"Decent" first scope for visual and AP

[deckardbr]

Hi everyone,

I'm trying to make up my mind about what would be a "decent" good first scope for both visual and AP. In both cases, I'm mostly interested in DSO.

I'm aware that for visual astronomy aperture is king, and for AP the mount is king. I need to match this with my strict portability requirements... since I live in London and don't own a car. I would also like to be able to take the scope/mount on my travels (I go to Italy once or twice a month).

Given the above, I need to sacrifice aperture (due do size constraints) and weight on the mount (due to travel constraints).

From reading various forums/posts, I've come up with the following setup:

- Equinox ED80 scope (fast scope and very portable)

- EQ5 GOTO mount (sturdy... but not too much, still possible to check it on a plane?)

- ST80 guidescope

- QHY5V autoguiding camera or similar

Given the portability requirements... is this the "best" I can do? Can I buy a better quality or bigger aperture refractor and still be sufficiently portable? Is SCT a better option (e.g. NexStar 6SE with EQ5 mount)

My main concern is that the above setup is great for AP DSO (so I read), but might be disappointing for visual. I'm struggling to find a better way to balance this. Bigger aperture would mean bigger scope... hence the need for a sturdier mount, which I probably wont be able to travel with.

Any advice, especially in the scope/mount area is highly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Andrea

[dmahon]

You can certainly get a better scope - try a Takahashi FSQ-85. Your big difficulty is going to be the mount.

[nicnac]

heavy light polluted skies and needs to be portable. hmm, dont bother with a fast telescope, dso's from london would be nigh on impossible anyway. have you had a look at the vixen VC's?

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/vixen/vixen-vc200l.html

[Ags]

I live in amsterdam so I face a similar problem. I think an EQ5 is a lot of weight to lug around, along with two refractors... I don't think it is practical.

Also the scope you envisage has hardly more aperture than a pair of binoculars - it will show you a lot from a dark site but In London it will be aperture limited.

Why not get a small dob for visual use, like this one:

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/dobsonians/skywatcher-heritage-130p-flextube.html

It has reasonable aperture and it is more portable. It is also very cheap. You will still not see much from London due to light pollution. The view of planets and the Moon are unaffected by even severe light pollution, and if you wanted to look at these I would recommend a skymax 127.

For the AP side, you can do widefield stuff with camera lenses and a tripod. You can do long exposures if you add an astrotrac or vixen polarie to the tripod.

If you get seriously into AP, you can do it from London using the setup you originally planned: change the EQ5 to a HEQ5 for better tracking and guiding and image nebulae in narrowband - this will exclude most of the light pollution.

[ollypenrice]

My thoughts...

What you are proposing in your list would not be airline portable in my view, or only very marginally and with a lot of hassle.

Imaging and visual do not go easily together. Portable imaging and visual do not go together at all.

And, as Agnes says, visual and London do not go together at all.

The HEQ5, not the EQ5, is the imaging mount. The motors are critically different for autoguiding control.

The ED80 is not a fast scope. Fast is around F5 and below. It's good and is faster with a reducer but it is still not fast.

Sorry about those rain clouds above but now let's get onto the positive side!!!

To need less mount to carry you need less focal length. (Less weight is mildly important but it is less focal length that matters.) At shorter focal lengths you can work on an Astrotrack unguided or you can add a miniguider for even better resutls and longer focal lengths. Short FLs are very tolerant indeed of tracking errors. This travel mount is designed for the job and has what is really just a segment from a very large (and therefore accurate) wormwheel.

Prime camera lenses are very good and very fast. There is the incomparable Canon 200L for instance, which Peter (Psychobilly) has proved can work on the stars wide open at F2.8. Now that is fast. I have used one on a large pixel CCD camera and with a small pixel DSLR it would be even better in resolution. The sky is full to the brim of wonderful widefield nebulae often overlooked and you can also mosaic objects rarely seen together. This is not second rate imaging. Some examples from the 200L...

Rosette in Ha which you could do from London.

http://ollypenrice.s...3/HaCrop-X3.jpg

Simeis 147, too big for any telescope setup.

http://ollypenrice.s...94_8j8Pv-X3.jpg

Rosette and Cone, not often seen together.

http://ollypenrice.s...TE-HARGB-X3.jpg

I've also tried CCD with a Samyang 85 portrait lens. This is a 6 panel mosaic.

http://ollypenrice.s...-6-PANEL-X3.jpg

So to my mind an Astrotrack and a good camera lens or two would really work. Check out the images of Melsky on here. He's an Astrotrack specialist and darned good.

Olly

http://ollypenrice.s...81778&k=V9SQcqS

[deckardbr]

Thanks for the input everyone. It just couldn't be that easy, could it

I'm getting the vibe that I'll need two different setups vs one, due to conflicting requirements.

For AP:

I already own a Canon DSLR (Rebel).

