to start by getting images of constellations & Milky Way, and then if I wished, purchase a motorized mount to take the next step towards DSOs.