What's needed for a complete setup to shoot tracked long exposures with an EQ3?

[philipus]

Hello everybody, my first post, very happy to be here. I hope this is the correct subforum for my question.

I'm looking into a first mount for photography using my SLR and lenses up to 400mm, approx. 2-3kg in weight.

I'd like a mount that can track with the precision necessary to do long exposures at 400mm as I will (also) be using film.

I've seen good things about the EQ3 with GOTO and I happen to have come across a used 3-yearold model for 400 Eur. The seller tells me that the mount and the GOTO system are included in the sale.

The thing is that, me being a novice at this type of photography, I'm not sure what parts I need for a complete setup that can track/guide. Can anyone help me? I guess I'll need a sturdy head of some sort to connect the camera to the mount, but what else?

Also, I'd certainly appreciate views on how capable the EQ3 would be for this kind of work.

Thank you very much in advance
Philip 

[MarsG76]

I'm not familiar with the eq3 but if you're only going to be imaging using a SLR and lenses, I'd say that up to 200mm it should be fine for atleast a few minutes.

I'm a Celestron fan and swear by my CGEM, but I read good review about the AVX and a EQ6/5 mounts... Might be worth getting a bigger mount now if you plan to up your gear to telescopic imaging in the future.

For extreme long exposures I suggest getting a autoguide setup happening, in your current plan I'd suggest a small scope like a 50mm Finder scope with a web cam (or WDM compatible CCD) on it being autoguided through PHD or MetaGuide on a laptop. Unfortunately no matter what mount you use, if you want to long expose for 5 minutes or longer, you will need guiding to keep your stars round and avoid star trails, especially shooting on film where you won't see your results until the film is developed. Another thing you will need to do is experiment and determine your maximum exposure for various ASA film before light pollution starts to blow out your exposures.

Why are you wanting to image on film instead of DSLR? If it's for the film look than I think you'll spend less time and money developing film while getting the hang of Astrophotography and once familiar with the procedure move to film.

[Tinker1947]

The mount is the important bit to get sorted the HEQ5 is regarded as a the starter mount it has better more precise motors ect..........

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/skywatcher-heq5-pro-synscan.html

[Dr_Ju_ju]

Hi Phillip,

Welcome to the Lounge..

I own an EQ3, and have used it for astrophotography, but only for short subs. 1-2 mins max

It can be guided using ASCOM\PHD2, but that means adding to the weight the mount has to carry, 5KG'ish max. An EQ5 may better suit your needs more.

[Owmuchonomy]

I would urge you to go for at least an EQ5 and better still an HEQ5 Pro to run at 400mm fl.  However, I have no experience of trying to astro image with film but this may be a bigger headache to deal with.

[philipus]

Thanks very much for the quick replies and all the information. I am very grateful.

About the film vs digital aspect:

I've been an astronomy nerd for even longer than I've been a photographer and I've finally come to a point where I will be able to put together an observation and AP rig. But I'm still researching what I would want/need, which means that I currently don't have a digital camera. As a terrestrial photographer I'm only using film but I have no doubt I will use digital in the future for (most of) my AP needs.

So I was thinking that as a starting point -- and to satisfy my photographic curiosity while I'm putting together the full kit -- I could go for a simpler but capable mount and use my film cameras, thus my question.

Seeing what can be achieved using DSLR with a single exposure over several minutes at ISO 400 using guided mounts and lenses between 100-400mm, I think I should be able to achieve something similar with film.

If the EQ3 is too weak for my needs, what about the EQ6? I have also found a used EQ6 without GOTO; will this be a main drawback considering I'm a newbie? Below is the image accompanying the ad - is it even a motorised model?

It includes a polar scope though and the seller says the mount has been used very rarely. It is priced at 475 Eur which I'm not sure is reasonable. 

Thank you for the information on the guiding systems. So I guess I'd need a guiding camera and a bracket to attach it with? 

Kind regards and thank you
Philip

[Dr_Ju_ju]

Hi Phillip,

An EQ6 would be much better, you don't need the goto handset, it can be controlled via Ascom drivers directly from Stellarium and\or Carte Du Ceil and PHD2 etc... 

[Knight of Clear Skies]

Welcome to the forum.

A lot depends on your budget and what you want to do. It will be tough to get good results with film, especially shooting at longer focal lengths, as digital cameras are several times more sensitive. An expensive mount and a film camera is a quite unbalanced setup, you'd get better results with a digital camera and an entry-level mount.

