Buying a telescope for imaging

[the4horsemen]

Hello! I've been interested in astronomy for a number of years now but would now like to take my interest to the next level by purchasing a telescope which can be used for observing and imaging.

Up to now I've always used binoculars to view the night sky but would like to start to view objects and capture them

I want to therefore purchase a telescope that has this capability but would like something a little more advanced than the entry level models. I'm not going to say that money is no object but I would like to spend a bit more initially for something that has a steep learning curve and won't lead me to wanting to upgrade within 6 months as so many people who buy these models seem to do.

I've been reading a number of posts and reviews and wondering if it would be better to by a mount/tripod and telescope separately rather than a complete kit? The complete kits from Celestron for example appear to have well reviewed telescopes but always fall down on the mount and tripod.

I still cannot seem to find a clear answer anywhere on which type of telescope is more suited for imaging.

Any help would be much appreciated.

[swag72]

Imaging and visual aren't compatible as far as scopes go I'm afraid. THE most important thing in astrophotography is the mount. You need it to be a solid performing GEM, the general considered minimum is the HEQ5. You can pick them up second hand on ABS. With that mount you can take widefield images with your camera and not even need a telescope!

If you are wanting to get into AP, can I recommend the book 'making every photon count' that is available in the book section of the FLO website. It is a brilliant imagers bible and will make life much easier for you in the long run.

A good scope to use with the HEQ5 is an 80ED refractor. Many people use it to excellent effect. Nice and light and of a short focal length, the HEQ5 will buzz about with it all night. Make sure you get a mount capable of guiding, you will want that in time.

[JamesF]

Welcome to SGL

If you're interested in imaging, especially DSO imaging, then you should run, do not walk, and get a copy of Steve Richards "Making Every Photon Count" before spending money on anything else.

Finding something suitable for both imaging and visual will be troublesome though.  The requirements are different because your eye doesn't really work the same way as a camera.  It's probably better to a scope dedicated to each than to make compromises in both areas and get something that's not ideal for either.

James

[JamesF]

Blimey, I appear to be channelling Sara

James

[leemanley]

Start with your mount, the most important part of your set-up.
I must admit it would have made life a lot easier if I had started out with an NEQ6 but I just didnt have the means at the time !
As many on here will tell you, a good start would be an HEQ5pro, mine works like a dream when I guide with an Opticstar AR80s gold and image with an Opticstar ED80s gold, on a dual mounting bar, these are great scopes in terms of build quality and what you can achieve with them.

I've recentley put my 200pds back on the mount with an additional weight, and guide with the AR80, this is putting me at the very limits of what the mount can carry but careful balancing means its not impossible.

I'd say buying seperatly is a good route to go, allowing more freedom of choice to build your own set-up bit by bit
 

[ronin]

The retailers tend to sell a visual kit not generally an imaging kit. You usually have to construct an imaging kit out of your choice of equipment.

[Uplooker]

Hi,

I certainly agree with most of what the others have said i.e. the mount is most important for imaging and to purchase Every Photon Counts by Steve Richards (I have a copy myself) but where i would differ slightly is that a scope can be had to do both visual and imaging. I would suggest one of the most widely purchased scopes - a Sky Watcher 200P, It has 8" of aperture, which will show most things well. It is also fast, being F5 (Note to OP - F6 and above being slow, F5 and below being fast) therefore will be good for astro photography.

The one shown in the link below comes on a HEQ5:-

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-200p-heq5-pro.html

although it does include GoTo capability. This may or may not be your bag.

I think that it can sometimes be better to buy as a bundle as there can be a significant saving than if the two items were bought separately.

As this will be the OP first scope it probably better to try and see what suits and go on from there rather than jumping straight in an getting a setup that is more biased to imaging.

You will find that most people on here and in astronomy in general having a leaning towards refractors or reflectors - not a bad thing just a preference.

Ian

[nmoushon]

+1 for everything said above. HEQ5 minimum and book. Also it wasn't really specified clear in the OP but I'm assuming your wanting to do DSO imaging (Deep Sky Object) and not Planetary imagin? Because you can really do both with one telescope.  Since you don't have a set budget after reading the book suggested I would then decide on what kind of object your most drawn too. If its nebula then there are several very good wide field scope that can sit on the HEQ5 and work perfectly and not need a more expensive mount. You can then spend more of your budget on a higher end scope or camera. If you are wanting to image smaller objects like galaxies and planetary nebula then you will want to up your mount to the NEQ6 with a scope that has a longer focal length. Both setups will need guiding which the book covers all that as well. If you want to do planetary imaging then that a completely different setup you will be looking into. Well at least scope and camera wise. The mounts tend to stay the same.

