Astrophotography from new

[MND]

Hi guys,

Havent had a scope long and with all the clouds I've spent a lot more time inside reading than out!

I have been so impressed by photos on here, even from beginners, that I really like the thought of astrophotography.

I know nothing about photography, never even had much of a camera so whatever I did would be from square one.

With this in mind do you think it would be better to go DSLR or CCD route?

I've bought and devoured Every Photon and although either route looks full of complications, steep learning and expense, I do quite fancy having a crack at it.

TIA

[Alien 13]

Astrophotography is not for the faint hearted but it is easier to get into with a DSLR and much cheaper the results with a fast scope can be very good.

Alan

[Langy]

I guess mentioning DSLR & CCD you are talking about DSO and prime focus.

This is serious stuff beyond my budget of a good mount with tracking scopes etc.

Now I know nothing about most of this part of than a good history of photographic experience.

I would guess that a CCD which is being far more expensive would end up being the easiest as everything is controlled from the laptop. A DSLR will be heavier, more chance of vibration. The CCD would be lighter fit nicely onto a scope and is designed only for that use.

I will leave it to the experts to argue which is best, but I suspect that if money was no object then the CCD route would give the long term better options.

[Nikonman]

Like you I'm new, but unlike you I do have a DSLR so will start with that. From my reading though - if you have a compact digital camera why not give that a try first so as to check all the complications of image stacking et al.

[swag72]

An interesting quandry and one that cannot be taken lightly. My first point is that if you are starting from the beginning and have nothing but the book Making Every Photon Count then have you already decided on a mount? I ask as this is THE single most important factor in DSO imaging, not the camera as would appear logical, afterall it is astrophotograpghy right?

Mount first ............. Did I say mount first?!!! If you are then thinking about a DSLR or a CCD then I assume that you are prepared to throw the budget at the hobby that is required? Personally speaking there seems to be a thought that there is a 'rite of passage' from DSLR to CCD. Having used a DSLR I disagree with this and if you have the budget and ability to learn then a CCD will be more productive in the long run. If you have no preconceived idea about DSLR's then that's even better.

So........... Mount and then camera!! CCD all the way from me. I don't feel that it's any more difficult to process data from a mono CCD, infact quite the opposite as the data is generally more suited to astro processing from the off.

[MND]

I never thought to say about my scope. Its a 9.25 XLT on a CG5 GT. I have no idea if this is fast or slow or even good enough/suitable for any kind of photography

[nmoushon]

Definately heed Sara's advise. I would suggest the exact same thing.

In regards to your current equipement. The CG5 isn't the easiest to start AP with but its definately doable. Your C9.25 can have great potential for planetary and lunar imaging but will be a mighty struggle if you want to do DSO (Deep Sky Objects) image. i.e. nebula and galaxies. There are several reason for this: 1.) The main factor being its long focal length. Because of this even the smallest of error in tracking/guiding will show up in your images and ruin them. Unfortunately your mount is not quite up to par to be able to handle long exposure imaging. You might be able to get 5min or so subs if you manage to get good guiding but I think that would be the max. 2.) It is a very slwo scope ( F/10 focal ratio ) so you will need very long exposures to get the same amount of data for any given time with a faster scope. Exmaple a 2min exposuer with a scope of F/6 would get you the same amount of data as say a 10min exposure with a scope at F/10. (Thats not exact science there but its close enough to get the point across) 3.) I'm not sure of the XLT series and how it differs from the original plain C9.25 but assuming they are the same you will have coma issues as well as not having a curved field. Both creating unwanted star shapes and colors.

I see a couple possible options.

1.) Keep your current set up and go strickly planetary and lunar imaging. With this you will need a camera that takes video instead of still pictures. But you could, for the budget of a DSLR with video mode, buy a dedicated planetary camera that would work great for both planets and lunar shots.

2.) Keep your current scope and upgrade your mount to at least an HEQ5 if not an EQ6. This will allow you to image long exposures with your current scope. Though you WILL NEED a form of guiding. This will require a seperate camera to guide with and I would suggest guiding with an OAG (Off-axis guider) vs a seperate guide scope. DSLR or CCD is a option here.