- An AstroTrac - I saw from the website that I don't need an HEQ5 with it. I can buy its own "lighter" tripod. Is that correct? It says ~5kg with Manfrotto setup.

- ... or would it be better on a HEQ5?

- And a camera lense(s) sunch as the 200L - I own a "zoomable" 18-200mm lense - heard it is not ideal, but I can give it a shot

- From reading "Making every photon count", I assume I'll need to mod the camera if I want to get the most out of it for nebulae -I don't mind since I don't really use it for daytime photography

For visual:

- I've been very keen on the NexStar 6SE because of the compact design and GOTO fork mount (I preferred the 8SE, but that won't be airline friendly I'm afraid).

- 2" visual back for DSO targets

Alternatively, in the same size/portability range... are there better scopes for Visual? E.g. Would I be better off to go with a larger refractor on a light tripod? (eg 4"-5"?)

I can't go 8" and above on SCT due to travel constraints, but if there are scopes with better quality optics (either SCT or refractors... I'm assuming newtonian reflectors in the 6-8" would be too big to travel with), I'd be happy to pay the premium.

Thanks,

Andrea

[Ags]

The astrotrac just goes on a sturdy tripod. The HEQ5 is a massive beast that does the same job as the astrotract, but with heavy telescopes and long focal lengths.

[ollypenrice]

The SCT wouldn't be my choice for airline portability. They are on the fragile side (compared with some designs) and a load of electronics willl be eating into your precious weight budget. I doubt they'd make Carry-on but worth checking. Like financial budgets I think weight budgets should be spent on the optics - the bit that matters!

Before emigrating to a dark site I used to fly with refractors. The best was an old TeleVue Genesis 4 inch F5, so very compact and very robust. They go for around £700 these days, but there are good budget refractors available new. They can go in the hold if well protected. (Hard case inside soft padding, perhaps made of clothes.) You can have issues in the hold but I've flown quite a few times like that and also flown with my bike in the hold about 60 times. The horror stories tend to be blown up but they can happen.

Olly

[pete_l]

For your imaging, I'd seriously consider something like a modded DSLR, prime lens and something like a Vixen Polarie tracker attached to a good quality tripod. That should be just about portable and "airline friendly" for your italian trips. If you use something like a Canon F2.8 200mm lens you have roughly the same aperture as a small telescope (but with wider fields of view) but it's smaller size is a great help.

This is not a cheap option - maybe £1,500, but small size and portability comes at a price.

For your visual use in London I'd probably opt for a 200mm Dobsonian - which IS a cheap option . This does assume that you'll only be using the dob from your garden as it would never "fit" on public transport (though an astro-buddy with a car would help a lot).

[deckardbr]

Thanks both.

I was checking British airways and hand luggage allowance seems to be 8 inch friendly. I.e. using a soft padded case, I'd carry the 8 or 6 inch SCT on the plane with me. Just the OTA.

I would then check in the electronic mount and tripod in a hard case with 'padding'/clothes.

Anybody in EU with experience (good or bad!) in this? Horror stories? I don't plan to fly budget airlines (easy jet/Ryanair)... I know what a pain they can be.

I'll still look into refractors... But if I want a large aperture for visual use + portability they don't seem to be my best option, inch per inch (and, well, price!!)

[ollypenrice]

You get the same baggage handlers with all airlines.

The compact fork mounted SCTs don't always separate from the mounts and a GEM means counterweights. Check that you can remove the scope if doing so is part of your plan.

Olly

[deckardbr]

Picked up my telescope today.

Went for the NexStar 6SE for visual astronomy. In the end, I had to sacrifice 2 inches in the name of portability... and now that I have it "live", I feel I made the right decision! It would have been a monster to carry it in the hand luggage (the 8SE).

While I wait for London to get it over with with the foggy/rainy weather, I'll take it on a test drive this weekend in Italy. Cant wait to report on my first observation session.

Thanks everyone for the advice either directly or through this forum in general!

Andrea

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

The 6SE is a nice scope which will show lots of objects in dark skies. I gather the weight of the OTA + "semifork" should be allowed as carry-on luggage.

[deckardbr]

Hi Mike- yes, it is, from both a weight and size perspective.

For everybody's benefit, the reason I didn't go for the 8SE is that the actual diameter of the "outer tube" is 233mm (I found it in a forum somewhere). British airways and Easyjet both have carry-on luggage restrictions with 250mm on the shortest side. So if I picked the 8SE I'd only have 17mm of margin for padding/bag. I felt that was just too little and didn't want to stress out over whether or not the easyjet/BA rep would let me carry it on the plane.

Btw, avoid Ryanair at all cost since their carry-on luggage allowance is 200mm on the shortest side, and they are VERY strict when it comes to that. My 6SE won't probably be allowed in, with padding and all.

In international flights there is more degrees of freedom... but I mostly travel between UK and Italy.

Thanks

Andrea

[nicnac]

Im wondering if the smaller vixen 110 would be more "your cuppa"