[the4horsemen]

Thanks for all the great advice so far. Have already ordered said book and will relish reading it over the next week. If I were to opt for something such as a NEQ6 would to be able to cope with the weight of say a Skywatcher Explorer 300 Reflector and a DSLR? Seems a bit touch and go according to the specs?

[Scott]

ok, you've ordered the book.....great start. as mentioned earlier visual and ap aren't really all that similar when it comes to scopes. having said that I'm using a 200p newt on an neq6 becauseI can't afford to get a frac just yet, but believe me, as soon as i can i will.  a 1000mm focal length is a challenge for folk with a lot more experience than me so a shorter frac has gotta be easier.  not having used a 300p I can't say for sure how you'd go with it but I will say that even the 200p is a bit of a "sail in the wind" if it's not dead calm. If you can, get a good mount, a smallish frac and a largish dob for visual.....better yet, read the book .

[lensman57]

Hello! I've been interested in astronomy for a number of years now but would now like to take my interest to the next level by purchasing a telescope which can be used for observing and imaging.

Up to now I've always used binoculars to view the night sky but would like to start to view objects and capture them

I want to therefore purchase a telescope that has this capability but would like something a little more advanced than the entry level models. I'm not going to say that money is no object but I would like to spend a bit more initially for something that has a steep learning curve and won't lead me to wanting to upgrade within 6 months as so many people who buy these models seem to do.

I've been reading a number of posts and reviews and wondering if it would be better to by a mount/tripod and telescope separately rather than a complete kit? The complete kits from Celestron for example appear to have well reviewed telescopes but always fall down on the mount and tripod.

I still cannot seem to find a clear answer anywhere on which type of telescope is more suited for imaging.

Any help would be much appreciated.

Hi,

I only have one simple advice, buy something that you can sell on easily and with not too much loss. Given the unpredictable weather over many parts of the UK you are at the mercy of nature. There is no point in paying £4000.00 for a TAK and use it a dozen times a year, if that. Reading the book will help you.

A.G

[rowan46]

Hello! I've been interested in astronomy for a number of years now but would now like to take my interest to the next level by purchasing a telescope which can be used for observing and imaging.

Up to now I've always used binoculars to view the night sky but would like to start to view objects and capture them

I want to therefore purchase a telescope that has this capability but would like something a little more advanced than the entry level models. I'm not going to say that money is no object but I would like to spend a bit more initially for something that has a steep learning curve and won't lead me to wanting to upgrade within 6 months as so many people who buy these models seem to do.

I've been reading a number of posts and reviews and wondering if it would be better to by a mount/tripod and telescope separately rather than a complete kit? The complete kits from Celestron for example appear to have well reviewed telescopes but always fall down on the mount and tripod.

I still cannot seem to find a clear answer anywhere on which type of telescope is more suited for imaging.

Any help would be much appreciated.

What you are looking for for imaging is a small, fast , well colour corrected refractor.

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/pro-series/skywatcher-evostar-80ed-ds-pro-ota.html

unfortunately these are not great  scopes for visual as they are too small  that on a heq5 will keep you going for quite a while on the imaging front. with the money saved by not having to buy an eq8 to put a 300 on for imaging you can get a decent sized dobsonion reflector for visual

[ollypenrice]

There is no need to go for big aperture in imaging. But there is every reason to go for 'more mount than scope.' It is true that an 8 or 10 inch Newt is the only low cost scope which can do both visual and DS imaging well. It can even do planetary to some extent. However, the 8 inch is 'imaging marginal' on the HEQ5 and the 10 inch takes the NEQ6 closer to its limit. An 8 inch on an NEQ6 might be a good place to start. However, DS imaging is difficult and small refractors make it less so! Sara's ED80/HEQ5 Pro would be my own choice for DS starters as well.

In imaging GoTo is all but essential for many reasons. You want to image things you can't see. You want to slew away to find a focus star and slew back. You want to recover after a guiding failure due to cloud. You absolutely DON'T want to be taking out the camera to put in an EP and then doing the opposite. And time is absolutely of the essence. You have none to waste.

Olly

http://ollypenrice.smugmug.com/Other/Best-of-Les-Granges/22435624_WLMPTM#!i=2277139556&k=FGgG233

[laser_jock99]

An EQ6 is a very solid basis for imaging and will take you a long way. Imaging with a 12" scope on an EQ6 is kind of pushing the limits- unless you had a permanent pier / observatory I would not really reccomend it as setting up and stripping down nightly is a strain (even in my obseratory I need pulleys to lift the 12" into place.....). As Olly says aperture isn't everything (well most of the time...) and the biggest thing to get right early on is the mount. If you really get bitten by the bug you'll soon find that one telescope won't cover all your needs anyway- so having a mount that will take the biggest scope you're likely to own is the way forward. 