The EQ3 isn't the best but does work well at reasonably short focal lengths, say up to about 200mm. As others have said if you think you're likely to want to move to telescopic imaging in the future then a more sturdy mount might be a good investment. However, there is plenty of scope in lens imaging, the outlay is less, the learning curve is less steep and it's quicker to get results, due to working at faster focal ratios. Here's an example shot I took from an EQ3-2 with a modded camera and an old SMC Takumar 135mm lens, of Orion's Belt and Sword:

(40 minutes of data at f4, 20 two-minutes unguided exposures stacked together.)

To attach the camera to the mount I use a ball-head joint on a dovetail plate, which gives more flexibility in framing shots.

[philipus]

Thank you for your replies.

Julian, I actually have Stellarium on my Macbook Pro but I had no idea it can guide - very cool. I understand I need ASCOM, EQASCOM driver and StellariumScope and then a cable of some sort - might this one work (it says AZ-EQ6)? 

Knight, that is a very beautiful image. I saw the photo of your setup on your site. Is a ballhead sufficient for a longer lens - wouldn't a geared head be more stable? Also, which dovetail plate would work - are they standardised somehow?

cheers

philip

Hi Phillip,

An EQ6 would be much better, you don't need the goto handset, it can be controlled via Ascom drivers directly from Stellarium and\or Carte Du Ceil and PHD2 etc... 

Welcome to the forum.

A lot depends on your budget and what you want to do. It will be tough to get good results with film, especially shooting at longer focal lengths, as digital cameras are several times more sensitive. An expensive mount and a film camera is a quite unbalanced setup, you'd get better results with a digital camera and an entry-level mount.

The EQ3 isn't the best but does work well at reasonably short focal lengths, say up to about 200mm. As others have said if you think you're likely to want to move to telescopic imaging in the future then a more sturdy mount might be a good investment. However, there is plenty of scope in lens imaging, the outlay is less, the learning curve is less steep and it's quicker to get results, due to working at faster focal ratios. Here's an example shot I took from an EQ3-2 with a modded camera and an old SMC Takumar 135mm lens, of Orion's Belt and Sword:

(40 minutes of data at f4, 20 two-minutes unguided exposures stacked together.)

To attach the camera to the mount I use a ball-head joint on a dovetail plate, which gives more flexibility in framing shots.

[Tinker1947]

Since Digital DSLR's have been around i can't remember anybody posting a film type image, there's lots of leeway with a digital image, next to none with film i suspect, buy a DSLR and save yourself a lot of headaches..... 

[Mick J]

Jim Cormier posts as Nightfly on here,  here is a link to one of his posts - http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/221641-selected-regions-of-the-milky-way

you can find others,  hope this is helpful. 

A link to his Blog :   http://nightflyphotography.blogspot.co.uk

[philipus]

Thanks Mick. I had actually come across Cormier's work on Flickr earlier and found it very inspiring, esp. as he uses 120 film, which I also intend to do (in addition to 135).

I am quite sure that I will eventually end up with a digital camera for AP but what I am asking about in this thread is only a pre-project, so to speak, until I have that set up. I feel quite sure I will be able to make nice photographs with film. I just need to figure out which equipment I need...

Jim Cormier posts as Nightfly on here,  here is a link to one of his posts - http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/221641-selected-regions-of-the-milky-way

you can find others,  hope this is helpful. 

A link to his Blog :   http://nightflyphotography.blogspot.co.uk

[Dr_Ju_ju]

Hi Phillip,

My main mount is an AZ-EQ6, and works a treat, but I run it from Windows & I don't think there are Ascom drivers for Mac, but you may be able to drive it using Parralells or some other Windows emulator..

[Knight of Clear Skies]

Knight, that is a very beautiful image. I saw the photo of your setup on your site. Is a ballhead sufficient for a longer lens - wouldn't a geared head be more stable? Also, which dovetail plate would work - are they standardised somehow?

Thanks, glad you like it. The ballhead is fine with the heaviest lens I own, a fairly hefty 200mm f2.8. The dovetail plates are standard but come in various sizes, I've had to mess around with various ones to get the screw through to attach the ballhead.

[Thalestris24]

Just to add... Using a dslr means you can take lots of short exposures and stack them in software in order to improve the signal to noise ratio. You can then stretch the image to bring out the detail, adjust the colour etc. Film doesn't allow much flexibility in manipulating the image you've taken though I suppose you could digitise a film image and may be able to do some things.

It's probably best to avoid an eq3 for AP. An AVX or heq5 pro are good mounts. The book 'making every photon count' available from our sponsors would probably be a good investment for you

Louise

[Thalestris24]

Hi

There's another thread about using film here

[philipus]

Is an AZ-EQ6 the same as a plain vanilla EQ6, like the one I posted above? Too bad about the drivers - I don't unfortunately have Parallels or a Windows PC. So what should I go for to get good guidance on an EQ6 (and which is reasonably priced if possible)?