3.) Keep your current scope but only use it for visual use (or add #1 in also). Then buy a small refractor similar to an ED80. These are small, lite and fast scopes. This will allow you to take long exposure and gather lots of data fast. You could get up to about 2min unguided subs potentially. Though I would also suggest going the guided route with this set up as well. DSLR or CCD is a option here.

4.) If you have the budget I would keep your C9.25 and restrict it to visual and/or planetary/lunar imaging. Sell your mount and put that money towards buying a HEQ5/EQ6 and a ED80. DSLR or CCD is a option here.

Of course all this is dependant on your budget. You havent mentioned one so these options could change or get thrown out all together. Have you thought about a budget? You should because you can easily spend several thousand even on a "starter kit". You don't have to spend that much but you easily can.

[Ags]

I would say you have an excellent mount, but I would think a C9.25 is too much for it for long-exposure imaging.

As a suggestion, get a DSLR like an 1100D and a good prime lens like the Canon 200/2,8. Mount these on your current mount (just the camera and lens, no scope) and you should be able to get exposures running into minutes at a very fast photographic speed (1 minute of the canon lens is worth over 9 minutes of the C9.25). Before others rush to correct me, the SCT would capture more zoomed-in detailed images, while the canon lens would capture more widefield, zoomed-out images. That's OK, because a lot of the best targets are huge and can be captured most easily by a widefield lens like the canon.

[ollypenrice]

See, loads of contradictory advice already!

It's all very complicated but don't put a DSLR in a C9.25. This really isn't a good idea because... ah! And here we go, getting lost in the details. (The pixels are far too small for the focal length.) Here's my take on it, and I'm going to repeat advice given to me by Ian King (of Ian King Imaging) when I started imaging digitally some eight or so years ago;

Go straight into monochrome CCD imaging. Don't bother with DSLR or one shot colour. They are not easier.

Don't struggle with your long focal length SCT. This is not the place to start. Begin with a short focal length small, fastish ED refractor.

Autoguide a German equatorial mount from day one. This is just a fact of imaging life so learn about it.

I followed this advice, initially in a bit of a bemused state of confusion, but it was excellent advice and I cheerfully repeat it now. DSLRs have a nice big chip for a low price but are, I reckon, a blind alley and can make you waste a lot of time. I now meet lots of astrophotographers through my work and many have come to exactly this conclusion themselves.

Olly

http://ollypenrice.smugmug.com/Other/Best-of-Les-Granges/22435624_WLMPTM#!i=2266922474&k=Sc3kgzc

[Ags]

Hey Olly, didn't I see you on another thread recently thinking about getting a canon 60Da if the price dropped to 800 euros?

Also, I wasn't suggesting using a DSLR with the SCT - even with a reducer, it is too slow, and the current mount is not suitable. I only mentioned the SCT because someone was biound to point out the SCT gathers more light than the canon lens (but the important thing is the SCT produces an image more slowly on the sensor).

[GuillermoBarrancos]

Hey Olly, didn't I see you on another thread recently thinking about getting a canon 60Da if the price dropped to 800 euros?

ROFL!!!

/hides in corner to stay out of the way.

[IanL]

I think you can already see the potential money pit that AP can turn in to if you get hooked. That is a big 'if' though, and I'd be rather wary of all the helpful advice that you should spend a wad of cash on a new mount, a new scope and a CCD camera (with filters, filter wheel, etc.)  You'd be looking at somewhere in the region of £3,000 to get a fairly basic set up (especially when you factor in all the extras like a laptop, dew heaters, power supplies, cables and of course software to run it all).  You might do it for less if you shop around and buy decent second hand kit, but it is a lot of money to risk on a new hobby that you don't even know if you'll enjoy.

