Struggling to build a rig for Astrophotography :S

[Hughesy94]

Hi everyone, you'll have to excuse my ignorance as this is my first post on the forum, and I'm also a beginner to astrophotography!

I'm trying to build a rig as I want to get into astrophotography, namely deep space once I've got to grips with it, But I'm unsure on what exactly I need :S

I've been reading a lot of these posts and have come to the conclusion a HEQ5 or an EQ6 is the minimum mount needed, but I'm getting a bit confused on the synscan/GOTO capabilities, does it have to be GOTO to track the star?

I'm also looking at 8" newtonians, and obviously a DSLR. What else is needed to get going?

Thanks guys

Alex

[PorkyB]

if you want to use an 8 inch Newt then a HEQ5 would be a good idea.  I use an EQ5 with my 200P but it is right at the weight limit and guiding is out of the question.  But just to give you an idea of what is possible with minimal kit, this is what I have done with my trusty old 200P, EQ5 with RA motor, Canon 1100D modded by Cheap Astrophotography, Astronimik CLS filter and Skywatcher coma corrector.

As for goto, the choice is entirely yours.  I have never needed goto but there have been plenty of times when it would have been useful.  For the £120 or so extra cost over the Syntrek model, I would say have it and keep your options open.

Horsehead Nebula by porkyb, on Flickr

[ollypenrice]

GoTo is not tracking but it is mighty important in the real world of imaging where time is tight and must not be wasted. If you use EQ Mod free software you can have free GoTo, I think, by linking to free planetarium software like Carte du Ciel. So the Synscan version of the mount without handset can still be made to Go To. I don't use this kit myself but I think that's the thrust of it and others will give an authoritative answer.

Obviously a DSLR? What's obvious about it? I went straight into CCD imaging. This is more expensive and you get a big chip for a low price wih a DSLR but you also get a huge pile of complications because you are not using the camera in its natural habitat. There is a case for saying, Use a smaller chip CCD and a smaller, shorter FL scope and get right to the heart of the matter. Let's nail one thing from the off. Monochrome CCD cameras with LRGB filters are faster - significantly faster - than DSLRs.

The idea that you have to start with a DSLR is becoming a kind of orthodoxy and I just don't buy it. I've had several guests who said that they considered it a blind alley and a waste of time.

Olly

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

[Hughesy94]

Wow great photos guys! This is what I aim to achieve, but obviously I'm right at the beginning!

I'm looking at the 200pds, I've heard it's quite a good scope for Astrophotography.

whilst I was doing astrophotography, would an auto guider be an essential bit of kit to track across the sky if a GOTO doesn't track?

Oh okay, I read about CCD imaging, is that a case of plugging a CCD camera straight from your telescope to a computer?

[cosmojaydee]

Buy and read "Making every photon count " sold by our sponsors , see link http://www.firstlightoptics.com/books/making-every-photon-count-steve-richards.html before you buy or do anything else 

[carastro]

You are getting confused between GOTO, tracking and guiding.

A motorised mount will track i.e. follow the sky rotation though you do need to align your mount properly for this to be accurate.

Goto, is a tool to enable you to go to an object.  

Guiding is an additional form of precise tracking that basically tweaks any inaccuracies in the basic tracking so you don't end up with elongated stars in a long exposure.

To answer your questions:

You don't need a GOTO handset if you are going to use a laptop and a Skywatcher mount as you can use EQMod and a planetarium software which will do this for you.  

With GOTO or EQMOd having aligned your mount accurately you just tell it where you want to go and the mount will take you there.

Autoguiding is essential if you want to do decent long exposure (as explained in my 3rd paragraph.

HTH

Carole 

[PeterCPC]

If it's DSO images you are after I would go for a wide field refractor like a ED80 which will be easier to guide and no real collimation issues. Guiding an 8" Newtonian will be more of a challenge than a short FL refractor.

Peter

[Hughesy94]

Thanks, Il buy it and give it a read!

Sorry about the complete lack of knowledge here guys, I've been doing my research, it just seems there's a load of different guilders, lens, and kit and I'm not sure on what exactly is needed!

I'm also trying to buy on a budget so I'm looking at second hand kit, which I know isn't preferable but if I get along with it then il commit more money as I have it

[PorkyB]

Well, if you're on a budget then your first priority is your mount.  That's the foundation everything else is built on.  You can add more kit as you gain experience.  I have been at this game for a couple of years and I am still limited by my ability, not my kit.  So, in summary:

Goto - not needed but it will save you time and frustration.

Guiding - not needed for exposures under two minutes, once you get good at polar alignment, but will be needed for longer exposures

The 200PDS is an excellent scope, but if you want to save some cash then the 130PDS is a great all-rounder and lots cheaper (and in my opinion much better) than an ED80.

[DaveS]

I think the 200 P-DS will be a bit much for the HEQ5. Yes, it will be within the load capacity, but it's a big old beast and a bit of a sail in any kind of wind.

