Astrophotography - Yes you can!

[ASIGN_Baz]

G'day to all you budding astrophotographers!

I would like to vigorously encourage any and all who are thinking of giving astrophotography a crack. Sure, it's nice to have thousands of dollars worth of precision equipment, but let me reassure you, you don't even need a telescope!

All it takes is some pretty basic equipment, combined with a little bit of tricksy know-how. It really is that simple.

Be prepared though, if you get into this thing, you will get hooked, you will get aperture fever and your wallet will get thinner!

I have penned some pages of basic techniques here, that should get you started as well as give you a reality check, seasoned with some well deserved uppercuts.

Below are a few examples of what can be achieved with basic to advanced techniques in advancing order.

DSLR, wide lens 16mm, tripod, 10 second timer delay, 30 second exposure, brake lights, levels and curves adjust in photoshop.

DSLR, wide lens 35mm, telescope mount that tracks star motion, 10 second timer delay, four minute exposure, levels and curves adjust in photoshop.

DSLR, lens 70mm, telescope mount that tracks star motion, 10 second timer delay, 7 x five minute exposures, stacked in deep sky stacker, levels and curves adjust in photoshop.

DSLR, lens 400mm, tripod, 10 second timer delay, 1/100 second exposure, levels and curves adjust in photoshop.

DSLR, 120mm telescope, solar filter, telescope mount that tracks star motion, 10 second timer delay, 8 x 1/200 second exposures, stacked in Maxim DL Essentials, levels and curves adjust in photoshop.

Dedicated CCD astro camera, imaging scope 120mm, tracking scope 80mm with guide camera, telescope mount that tracks star motion, PC to run it all, five hours worth of 20 minute exposures, stacked in Maxim DL Essentials, levels and curves adjust in photoshop.

Dedicated CCD astro camera, imaging scope 120mm, tracking scope 80mm with guide camera, telescope mount that tracks star motion, PC to run it all, four hours worth of 20 minute exposures, stacked in Maxim DL Essentials, levels and curves adjust in photoshop.

That's not all folks, there is so much you can do, the sky isn't even the limit!

Cheers and blessings!!

Baz.

[VigdisVZ]

Very inspirational. I too am very pleased with what I've been able to do with a modest DSLR and kit-lens.

Cheers

[swag72]

You say in the OP that all you need is some pretty basic equipment. The images you have here are presumably to demonstrate this point?

Could you say what mount you are using as each time you say it is a 'telescope mount that tracks star movement' - If these are taken with a budget mount then I agree with your statement about pretty basic equipment. If however your mount is worth several thousand ££'s for example, then I think this is a little misleading to new comers to the hobby. No you don't need may thousands of pounds of equipment and you have shown that some good images can be taken with a DSLR, but you DO need a good mount in order to get the 20 minute subs you mention.

Once the mount has been identified then I think that will be much more useful to decide whether basic equipment was even used.

[c3po]

Wow. Epic images (where's that jaw dropping smily when you need it!), and certainly full of inspiration for those very new to widefield ap like myself.

[ASIGN_Baz]

You say in the OP that all you need is some pretty basic equipment. The images you have here are presumably to demonstrate this point?

Could you say what mount you are using as each time you say it is a 'telescope mount that tracks star movement' - If these are taken with a budget mount then I agree with your statement about pretty basic equipment. If however your mount is worth several thousand ££'s for example, then I think this is a little misleading to new comers to the hobby. No you don't need may thousands of pounds of equipment and you have shown that some good images can be taken with a DSLR, but you DO need a good mount in order to get the 20 minute subs you mention.

Once the mount has been identified then I think that will be much more useful to decide whether basic equipment was even used.

I think you should read the OP carefully again. You might have noticed I have put them in escalating order from just camera with lens on a static tripod, to placing it on a mount, to using a telescope. If you want to get technical, sure, my EQ6 was around $2K, however there are many cheap EQ mounts out there for around $500 that are capable of fitting a camera on top that would do the same job of sidereal tracking for widefield exposures.