Hi Phillip,

My main mount is an AZ-EQ6, and works a treat, but I run it from Windows & I don't think there are Ascom drivers for Mac, but you may be able to drive it using Parralells or some other Windows emulator..

Thank you for the information about the ballhead and the dovetail plates. I have that same lens which I would use with the 2x extender so that's good to know. I'll see if I can find a good combo of a ballhead and plates from the same supplier here in NL.

Thanks, glad you like it. The ballhead is fine with the heaviest lens I own, a fairly hefty 200mm f2.8. The dovetail plates are standard but come in various sizes, I've had to mess around with various ones to get the screw through to attach the ballhead.

Hi Louise, thanks for the info, book recommendation (I didn't know about that book) and for your input on the EQ3 vs the EQ6. This is a preliminary project pending putting together of my full kit for observation and imaging for which I will be using some digital solution. One can actually do a lot with scanned film. In my experience, having shot both with higher end digitals and film cameras, a TIFF scanned well is much more malleable than a RAW file. I'm of course ignorant as to how much this would apply to astrophotography, which is why I'm curious to try it.

Just to add... Using a dslr means you can take lots of short exposures and stack them in software in order to improve the signal to noise ratio. You can then stretch the image to bring out the detail, adjust the colour etc. Film doesn't allow much flexibility in manipulating the image you've taken though I suppose you could digitise a film image and may be able to do some things.

It's probably best to avoid an eq3 for AP. An AVX or heq5 pro are good mounts. The book 'making every photon count' available from our sponsors would probably be a good investment for you 

Louise

[matt-c]

I want to defend the eq3 haha.

I personally love my eq3 pro it's more than enough for what I need to put on it.

Just last night I was able to get 4min subs at 200mm (can push to 5 but a few get scrapped) I've also tried guiding and managed to get 10 mins out of it, I can't go any higher because of light pollution.

Everyone will say the heq5 is minimum and I understand why but with an eq3 I can pick my entire setup up Inc laptop and be outside in 30 seconds and imagine in a few minutes.

Giving the uk weather this can only be a good thing.

[matt-c]

Imaging* isn't auto correct amazing

[Knight of Clear Skies]

I personally love my eq3 pro it's more than enough for what I need to put on it.

Just last night I was able to get 4min subs at 200mm (can push to 5 but a few get scrapped)

That's good going, quite a bit longer than I've managed. I should probably look at giving my mount some attention and getting the polar scope set up better, but it's one of those things I've just never got around to.

[Ant]

Hi Phillip,

An EQ6 would be much better, you don't need the goto handset, it can be controlled via Ascom drivers directly from Stellarium and\or Carte Du Ceil and PHD2 etc... 

I'm sorry but I think that is wrong.

The mount in the picture shows the old NON GOTO EG6, it is an extremely capable mount. But I'm pretty sure that it cannot be guided - or at least not as easy as you think. The NON GOTO EQ6 doesn't have the same innards as the Synscan version.

The ASCOM drivers / software etc replaces the handset using a lead which incorporates the  EQDIR module. The two images below show the difference between the two - they are not interchangeable.

Personally I think that the EQ3 is a better mount than the EQ5 - certainly it was a few years ago when I owned both...

Ant

[matt-c]

I found that a strip down and polar scope calibration using astro baby's site helped lots but the biggest step I took was using eqmod for the polar align it's such a great bit of kit.

I've followed your posts and pictures for a while now knight it's one of the main reasons I chose the eq3, I'm yet to produce anything half as good as you (you set that bar too high haha) but I'm enjoying the ease of the mount.

[Alien 13]

Nothing wrong with the EQ3-2 its light enough to be considered portable and provide you match it up with fast short FL optics it does everything you need. The new enhanced motor kits also offer a cheap way into guided shooting.

Alan

[apoapo]

Hi philp

I had an EQ2/3 goto with a meade 127 triplet apo. I connected it via my laptop, stellarium and a couple of free downloads to do the guiding. On the tripod it shook too much, but on a steel pier sunk into the ground with concrete, the mount was excellent.The point of this post is just that! The mount is fine, the tripod let it down.

Phil

[RikM]

I use an EQ3-2 for camera lens imaging and find it perfectly fine for a few minutes. The longer the focal length, the shorter the exposure before stars become trailed. When starting out start with the shorter faster lenses and then work up to the longer stuff. I love using a 50mm f1.8 stopped down to f4.

https://rmastrophoto.smugmug.com/Galleries/Nightscapes-and-widefield/i-bzkrXcn/0/L/c2014q2_20150116_2310_rmcrae_web-L.jpg