Unless you are a lottery winner, I'd suggest you try dipping your toes in the water first.  A couple of people have already suggested lunar/planetary imaging as the place to get started and I'd agree with them wholeheartedly. All you need to add to your current set-up is a suitable camera and you will have an ideal rig for the job (aperture and long focal length, the latter of which would make beginning DSO imaging very hard but is ideal for lunar/planetary work).  There are lots of suitable cameras on the market at a variety of prices that would not break the bank (again look as the classifieds on here and ABS as stuff comes up all the time):

- You can do afocal imaging (through the eyepiece) using your smartphone camera, or a compact point and shoot; additional cost £0.

- A cheap webcam and a nose piece would get you started for well under £100 (assuming you have a laptop to run it).

- A second hand DSLR at prime focus would set you back maybe £200-300 depending on model, as well as letting you dabble with DSO imaging (it isn't impossible on your current scope, just hard to the point of either making you determined to spend money like water for more suitable kit or putting you off completely  ).

- For similar money and upwards you can get dedicated planetary cameras that will give you really good results after a bit of practice, plus if you get a model with a long-exposure option it could double as a guide camera later if you do decide on more cameras, scopes, mounts, etc.

The upshot is that there are plenty of retailers who will take your money if you have it available to spend, but it might be a better idea to ease yourself in to the hobby with something relatively inexpensive.  Bear in mind that there is a healthy second-hand market for even low-end imaging kit like this so you can always sell it to fund bigger purchases later.

[MND]

All I can say is wow! I didn't expect to get so many informative different responses! I have a million questions for all of you, especially on the things I hadn't even considered, like just using a camera and no scope.

Have to compose on the tarin in the morning though, that 4.30am alarm call is getting too close for comfort......

[Langy]

Camera and no scope is great fun. If you have a compact you can even start with that. Ideally it would be best if you can control the exposure times.

First thing, sit the camera on a tripod or somewhere it will not move. If you don't have a remote release cable use the timer on the camera.

Exposure times you may have to experiment with but as a guide on a 300mm lens for my 300D it is down to 1.3 seconds, with  wide angle 18mm lens I could go as long at 28 seconds.

Trial and error is the key, digital is great as you can view the results straight away.

You can also take multiple images of the same thing and then stack them in some free software like DSS.

So with no scope and camera only it can be as cheap as you like and you can actually get some very nice results.

[Owmuchonomy]

Hi, I wasn't going to get involved because I know what will happen!  However, I have the same scope as you.  So I feel qualified to comment.  I don't disagree with other comments but thought I'd post a few photos so you can see it can be done.  Depends how fussy you are on the results.  I use a normal canon 600D with the 9.25 XLT and sometimes a 0.63 flattener/reducer.  I use a DSLR purely because I use it elsewhere a lot and can't afford a CCD (yet).  Mount is an HEQ5 Pro; this is your primary consideration for AP in my view.  I haven't guided the 9.25.

[ollypenrice]

Hey Olly, didn't I see you on another thread recently thinking about getting a canon 60Da if the price dropped to 800 euros?

Also, I wasn't suggesting using a DSLR with the SCT - even with a reducer, it is too slow, and the current mount is not suitable. I only mentioned the SCT because someone was biound to point out the SCT gathers more light than the canon lens (but the important thing is the SCT produces an image more slowly on the sensor).

  Yes, it would be tempting for a very specific kind of imaging - widefield through a camera lens at very short focal lengths and fast F ratios. The tiny pixels play extrememy well in these cirumstances but not in most telescopes.

I wasn't referring to your post in advising against a DSLR in an SCT. I just don't think it's a good idea because of the pixel scale and the impossibility of resolving at the scale the setup would impose.

Olly

PS Mobile phone abbreviations are lost on me since I've never had one, so I don't know what ROFL means!!! (I'm incredibly old, you know...)

[ollypenrice]

Hi, I wasn't going to get involved because I know what will happen!  However, I have the same scope as you.  So I feel qualified to comment.  I don't disagree with other comments but thought I'd post a few photos so you can see it can be done.  Depends how fussy you are on the results.  I use a normal canon 600D with the 9.25 XLT and sometimes a 0.63 flattener/reducer.  I use a DSLR purely because I use it elsewhere a lot and can't afford a CCD (yet).  Mount is an HEQ5 Pro; this is your primary consideration for AP in my view.  I haven't guided the 9.25.

