Newbie Question -- Should I Get an Equatorial Mount?

[jsf8278]

Hello everyone,

I have another newbie question. I have been trying for a couple months now to figure out what scope I want to purchase for my first scope. I am now leaning towards the Orion SpaceProbe 130ST Equatorial Mount. The reason I like this scope is that it has a large aperture for a beginner scope, is currently only 210 U.S. dollars, and has an equatorial mount, which should allow me to take some decent photos via a webcam or camera. I like that this scope could get me into the hobby for not too much money, and if I really like it, I can always upgrade without having initially spent a lot.

So...my question is whether you all think a beginner should buy an equatorial mount? I like the idea of learning how to use a scope, even if I eventually use a motorized scope, however, I have read posts by people on here warning newbies against an EQ mount because it can be difficult to use.

I would really like to find a scope like the one above that is motorized, but without the extra expense of GoTo.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I never found an EQ mount difficult. Quite the contrary. I find it easier to star-hop equatorially than in alt-az mode, because the motions you make do not change depending on the observing date or time: moves in RA and DEC are always the same, as you move from one object in the sky to another, unlike moves in altitude and azimuth. I recently put a little frac on a home-made alt-az mount and quite confused for a while. I really had to adjust. Do bear in mind that a Newtonian on an EQ mount can lead to some awkward positioning of the EP, but by rotating the optical tube in the tube rings you can sort that out quite easily.

Polar alignment is quite easy for visual observation, because it does not have to be that accurate. I just set the altitude of the polar axis to my current latitude (53 deg), level the tripod with the built-in spirit level, and point the mount north. Job done.

If you want to take some web-cam shots, an EQ mount is also handy (and rough and ready polar alignment is sufficient for planetary)

[planet15]

I am also a newbie, and I have an equatorial mounted scope TAL-1.

I find it difficult initially to point to the star I am trying to look at - i.e Saturn, the way this equatorial mounted scope moves is quite different from what I am used to moving other things in life. A few day ago, I struggled about 10 minutes to contain Saturn in TAL-1's view. But once the target is in the view, then it is really good to track it via slow motion controls, just rotate the slow motion handles - one horizontally and the other vertically, and the scope instinctly follows the star, as the star moves away in the sky. So I think it is great, but it is also a bit tough for beginners like me.

So guess what, I have ordered a Dobsonian Skyliner 200p - it will be a bit of shock, when it arrive here next weel, the size of the scope 8" tube, and the price - I mean, when I started thi hobby, I have never dreamt of spending that much money for a scope, but I did.

[JamesF]

If you weren't interested in imaging I'd personally probably say don't bother with the EQ mount, get an alt-az instead. For imaging however I think an EQ mount makes life easier and gives you more possibilities. It's a bit harder to get the hang of as a beginner I guess, but not exactly difficult.

James

[jsf8278]

Thanks for the quick responses. If didn't live in the city, I would have bought a Dobsonian scope a while ago. However, I want to be able to travel with my scope and go to places with darker skies. A Dobs just doesn't seem like a good idea in that respect.

I guess I am also wondering whether learning how to use an EQ mount even matters. I really want to learn how to use the scope and not just jump into a GoTo scope with a bunch a computerized gadgets. However, I also get the sense that I may never need to know how to manually use an EQ mount. So many options...

[JamesF]

It's quite possible to travel around with a dob, though I guess it depends what methods you have available. There are 10" dobs that will quite comfortable fit in even relatively small cards.

James

[Superdavo]

I started with an eq mount, and, although it took a bit of time to get used to, but it was quite handy, and it will be useful for photography

[ollypenrice]

A 200 dollar equatorial mount will not necessariiy allow you to take decent pictures. Few things, if indeed any at all, are as nasty in astromomy as inadequate equatorial mounts. The design of the mount is complex and costs money to build. You don't get something for nothing. A Dob mount is simple to build and, on a budget, you get far more quality and performance than with a bad equatorial. I would stay well away from equatorials until you feel you can afford a good one. A similar sized Dob is far easier to transport and set up than an equatorial. Flimsy equatorials are just intended to look nice and technical as they sit in the camera store waiting for the unwary.