[malc-c]

Best bit of advice is to run a similar search of this forum.  This subject is one of the most common subjects and I think you'll find most of your questions will be answered.  If you want to do a bit of visual observing, but also want to connect a digital SLR camera body to take long exposures to capture some of the brighter DSO's then I would suggest the HEQ5 / 200PDS as an ideal combi.  As previously stated you'll be hard push to find a perfect all rounder, but the 200PDS on an HEQ5 will come close.  It's an F5 8" reflector with an oversized secondary making it more suited to imaging, but still gives a decent contrast when used visually.  The HEQ5 mount has the precision to give good tracking, but if you can afford it the EQ6 will provide better load carrying should you later add guide scopes and cameras etc.

[DrRobin]

You can use a scope designed for imaging, visually, it might not be optimum but it will work just fine.  As mentioned for DSO's aperture is second to F number.  Fast imaging scopes are around F/4 or faster, but an F/5 scope will still be fine.  The exposure rate goes up as the square of the F number, so an exposure on my F/4 will be 6.25 times faster than my F/10 scope.  Look at field of view as well and look at the angular size of the objects you want to image.  That C11 might look like a great scope but it's FoV is tiny and a lot of DSOs won't fit without a focal reducer or full frame camera.

And then there is guiding, any mount not matter how expensive is likely to be needed to be guided once the exposure gets over 60 seconds, otherwise you will throw away lots of frames due to movement.  My NEQ6 will manage 60 secs unguided and even 90 secs, but I do throw away over half at 90 secs unguided.  When it is guided with a finderscope and camera it will manage 5 minutes, the longest I have done so far.

If it is planets you are after then you need a long focal length scope, like a C11 or a 12" Newt.  You can use these scopes for DSOs as well, but there are problems and you might end up with two scopes.  For my C11, I have a Hyperstar kit, it turns it in to a F/2 scope with focal length of around 570mm, with exposure times 25x faster than when it is an F/10 scope.  For the cost of the Hyperstar you could buy a good second scope, but it doesn't take up as much space and there aren't many F/2 scopes out there.

Robin

[ajohnson]

Hi,

I certainly agree with most of what the others have said i.e. the mount is most important for imaging and to purchase Every Photon Counts by Steve Richards (I have a copy myself) but where i would differ slightly is that a scope can be had to do both visual and imaging. I would suggest one of the most widely purchased scopes - a Sky Watcher 200P, It has 8" of aperture, which will show most things well. It is also fast, being F5 (Note to OP - F6 and above being slow, F5 and below being fast) therefore will be good for astro photography.

The one shown in the link below comes on a HEQ5:-

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-200p-heq5-pro.html

I'd agree with this as good start point for a scope with potential for AP and visual, but if you are going to go down the reflector route, my only comment here would be to go for the 200PDS. For two reasons:

First the PDS has a 2 speed focuser which provides a lot of fine control when focussing.

Second, and most important, the PDS models all have marginally shorter OTA , this puts the focus point of the scope slightly higher (50mm or so) in the focus tube compared to the 200P. This means that you can attach a camera and have plenty of back focus without having to use a barlow or other methods to try and get focus, this is a common issue with many reflectors. To use an eyepiece the PDS comes with a 50mm extension collar for the eyepiece so that it is still useable as a visual scope. 

Refractors don't tend to suffer this problem, in fact you may need to buy an extension tube to fit a camera to compensate for not using a diagonal on some.

There are ardent supporters of reflectors and refractors here, I use both for different things. I have an 80mm Refractor which is brilliant for wide field shots, but I also have a 300PDS which is a brilliant visual scope and a good light bucket for hunting feint deep sky objects with a camera. I use a NEQ6 mount, which groans a bit with the 300 and guider, I will probably down size for a 200 or 250mm refractor for deep sky imaging, in the UK the sky does not stay clear long enough for a decent refractor to capture sufficient data (my opinion only I'm sure others will disagree), I will then need to build a dob mount for the 300!.  

[laser_jock99]

 in the UK the sky does not stay clear long enough for a decent refractor to capture sufficient data (my opinion only I'm sure others will disagree),

Certainly a valid point to consider in the UK- faster optics for gathering more data in those infrequent clear spells!!!