M66.jpgMoonflip.jpg

Good result. I'd suggest doing a separate layer for the stars so you don't get the sharpening or deconvolution artefacts around them.

The reason I posted as I did was because the OP made a point of starting from scratch and I do strongly disagree with the oft-expressed advice that you somehow have to pass through a DSLR stage. I teach lots of beginners on CCD rigs from day one and there really is no great mystery to it. Of course it certainly is true that the DSLR gives a lot of real estate for the money.

Olly

[GuillermoBarrancos]

PS Mobile phone abbreviations are lost on me since I've never had one, so I don't know what ROFL means!!! (I'm incredibly old, you know...)

Sorry about that. Old habbits don´t die.

ROFL = Roll On Floor Laughing

some others:

ROFLMAO = Roll On Floor Laughing My Ass Off

LOL = Laughing Out Loud

BRB = Be Right Back

Tnx = Thanks / Thank You

CU = See you

[swag72]

This is how I see it at the moment ............... Go back and read Making Every Photon Count.

Consider the following.

1) What is the general recommended starting point for DSO imaging ......... compare this to what you have.

2) Different types of camera .............. You need to do some research and really decide where you want to go with this.

3) Guiding .......... Do you understand this and the necessity of it for DSO imaging?

Regarding blowing a lot of money on a hobby that you've never tried, look on ABS and purchase second hand, that way if you decide it's not for you, you can resell at little or no loss.

I have recently added a C9.25 to my kit and I bought it second hand, knowing that if I didn't like it or get on with it I could sell it for what I paid for it.

I did initially do a post including stuff about your mount and guiding etc with your C9.25, but have you really got the reasons of why you need it, the benefits of guiding and what you can achieve as opposed to not guiding.

This is just a couple of my thoughts following on from what others have said and from your post about what scope /  mount combo you have. I don't wish to sound patronising or negative, but I can't help thinking there are things you really need to get clear first before thinking of the next step.

I hope that helps

[GuillermoBarrancos]

I never thought to say about my scope. Its a 9.25 XLT on a CG5 GT. I have no idea if this is fast or slow or even good enough/suitable for any kind of photography

The 9.25 XLT is an awesome Scope, but not the easiest scope to start out with, when it comes to DSO imaging.

Even with a 0,63 Focal Reducer, a DSLR will not be the best to use due to it´s small pixel size. It is doable, but you will need long exposure times and the results won´t be the best.

Which brings us to the mount. The CG5-GT is a good mount, but I think the 9.25 SCT will be pushing it over the limit for DSO imaging.

The new Celestron Advanced VX and Skywatcher HEQ5 Pro is the recommended minimum for the 9.25 SCT, tho even then it´s pushing it. People most commonly use the NEQ6 Pro mount with the 9.25 SCT.

Ofcourse it cannot hurt to try, if your mind is totally set on it. But it will be very challenging with a lot of hurdles to overcome.

This is what you should be looking at first. The 0,63 Focal Reducer and On Axis Guider:

http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p2791_TS-f-6-3-Corrector---Off-Axis-Guider-for-Schmidt-Cassegrain.html

Then a guide camera, like the QHY5-II:

http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p5635_Astrolumina-ALccd5-II---new-version-of-the-Autoguider-Planetary-camera.html

If you have the budget for it, then I would definitely recommend looking at a CCD camera rather than a DSLR.

The best bang for the buck entry Level CCD camera is the One Shot Color QHY8L, which fortunately enough, is actually excellent for longer focal lengths due to it´s larger pixel size.

http://www.modernastronomy.com/camerasQHY.htm#qhy8l

And here some youtube videos by Astronomyshed regarding this camera:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw8i5DMZ4SQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo5VbLPQHxE

But in all honesty tho. I think you should consider upgrading your mount first.

[starnut]

So much advice, here's an easier and cheaper solution down load images from the internet and say there yours and you can do it on cloudy nights too.