Olly

[swamp thing]

1368802120[/url'>' post='1937352']

Thanks for the quick responses. If didn't live in the city, I would have bought a Dobsonian scope a while ago. However, I want to be able to travel with my scope and go to places with darker skies. A Dobs just doesn't seem like a good idea in that respect.

The whole point of a dobsonian is to have a simple package that lends itself to transportation to dark sites.

Dobs make great travel companions due to their simple "plonk, observe" set up.

You would be hard pressed to want to travel anywhere setting up a 10" newt on an EQ. I tried it a few years back. Soon became extremely tedious. On the other hand my 10" Dob is always on the road with me.

For mobile use. Dob every time.

[jsf8278]

Do the Dobsonian tubes come apart from the mount, and if so, are they typically very easy to take apart and re-mount? I thought Dobsonian scopes were intended to be stay at home scopes, so this is news to me that they are actually intended for easy travel. They sure dont look very easy to transport via a medium sized car.

Also, are the mounts on Dobs usually sturdy enough to mount a webcam and image the moon and some plantes?

I have to admit that for some reason, I have had this aversion to a Dobsonian telescope. After many months of reading different opioins from people, the most universal of advice I have heard is that a beginner is better off with a Dobsonian scope. Yet, for some reason, I look at those scopes and just get turned off. I really dont know why. So maybe I really wouldn't have bought one months ago...who knows.

I still have some contemplating to do, however, I am now thinking the EQ mount might not be so good since it is probably cheap as someone mentioned.

[JamesF]

Most of the common commercially-produced dobs separate from the base to the best of my knowedge. Some only ever just rest on top of it. For real "back seat of the car" portability models such as the Skywatcher "flextube" designs are worth a look, but I think you'd get even a solid tube commercially-produced 10" f/5 dob or perhaps even a 12" f/5 in a moderate size car without too much difficulty.

James

[JamesF]

Of course these bigger scopes do get heavy, so it's worth checking that you can lift the parts comfortably and carry them to and from the car before committing to buying.

James

[swag72]

In my opinion a small dose of realism is this.

You say in the OP that you want to take 'decent photos', speaking only as an imager as I rarely if ever actually look through the scope, you will not get decent images with a EQ mount that is probably on the rather flimsy side. It seems like you are interested in both visual and imaging. If so, satisfy your visual desires first with a decent dob while saving a small fortume for the imaging side. Get hold of the book 'Making Every Photon Count' from either yje book section in the FLO site or direct from Steppenwolf ( a moderator in this site) - Read the book through many times and you'll begin to get a feel for what imaging entails and whether you really do want to do it.

Be realistic about your expectations. If you look in the imaging section on here and see something by Olly Penrice or Peter Shah to name but 2 excellent imagers - and think that is a decent image and something that you want to achieve, you will not be getting there on a tight budget.

Also be honest about the time you want to or are able to put into imaging. It is frustrating at times and images can take many hours to capture the data (although you are not there for most of it!!) and many hours to process. In fact in my experience, processing is by far the most frustrating and insanely difficult part of malking a decent image. In all honestly, I really don;t know that I'll ever get to where I want to be.

[jsf8278]

In my opinion a small dose of realism is this.

You say in the OP that you want to take 'decent photos', speaking only as an imager as I rarely if ever actually look through the scope, you will not get decent images with a EQ mount that is probably on the rather flimsy side. It seems like you are interested in both visual and imaging. If so, satisfy your visual desires first with a decent dob while saving a small fortume for the imaging side. Get hold of the book 'Making Every Photon Count' from either yje book section in the FLO site or direct from Steppenwolf ( a moderator in this site) - Read the book through many times and you'll begin to get a feel for what imaging entails and whether you really do want to do it.