My aim is to encourage folks to give it a go, starting simple and working their way up so it's not so daunting.

[wookie1965]

Im looking at doing this and was going to buy a dslr for christmas as ive only got a eq3-2 mount i thought i would have to spend loads and upgrade but now im going to have ago and see what i can capture with this first thank you for the inspiration.

[ASIGN_Baz]

Wow. Epic images (where's that jaw dropping smily when you need it!), and certainly full of inspiration for those very new to widefield ap like myself.

Widefield is so much fun and very gratifying! Good on ya mate!

Im looking at doing this and was going to buy a dslr for christmas as ive only got a eq3-2 mount i thought i would have to spend loads and upgrade but now im going to have ago and see what i can capture with this first thank you for the inspiration.

My pleasure buddy! Youre EQ3 should do just fine with a nice wide-angle lens. Give it a crack!

[swag72]

Thanks for answering the question about what mount you use. I did notice that the first image was taken with a static tripod and then the rest of the images with what I now know to be an EQ6.

I do applaud your sentiment of wanting to show people that AP is possible with some pretty basic equipment, I really do. But I think that needs to be tempered with a dose of reality as well. People will look at these and read your opening post and think 'wow, I can do that on a limited budget.'

Generally imagers think that the minimum adequate mount is an HEQ5 - I don't know about currency conversions, but the most basic HEQ5 in the UK is £550 and I'm not sure whether that includes all necessary motors. People are doing AP with less and getting some good results, but to achieve your standard of imaging, people need to know that it is not cheap. Yes you can image with an EQ3, but you will not get the sorts of results that you are showing. If you could, you and other brilliant imagers would be using the EQ3 (It is far cheaper afterall).

Building up people's expectations is as bad I think as dashing them from the start. I'm not asking for people not to try, but just be realistic in what they can achieve. There is a good thread in the imaging section showing images taken with budget equipment. If people get hugely disappointed as soon as they try to use their budget equipment and emulate your quality of images, is that not very disheartening and frustrating as well as likely to mean that AP as a hobby may progress no further?

I hope that hasn't come across as negative and neither as taking a swipe at what you are wanting to achieve. It isn't meant to be either. I do like what you are doing and your images are good, but just a little bit of reality sprinkled liberally over the top (like sugar on weetabix!) would be more useful to all in my opinion.

[wookie1965]

I was looking at the canon 40d with a 10mm-22mm lens does that look like a decent setup.

[JamesF]

Very nice images, Barry.

FWIW, I can manage two to three minutes exposure time with a 200mm lens on my unguided EQ3-2 before I get eggy stars. I imagine a better mount would do better with the same lens. With drift alignment I might do better with the EQ3-2, and with a finder-guider I'm sure even more would be possible without hideous expense (though I'd guess even if you had the laptop a finder-guider is still going to get you into three figures unless you can pick up the bits second hand).

James

[Keiran]

Thanks for posting this Baz, I am a great fan of your 'Simple Stuff'. It a little know how and basic equipment, you can produce some really stunning results.

I hope this is the motivation that some people need.

Keiran

[Beulah]

I would like to do more widefield (as soon as clear skies & clear diary are in conjunction I'll be out there) - but an EQ mount is a fab idea. Need to add that to the wishlist.

[ASIGN_Baz]

"Be prepared though, if you get into this thing, you will get hooked, you will get aperture fever and your wallet will get thinner!"

"Below are a few examples of what can be achieved with basic to advanced techniques in advancing order."

As you can see, I haven't misled anyone. I have started simple and cheap and worked my way up. I've even warned them of the financial ramifications.

Yes you can image with an EQ3, but you will not get the sorts of results that you are showing.

You could easily do a similar widefield shot as picture #2 with DSLR and wide lens on an EQ3. My EQ6 accurately handles two telescopes, two finder scopes, two cameras and counterweights. An EQ3 would have no problems handling the weight of a DSLR and lens alone with accurate sidereal tracking. Even if you were hand guiding. (that's just patience and practice.)