[MND]

I think starnut wins!

To be honest I'm no clearer now than before I asked which is far more a reflection on my limited astronomy experience than the advice given.

What I'm not sure about is why the mount isn't good enough for the scope, why is this and what advantage does a HEQ5 give over a CG5?

I really can't make my mind up about which way to go although I think buy a DSLR would be the cheaper toe in the water route and just use on the mount with no scope. CCD route would also mean buying a laptop unless an iPad is possible, probably not.

 

[DaveS]

The CG5 is essentially a slightly better version of the Skywatcher EQ5, whereas the HEQ5 is in a whole different league, both for carrying capacity and guiding ability.

[nmoushon]

I think starnut wins!

To be honest I'm no clearer now than before I asked which is far more a reflection on my limited astronomy experience than the advice given.

What I'm not sure about is why the mount isn't good enough for the scope, why is this and what advantage does a HEQ5 give over a CG5?

I really can't make my mind up about which way to go although I think buy a DSLR would be the cheaper toe in the water route and just use on the mount with no scope. CCD route would also mean buying a laptop unless an iPad is possible, probably not.

 

There are 2 main reasons. 1.) The HEQ5 has a higher carring capacity. This means that the gears and motors are rated to hold X amount of weight and still perform to the standards it was designed for. If you go over this weight you start to push the gears and motors too hard and this can lead to unwanted things such as gears slipping and motor burning out. You have to put a lot of weight on it to burn out the motors so thats an extreme you and dont have to worry about that. 2.) More importantly; The HEQ5 has a more accurate tracking than the CG5. This plays into both unguided and guided imaging. The more accurate the tracking on the mount the longer you can image unguided and guided. This will allow for unguided imaging to be longer with out star trails appearing and if you abide by the weight limit you wont have to worry about back lash which will make the mount jump and this will produce swiggly lines since the stars will also jump. For guiding this makes it easier to guide out any possible errors such as poor polar alignment thus even longer subs ar achievable. So at short focal length the noticeable error rate is very forgiving and thus will take longer for you to notice any errors. But at long focal lengths the errors are noticeable very quickly because your are "zoomed-in". So the more accurate tracking of the mount the longer you can go without these error occuring and if you get into guiding the easier the guiding program can make adjustments so that the error are eliminated.

Another thing you need to consider is the the stated capacity of these cheaper mounts (not that they are cheap in any way just that they are not semi-proffesional mounts) is a visual capacity. So this means if you are only going to use this mount to look visually through your scope this is the max size scope this mount can carry without it straining to track accurately. If you go over your mount will wobble as it tracks and you will see this through the eye piece. BUT for AP with the cheaper mounts (HEQ5 included) the rule of thumb is the cut the stated visual capacity in half and this is the suggested weight limit for astrophotography. So if you have a mount with a visual capacity of 30kg but want to do AP with you will need to make sure you combined weight of all your imaging equipement is no more than 15kg. Or at least around 15kg. (That includes scope, camera, finder scope, guidescope, ect) As stated its a suggestion and there is no set rule as every mount behave differently even if they are the same make and model.

DSLR will be the much cheaper route especially if you dont have a laptop. But remeber you will need a laptop if you ever get into guiding. There are stand alone guiders that dont need a compture but they arent the best. Duable but not as good as a seperate guide cam/laptop setup.

[GuillermoBarrancos]

If you don't have a laptop or a PC, then DSO imaging is going to be almost impossible. Even with a DSLR.

As long exposures produce a lot of noise, especially with an uncooled DSLR.

You will need to at least take dark frames and preferably also flats and then process everything in dedicated astro software.

I really think you should take a deep breath, step back for a moment. Buy the book "Make Every Photon Count" (if you haven't already) and start reading it, to get an idea about what's involved.

First thing you need to do, is set a budget. How much do you want to spend?

Then, if you want to stick to the CG5, as it's not a bad mount, start with a short focal length APO like the 80ED. As it's much lighter and far more forgiving than the long focal length and heavy 9.25 SCT.