£1300 and half way through Making Every Proton Count...

[Fordos Moon]

Thanks for your excellent input Gina, it is much appreciated. I am a very enthusiastic beginner, and enjoying learning so much too :-)

[milosz]

Hi,

I had a similar problem when I was starting my journey with astrophotography. I thought the scope is most important. Than comes mount and camera is just small addition. As I already had Canon 300D I started imaging with very poor results. I asked a fellow astrophotographer, who happend to live near my place, for advice. He told me to do totally opposite. It is the camera which is most important. Than comes mount and the lens is the small addition I followed his advice and I don't regret. So I'm passing this hint to you. Get the best camera you can afford. Couple it with some M42 lens from ebay [1] and you can use eq3-2 (possibly with autoguiding port) for that set. You will also need some filter for that. I was using Ha to fight light pollution, but if your sky is good enough, you can start with luminance filter.

At this time I had eq5 mount without st4 port. It wasn't suited very well for astrophotography. So I got astrotrac. It works just great but is a bit expensive. This was my imaging gear:

You can get images like this:

Astrotrac is not a very good choice for narrow band as you need a lot of integration time. But for luminance or RGB it should be just fine.

To sum up, new Atik 314, eq3-2, M42 lens and some filter would be possible to get for ~1500. If you manage to get the second hand stuff it would be most likely less than that. Once you're happy with the results, get the guiding lens and camera (possibly 50mm finderscope with QHY5) and you won't get bored for a year or two.

milosz

[1] I'm using SMC Takumar 135 and I'm happy with it. You can get it for ~50 quid on ebay. Sonnar with the same focal length will probably be a bit more expensive, but I think the quality of the lens is also better.

[swag72]

I would say that the absolute most important thing in AP is the mount. For example, you can have a wobbly mount, the very best scope and camera and your images will be nothing more than a wobble and a blur. How can you expect to get the long exposures in AP on a mount that is not solid? Most AP'ers on here will absolutely agree that the mount is THE place to start. WIth a good mount with tracking and guiding and long exposures, you can get good images with a cheaper scope and a DSLR.

There is no way I'd try serious AP with an EQ2-3. HEQ5 as a minimum. If it was possible with a lesser mount, then people would be doing it with great success. Yes I do see acceptable images taken with a smaller mount, but I only ever see top class images with a good mount.

Do not scrimp on the mount is my advice.

[Naemeth]

Granted I don't have any direct experience of imaging, an EQ3-2 mount for only a camera seems adequate, with a scope though it would be too much weight on the mount.

[milosz]

I did that myself and it just works. Take the FL into account as well. The camera and lens weights around 1.5 kg and it is perfectly fine for eq3-2. Sure HEQ5 is better and it will serve longer (I use it at the moment and I'm very happy with that). But IMO spending too much on the mount and struggling with Canon is not the way to go.

milosz

[Gina]

The mount is definitely THE most important part. Way above anything else. If you'll excuse the pun it's ParaMOUNT.

[Andymac79]

HEQ5 ED80 CCD etc was all recommended to me some time ago. Couldn't afford any of them.

Nice images can be produced without filterwheels, flatteners and the kitchen sink thrown in. Look what stan26 did with a EQ3 and a ST102 !!

[milosz]

Gina,

I disagree. The mount doesn't take the pictures. It is camera that does But seriously, you can take 90 second exposures with extra sensitive camera on not-so-high-end mount with short focal length. Just take a lot of these and you will get a stunning result. When imaging only luminance you don't have to take 10 minute subexposures as with narrow band filters. Surely it is better to have a high precision mount with highly sensitive camera and superb optics. It is also better to be young, rich and beautiful But with limited budget you have to make choices. And I'm saying that it is a better choice to get the best camera and slightly worse mount than the opposite.

milosz

[swag72]

Interesting point of view and always good to see what someone else thinks. I stick to my guns about the mount though!!

But if people are capturing the sort of images they are happy with and with a lesser mount and stonking camera, then each to their own. I aspire to the utter fantastic images I see on here, and I KNOW that I will not get them with an EQ2-3!! Horses for courses and wherever you want to be on this AP road.

[ollypenrice]

Gina,

I disagree. The mount doesn't take the pictures. It is camera that does But seriously, you can take 90 second exposures with extra sensitive camera on not-so-high-end mount with short focal length. Just take a lot of these and you will get a stunning result. When imaging only luminance you don't have to take 10 minute subexposures as with narrow band filters. Surely it is better to have a high precision mount with highly sensitive camera and superb optics. It is also better to be young, rich and beautiful But with limited budget you have to make choices. And I'm saying that it is a better choice to get the best camera and slightly worse mount than the opposite.

milosz

I think the mount certainly is the most important component but that it's importance rises fast as focal length increases and diminshes fast as you get to short camera lens focal lengths. At 30mm FL you can do 5 min subs on an unguided EQ3 and stay sub pixel in error. A guest recently did so. Somewhere around 50mm FL I think you could make a case for saying that the camera overtook the mount in importance. I'd still put optics systematically last, though, because the difference between the best optics and the good budget optics is crazily disproportionate. Also, look at the improvement in amateur images over the last 20 years. The optics have hardly changed, though they've become less expensive, thank goodness.

If you can't afford a good mount use short focal lengths. There are stunning targets to be had at all FLs and the short ones are under-represented on the forums.

Olly