Building up people's expectations is as bad I think as dashing them from the start.

Building expectation is the whole point. It gives a goal to aim for. Part of the game. I'm showing them what can be achieved.

I hope that hasn't come across as negative and neither as taking a swipe at what you are wanting to achieve. It isn't meant to be either. I do like what you are doing and your images are good, but just a little bit of reality sprinkled liberally over the top (like sugar on weetabix!) would be more useful to all in my opinion.

Yes, it does come across as negative and a swipe. In fact, it seems like you have gone to considerable effort to tear this down. Your, "opinion" seems like a massive nitpick when I was simply encouraging folks. Your opinion is noted and you are surely entitled to it. Thanks.

To everyone else., I hope this post helps you as intended. As Swag72 is so insistent, astrophotography can be done very cheap, but can get expensive, but I'm pretty sure I already said that.

[Beulah]

If any one can get hold of this gear, it can be done quite cheaply!

http://www.footootjes.nl/Astrophotography_Wide_field/Astrophotography_Wide_field.html

[jgs001]

You can image with kit that's really not designed for imaging, if you find the limits. I started out with a NexStar SLT (AltAz) and an ST80 clone (total cost £100), I've done wide field imaging with an EQ1. Before that I used a bridge camera on a static tripod (although it was silly hard to focus).

[ASIGN_Baz]

I was looking at the canon 40d with a 10mm-22mm lens does that look like a decent setup.

Should do the trick nicely. That combination of 10-22mm on a cropped frame sensor has the same frame as my full frame with 16-35mm.

[wookie1965]

Thank you very much great shots by the way.

[RikM]

I was looking at the canon 40d with a 10mm-22mm lens does that look like a decent setup.

I have used a 1000D with Sigma 10-20mm on an EQ3-2 and it worked very nicely. One important point to note is the quality of the sky. I don't do much widefield any more because of all the light pollution. If you can head off into the wilderness to nice clear dark skies, you will have a much easier time of it.

[wookie1965]

I have used a 1000D with Sigma 10-20mm on an EQ3-2 and it worked very nicely. One important point to note is the quality of the sky. I don't do much widefield any more because of all the light pollution. If you can head off into the wilderness to nice clear dark skies, you will have a much easier time of it.

I am stuck between a canon 1000d and the Nikon 40d as im looking at not spending a great deal of money ive seen on ebay a couple of 40ds for £260 and the 1000ds for the same i don't know which is better.

[jgs001]

From a purely camera perspective, both will work well. From an Astronomy perspective, get the Canon. There's far more support for the Canon in software, and from reading another thread earlier, it's much easier to remote control the Canon.

[wookie1965]

From a purely camera perspective, both will work well. From an Astronomy perspective, get the Canon. There's far more support for the Canon in software, and from reading another thread earlier, it's much easier to remote control the Canon.

Thank you the canon it is.

[JamesF]

From a purely camera perspective, both will work well. From an Astronomy perspective, get the Canon. There's far more support for the Canon in software, and from reading another thread earlier, it's much easier to remote control the Canon.

I agree. It's so easy to work with the Canon using APT (and I assume BYE is very similar if you happen to prefer it).

James

[ollypenrice]

Good post, Baz. A guest of ours recently took a wide angle Milky Way by stacking five minute subs taken on an EQ1 which is as basic as it gets. The secret was the short focal length. I helped with the processing but the data was lovely and so was the final picture. It split Albireo, by heck.

Olly

[Shibby]

I also think this is a good post Baz. The first image alone is hopefully enough to get budding astrophotographers excited! (Works for me )

I can't reply without linking to the budget DSO showcase thread from some time ago: http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/140123-budget-dso-showcase/

There are some amazing images done on a budget, so if you're reading this and thinking of DSO imaging, please check it out.

[fredster]

Great thread. This has given me some inspiration to give it a try.