Buy the book first and read it a couple of times before spending any more money. Also get a good idea of your budget, and STICK to it. AP can be a money pit and a slippery slope. I know, I originally was just going to buy an EQ3-2 to put my DSLR on, now look at the kit in my sig! And that's regarded as budget by some 

[Zakalwe]

Obviously a DSLR? What's obvious about it? I went straight into CCD imaging. This is more expensive and you get a big chip for a low price wih a DSLR but you also get a huge pile of complications because you are not using the camera in its natural habitat. There is a case for saying, Use a smaller chip CCD and a smaller, shorter FL scope and get right to the heart of the matter. Let's nail one thing from the off. Monochrome CCD cameras with LRGB filters are faster - significantly faster - than DSLRs.

The idea that you have to start with a DSLR is becoming a kind of orthodoxy and I just don't buy it. I've had several guests who said that they considered it a blind alley and a waste of time.

I'd agree with this too.

I regretted every minute that I spent with a DSLR. Processing the data was a PITA as every image that I took had "streaky" noise running through it which made the processing that much harder.  You can spot this noise on many DSLR images.

[Tommohawk]

Alex - its a really steep learing curve! And to complicate things you will get differences of opinions on what method is best.

I have a 200PDS (ex-demo, about £175 I think)  and have been pleased with the results - but its obvioulsy not small. An F4 Quattro is better if you can afford it - theres a 2nd hand one up somewhere for a good price. A decent refractor would probably cost a bit more, but much more manageable/portable. Important if you need to hike to a dark site or take it on holiday. The 200PDS definitely wouldn't make Ryanair cabin baggage limits.

Obviously if you already have a DSLR then thats the easiest starting point - especially if its Canon (much more Astro friendly) My Canon 550D was under £200, so relatively inexpensive.

As Olly says CCDs are more light sensitive, and so gather images more quickly - you can use either mono with filters, or "one shot" colour. Mono is usually preferred, but then you need filter wheel + filters too. When I did the sums 12 months back DSLR seemed to offer more bang for buck.

Worth noting too that DSLRs can do planetary too, especially the Canons with video crop mode.

But, thats just my view...!

[Hughesy94]

Yeah, I'm realising that this really is a steep learning curve! Aha

I'm in a relatively rural area and get a good night sky (most nights) so I'm looking to get a set up that il just use in the garden to get things going, or down the common at the bottom of the road.

I was originally inclined to go with a DSLR as they looked simpler to use and to work up to a CCD camera, but I'm starting to see that many people disagree with that statement?

I'm currently speaking to someone to get a second hand older version eq6 mount, as I've gathered the mount is the most important part and to buy that first. Its on for a decent price and would definitely help with the budget!

[steppenwolf]

The 200PDS is a nice 'scope that is suitable for deep sky imaging but in many ways, you would be better off with a shorter focal length to start you off - the longer the focal length, the harder it is to achieve accurate tracking and good tracking is vital for well shaped stars.

The mount is actually more important that any other component for astro-photography so don't skimp here but by all means buy second hand. It would be well worth your while having a read up about 'EQMod' - as mentioned above, this system uses your computer as a virtual handset with all sorts of advantages and a saving in cost. You might find this article of some interest.

[wxsatuser]

If your on a budget a dslr is a good start.

If the bug bites you can upgrade later.

[laser_jock99]

Obviously a DSLR? What's obvious about it? I went straight into CCD imaging. This is more expensive and you get a big chip for a low price wih a DSLR but you also get a huge pile of complications because you are not using the camera in its natural habitat. There is a case for saying, Use a smaller chip CCD and a smaller, shorter FL scope and get right to the heart of the matter. Let's nail one thing from the off. Monochrome CCD cameras with LRGB filters are faster - significantly faster - than DSLRs.

The idea that you have to start with a DSLR is becoming a kind of orthodoxy and I just don't buy it. I've had several guests who said that they considered it a blind alley and a waste of time.

Olly

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

There's also a lot to be said the simplicity of starting out with one shot colour DSLR astrophotography as opposed to 'jumping in the deep end' with mono CCD, filter wheels, etc.

Many people starting out in astrophotography probably already own a DSLR  so it makes  some sense to spend the initial outlay on a decent mount and scope and begin by attaching an existing camera to it while you learn the ropes of controlling the scope, guiding and the other 'basics'.

To the beginner I'd say AP is complicated enough- why make the initial learing curve steeper and more expensive than it is already?

[Zakalwe]

OSC CCD doesn't have a steep learning curve. In fact, I'd say that it's possibly easier than a DSLR as the data is better quality.

[Hughesy94]

This is all great help guys, really glad I posted on this forum lol I've learnt more tonight than I have in the past few days!

