General advice for a good set-up in light polluted area

[adh325]

Hi, would really appreciate some help / advice or opinions on a good set-up for some general deep sky observing / astrophotography.

When I was a kid I had a fairly basic 80mm refractor and loved it, but haven't owned a telescope for about 20 years, so I'm a bit out of touch! I've done quite a bit or research, and it seems for my total budget / expectation, a reflector would probably be best. I've been looking fairly seriously at a Sky-Watcher 200 pds with HEQ5 mount. Does anyone have this set-up? Can they offer any comments on it?

I'm getting more into photography and have a Sony RX10 bridge camera which is fine for day to day stuff, but useless for astrophotography since the lens isn't removable. I've looked at people's experiences of both DSLR and CCD but to be honest I'm not sure which way to go. I've seen good secondhand camera bodies on eBay for £100 or less, but would be willing to spend £200 - £300 on a CCD if that was considered better. The main advantage I can see it's the fact the multiple frames can be used for stacking, easier than multiple separate exposures with a DSLR?

Finally, I live right on the edge of central Edinburgh, so I have a light pollution issue. It's not horrendous, but it's noticeable. Will this prevent me from achieving decent images, or are these light pollution filters really as good as they say?

Any advice much appreciated!

Thanks, Andy

[ronin]

You have sort of opposing requirements: DSO observing really means an big light gathering scope, astrophotography generally is a small fast scope and that on a good solid mount.

Almost the answer is one good mount HEQ5 or bigger or equivalent and then a DSO scope and also an astrophotography scope. It comes down to the requirements being different. People have put a 200PDS on an HEQ5 and it works but the scope is prone to catching any breeze. Also remember you are adding a camera to the load as well.

Cannot think of a ccd for £200-300, are you perhaps thinking of the ZWO cameras that are CMOS, they are good however. A CCD/CMOS for DSO operates the same as a DSLR for DSO you stack seperate exposures, say twenty 30 (or 60) second exposures. Stacking "frames" is generally the reference used when you take a movie (.avi file) for planetary imaging.

LP, I suspect you are stuck, the LP is now usually so many wavelengths that a simple or single filter cannot do it. I tend to be pragmatic and either accept the local LP or jump in the car and go for a drive. It is to my thinking one of those things that passing comment on it will have little effect. I know that if I found a cabinet with a big switch to switch off the lights local to me then by the time I had closed the cabinat and made it back to the house 20 people will have rang up about the light failure, and they would be back on.

Is it the observing or the AP aspect that holds the predominate role for you?

Decide that then choose the initial equipment.

[adh325]

Thanks for the reply Ronin. Yes I think my terminology is wrong on the camera. I was referring to the cheaper Celestron type cameras which are CMOS.

Perhaps my expectations are too high, and I'm trying to strike an impossible balance for the scope. I used to just like browsing the sky, but I'm fascinated by the amazing images amateurs manage to produce with relatively modest kit. I thought the 200pds scope was specifically marketed as a 'fast' reflector scope, but not maybe not fast enough? I know some of these small doublet or triplet scopes can run into thousands. Do these smaller refractors offer a better image, even though the light gathering capability is much lower?

On the mount - my 'observatory' would be a patio surrounded by high walls, not sure if that helps the stability / wind issue. Is the issue that the scope is simply just too big? Is the CCD / CMOS type camera more forgiving in this respect, since you can ditch bad frames (and the exposure times are shorter)?

LP around me is primarily sodium type orange colour lamps which I'm hoping would make it easier to filter-out. But I'm not adverse to taking a drive like you suggest if there's something I really want to capture.

Forgive me on any bad terminology, I know a little bit from the research I've done, but far from any type of expert! Thanks.

[Charic]

Thanks for the reply Ronin. Yes I think my terminology is wrong on the camera. I was referring to the cheaper Celestron type cameras which are CMOS.

 I used to just like browsing the sky, but I'm fascinated by the amazing images amateurs manage to produce with relatively modest kit. 

adh325, Andy, welcome to SGL. A 200P Skyliner is about as perfect a  system for general visual observations only, portable enough for an able body, light enough for an able body, and will fit across the back seat of a Focus sized 5 door car! and just so easy and quick to set up and use, I did that on purpose, set up just requires placing on a flat surface, and away you go. You can 'snap' some images  with a mobile camera or  DSLR but a  Dobsonian  like the Skyliner was not intended for astrophotography. The Explorer 200PDS may offer better access to astrophotography,  more to follow.

If you want astrophotography, then its a whole bunch of difference to normal daylight photography, but more important than the camera / telescope is the supporting system, which needs to be rock solid to prevent  blurring of the image, yet still needs  to track critically and smoothly to follow a target,  again without blurring the image. This is where the system fails if you don't get it right. Any camera will receive enough photons if the shutter is left open for long enough, no matter what the medium, although there are dedicated cameras, and some that just work better and easier than others. I have a Nikon system, most folk would recommend Cannon as the most popular DSLR. Even web cams work well  modified?