Be realistic about your expectations. If you look in the imaging section on here and see something by Olly Penrice or Peter Shah to name but 2 excellent imagers - and think that is a decent image and something that you want to achieve, you will not be getting there on a tight budget.

Also be honest about the time you want to or are able to put into imaging. It is frustrating at times and images can take many hours to capture the data (although you are not there for most of it!!) and many hours to process. In fact in my experience, processing is by far the most frustrating and insanely difficult part of malking a decent image. In all honestly, I really don;t know that I'll ever get to where I want to be.

I am actually starting to get a little turned off by the imaging aspect of astronomy because of how complicated and expensive it seems to be to do it right. When I first started thinking about buying a scope I was really excited at the prospect of capturing the images I see through the scope so that I would have actual photographs of them and I could share with family and friends. I never knew that you could even capture images through a telescope, so I was immediatly infatuated with the idea. Now, however, it just seems to be something that is holding me up from buying a darn scope and starting up the hobby.

I really appreciate your comments in the last paragraph because I do NOT want to spend a lot time on a computer processing images. I think I would get frustrated really quick.

[ollypenrice]

So there's a lot to be said for visual astronomy. I am a paid up imager but make no mistake; my antidote to the frustrating part of imaging is a lounge chair, a dark site, a pair of binoculars and a beer!!!

If you don't like processing, keep clear of imaging. I do like it, indeed I love it, but I can quite see that one might not.

Keep it relaxed and simple and enjoy it.

Olly

[JamesF]

So there's a lot to be said for visual astronomy. I am a paid up imager but make no mistake; my antidote to the frustrating part of imaging is a lounge chair, a dark site, a pair of binoculars and a beer!!!

I absolutely agree with this. In fact, I don't even need to have had a frustrating time imaging. Sometimes it's just a real pleasure to get out a scope or binoculars, point it/them at the sky and enjoy the show. I very much enjoy imaging, but the intimacy and immediacy of visual astronomy is a real thrill.

James

[Moonshane]

I am a very keen and reasonably good photographer (mainly macro natural history) and thought that this would naturally transfer to astro imaging but it doesn't. you come into astronomy thinking that taking images is just a longer exposure and you have a photo. that's almost right but you need really long exposures for AP, sometimes over several nights and then you have to process the images for a long time to get them right and then stack them to get the final image (or is that the other way round??).

for me the length of time the best imagers spend is admirable and the results amazing but it's not for me. I don't even bother now, I look at the skies with my eyes and a big dob.

up to a 12" dob is transportable in almost any car. I get my 16" f4 dob in my small hatchback. I previously had a Rover 200 which got it in and all my camping gear (though I need a roof rack for the base)

for me visual observing is about the most aperture you can afford, use and carry/transport. an 8" - 10" dob is a great start.

[swag72]

I am actually starting to get a little turned off by the imaging aspect of astronomy because of how complicated and expensive it seems to be to do it right. When I first started thinking about buying a scope I was really excited at the prospect of capturing the images I see through the scope so that I would have actual photographs of them and I could share with family and friends. I never knew that you could even capture images through a telescope, so I was immediatly infatuated with the idea. Now, however, it just seems to be something that is holding me up from buying a darn scope and starting up the hobby.

I really appreciate your comments in the last paragraph because I do NOT want to spend a lot time on a computer processing images. I think I would get frustrated really quick.

I can understand how people get sucked into AP. You see a lovely picture on the net or in a magazine without the faintest idea of how people get there! Then you think that with a couple of hundred ££'s you'll be able to capture similar images. People are often not realistic, not about their expectations per se as they have no idea how to achieve the final result, but about the images that they see and therefore think that they will be able to get with minimal kit, effort, ££'s and time.

I'm sorry if my last paragraph put you off, it wasn't meant to exactly, but was injecting some realism into how you achieve the final product. It does take many hours as well as many more ££'s to achieve what you see in the imaging section. Everyone has a different level, not only of expectation but also where they what to be with imaging. If you want to be up there with the best, it takes time, ££'s and a lot of swearing, cursing and at times despondancy along the way. Well in my case it has and I can't imagine that I am hugely different from any other imager out there who's trying to match the standard of the very best.