I'm really looking for the most simplistic way to get into this, as it's something that interests me, but as you're all saying getting to know the ropes first. I don't own a DSLR but have seen second hand modified cameras for relatively cheap, so it's whether DSLR is easier than CCD or whether I can get a decent set up with CCD without it being too expensive. I don't know anything/much about either, so id have to learn from scratch whichever I chose, so whatever is easiest for the beginner would be preferable for me? Il definitely invest in that book also as that looks really helpful

[themos]

easy, cheap, capable, pick any two.

[Hughesy94]

Well, I'd rather go for easy and capable, I don't mind spending a bit more to learn and fingers crossed end up with some half decent photos, but at the same time I don't have masses of money to throw at it, I'm looking to spend about £1000 to get going over the next few months, hopefully getting a second hand scope and mount should allow more for any additional equipment il need!

[ollypenrice]

I'd agree that the 130PDS is the top choice for budget AP and easier, as Steve says, than the larger 200P especially on an HEQ5 which is no longer in its comfort zone with an imaging Newt of that size. The Quattro is a challenging and difficult scope because of its fast F ratio and does not seem to be remotely 'plug and play' for many owners posting on here. There is only one way to image dead easily below F4 and it is a very expensive way! (The T word... Takahashi.  )

I'm going to stick to my guns regarding mono CCD, while accepting the point that some people might already have DSLRs and at that using them makes sense in these cases. I do not believe LRGB imaging in mono is more complicated. Blimey, I can do it and when I started doing so I had hardly touched a PC in my life. There is a principle in engineering which says 'complexity brings control.' The apparent complexity of changing filters four times brings control. You shoot the right amount of each. With most OSC systems you shoot too much green. With a CCD camera you can set the chip temperature and then be sure your dark frames will work properly and subtract what you want them to subtract. And as Zakalwe says, you have less noise to start with. For some reason I tended to find OSC CCD images rather more tricky to process than LRGB from a sister mono camera. I don't know why this was so but Sara said she found the same thing.

Whatever, it's a great adventure and nothing compares with seeing those wonders from the depths of space appear on your screen. Imagers often come from adventurous backgrounds like flying, motor sports, mountaineering, ocean sailing etc etc and they all find a huge buzz in AP.

Olly

[Hughesy94]

I'm starting to lean towards CCD, but a lot of what you said then was double Dutch! :S

I spose its just a case of picking it up and pressing on! Learn with experience! I'm in communications with a guy about the older eq6 mount with a GOTO handset, for a reasonably cheap price and then il get a scope, gives me more time to research! Aha

Yeah, I'd say I'm from a reasonably active background, I served with the reserves for a while, I'm big into a lot of different sports and I'm studying to do an astrophysics degree, but there's something about the whole process and from what I've seen almost 'delicacy' of creating that image, that is very inticing!

A

[Prenf]

As someone who is also starting the same journey I wish you all the best!

Iwent to local Astro groups (we're in the same area) and they were really useful plus the advice from on SGL has been invaluable, if daunting :-)

I have my scope and just waiting for the mount to arrive. Looks like my Nikon camera choice last year wasn't the best for my new adventure

[MattJenko]

While I am now a signed up member of the mono ccd club and a very happy one at that, I have to say I do not think the time spent with my Canon 450d was wasted at all. It gave me a gradual intro into AP without the significant financial outlay I have subsequently committed to the hobby, and allowed me to master a few of the fundamentals without the additional complexity of the full final kit. I look at my rig now, and would be completely overwhelmed if dropped into that straight away and to go there from the start without even being sure if this was for me would have been foolish (as well as extremely unlikely as I would not have known what to get).

There is a lot to be said to mastering small steps, one at a time and branching out as you go and get experienced. There is nothing more likely to put you off for good than simply not getting anything worthwhile out of your substantial efforts. If you can keep on improving as you go, it is a big incentive to keep pushing on. It also makes you appreciate the step up when your first shiny mono CCD turns up

[MattJenko]

To give some context, my modded Canon 450d cost less than my set of 3 1.25" Baader narrowband filters. It cost less than my filter wheel. It cost just a little more than the LRGB filters. It cost vastly less than the CCD itself, and in fact was one of the cheapest items I have. It was cheaper than my new motorfocuser. It cost less than my guide Camera (ASI120M). It cost less than PixInsight, etc etc etc.

I think that while the processing of a DSLR might well be harder, a cul de sac or an AP dead end in the long run, but when you are starting from nothing, even doing some processing at all - using DSS, Photoshop, staring in complete bafflement at PixInsight, calibration, stacking, stretching, noise reduction, saturation, curves, gradients, wavelets, HDR, DBE - these are all totally alien terms and learning these with dslr data or mono ccd data is kind of irrelevant as the processes and the theory behind it all are what needs to be understood. 

I guess what I am saying (and am going to shamelessly slip into some classic rock cliché) there is a journey, and it is not all about the final destination.