But unless  you have a rock solid  support  system ( expensive )  the  best optics in  the World  (your telescope/camera system)  are  about as useful as a chocolate fire-guard,

I have a good book called Making Every Photon Count, and in it, it mentions my scope, your possible scope?  but also mentions  a much smaller apertured telescope, from the same company, and most of the imaging is done with the smaller scope?

Get yourself a read / copy of the book  http://www.firstlightoptics.com/books/making-every-photon-count-steve-richards.html and you may just know what you want in time for Christmas, if not the Skyliner

[miafey]

Welcome!

200PDS (f5) is considered a "fast" scope, but it is not small so require a very heavy duty mount if you would like to use it for imaging. The scope itself is about 8kg and you'll need at least EQ6 for imaging. The weight of the mount is over 20kg. Do not try to achieve everything with just one scope. Every (type of ) scope has its strengths and limitations. 

For imaging, the quality of the optics is more important. That is why these small doublet or triplet scopes are expensive. These are optical systems with reduced or minimum aberration. The reduced light gathering capability with smaller apeture can be compensated by long-exposure. 

A DSLR will perhaps be a very good starting point. Like you said you could get a second hand body for about 100 and get it modified for under 100. There are a lot you could do with astro-modded DSLR. Couple it with a small ED refractor, or a reasonable Newt, with the help of some LP filter, you'll be surprised with what you can achieve

Oh, and don't forget to get a good mount!!

Mia

[adh325]

Thanks for all the responses so far, very helpful.

So it looks like I need to buy the most expensive mount I can afford (will also future-proof for upgrade I suppose!), are the 'payload capacities' on the FLO website a good guide on what would be suitable, or should you air on the side of caution?

Having thought about it, the imaging aspect for me will be the most important factor.  So, my thoughts are:

• EQ6 Mount with Syntrek.  I'm assuming full GOTO isn't really necessary, and the Syntrek option will still carry-out tracking and allow me to plug into a guiding system if necessary.  I presume this can still be plugged into a laptop which could effectively act as a GOTO system?  Or is the GOTO handset required for that?  If I go for this option its only £100 more than I was expecting to spend on the HEQ5 which had all the bells etc.
• A small cheap refractor like a ST80 with a equally cheap CMOS camera for guidance (Necessary? what's the longest recommended exposure without a guide camera?).
• Then the question is do I go for the 200 PDS just now and see how I get on, or go bankrupt in style by buying a Equinox Pro 100 ED? 

Are there any examples of the imaging difference I can expect between the 200 PDS and 100 ED type scope?  Would it be significant?  I know I said at the start of my post that I'd like to do deep sky, but I would love to get some good shots of Jupiter and Saturn...based on what people have said here, the Apro would probably be better....

Any thoughts on manufacturer - Sky-Watcher seem to offer a good balance between cost / quality, is that fair to say?

[GeoffB]

I am just starting to utilise my 200pds for Astrography however at the moment I am mounted onto CG5 it manages to hold both my scope and Nikon DSLR very well, but I will add the caveat that so far has been in really good conditions little wind and stuff.

Visually the 200pdsis an excellent scope and the included eyepiece is relatively good, I cant fault the scope and we have used it on quite a few occasions since ours arrived a month ago.

If you need to get a bag for it for transportation see my posting on another thread but a cheap drum bagworks wonderfully.

Geoff

[adh325]

Thanks - yes I've pretty much decided on the 200pds, with a view to maybe going for a 120ED in the future. I'm also going for the EQ6 Synscan mount which would seem to suit my requirements now and going forward.

I noticed the 200pds doesn't come with the same accessories as the standard version, so I should get myself a Barlow and another eyepiece for regular viewing - any recommendations? Is 2" best?

Also, if I'm to attach a dslr - what do I need? The 'T' connector onto the camera, and the tube that slots into the focusser - is that it?

Finally - without a Barlow, what's the effective magnification from the scope?

Sorry for all the questions, it's a steep learning curve!

[GeoffB]

The PDS comes with a camera adapter all you need to buy is a t-adater for your dslr if you are going to choose to use 1.25 I have been ussing mine recently for this infact I habe just come in from playing with my camera unfortunately the fullish moon this evening has playedvwith my seeing ability. Natures biggest light polluteris all I have been able tsee through our cloud cover

[nameunknown]

Light Pollution is getting insane. It used to be two sodium lines and very little else, but now it is broad-spectrum Rubbish all over the visbile band. The old advice for budding astronomer used to be about buying a scope and a mount, but now its about buying a scope and a mount and a car and a place in the country to get away from the LP.

P