[inedible_hulk]

I've found my EQ2 easy and quick to set up and intuitive to use. I'm glad I went for the EQ mount as with the addition of a motor on the RA axis, I've been able to start some planetary imaging with a webcam. Not something I originally saw myself doing until I read Cliff's Xbox webcam thread on SGL. This one was done with a Phillips webcam and my Skywatcher Explorer 130P on the EQ2.

It's great for observing as I can always get the eyepiece where I want it and I only have to track in one axis. Furthermore everything packs down nicely for storage in a cupboard.

Is the EQ2 a good mount for imaging? No. Will I be imaging DSOs? No, but its been a really use aid in learning and trying out lots of different things. Ultimately it comes down to your own preferences and objectives, so I certainly recommend finding a club or star party and trying out a few scopes to see what suits you before you part with your cash

[LukeSkywatcher]

If you don't like processing, keep clear of imaging.

It all depends on the level of imaging you want to do and are happy with.

I personally am happy to stick my camera on a fixed tripod and image widefield. I dont do any processing.

That to me is keeping relaxed and simple and enjoyable.

I cant/wont fault you on your method simply because you are so good at it and its your livelyhood.

Different strokes for different folks.

[LukeSkywatcher]

Sometimes it's just a real pleasure to get out a scope or binoculars, point it/them at the sky and enjoy the show. I very much enjoy imaging, but the intimacy and immediacy of visual astronomy is a real thrill.

Amen to that.

[jsf8278]

So there's a lot to be said for visual astronomy. I am a paid up imager but make no mistake; my antidote to the frustrating part of imaging is a lounge chair, a dark site, a pair of binoculars and a beer!!!

I think you just convinced me to buy a pair of binoculars! Time to start researching options for binoculars...

This thread has been really helpful...So my take away from some of this is (1) that I could probably get some very basic photos of the planets with a cheap EQ mount just as Inedlible_Hulk posted, but if I want anything more than that, I will need to spend a lot more money, which I dont think is a good idea for me starting out, and (2) even if I do spend a lot of money its going to take a lot of processing time, something that (for me personally) is likely to be very frustrating.

[JamesF]

I do a fair bit of planetary imaging with a small aperture scope on a Skywatcher EQ3-2 mount with aftermarket motors fitted which is probably at the cheaper end of the market. I don't think it's going too far to suggest that I've been reasonably successful, but the images I'm producing aren't exactly ones that make your jaw drop either. To get to that level you'd need plenty more aperture and a larger mount to put it on (or you could go for a large GOTO dob, but they're not cheap either).

So I think your summary is fair. A pair of binoculars in the 10x50 or 15x70 range (you'll probably want a tripod or other support for the latter as they get heavy) is always worthwhile. Even if you buy a telescope later they'll still get used, so that's not a bad decision. If the bug bites then you'll want to take a telescope almost anywhere you go, but sometimes that's not possible or practical. Binoculars can go pretty much anywhere. And it means you can get out observing quickly whilst you give telescope purchasing a bit more thought.

James

[skfboiler]

When looking for my first scope a couple of years ago, I knew right away a DOB would frustrate me trying to keep objects in the field of view. I sacrificed the larger aperture DOB for an EQ mounted scope and I am so glad I did. I bought a single axis RA drive (less that $100) and objects stay in the field of view until I get tired of looking at it.

[JamesF]

When looking for my first scope a couple of years ago, I knew right away a DOB would frustrate me trying to keep objects in the field of view. I sacrificed the larger aperture DOB for an EQ mounted scope and I am so glad I did. I bought a single axis RA drive (less that $100) and objects stay in the field of view until I get tired of looking at it.

Motorised dobs are becoming far more common now, so even that isn't so much of an issue these days.

James