Using a Skywatcher ST80 for imaging

[stevewanstall]

Finding my 20mm f/5 too heavy for imaging on the Celestron CG5- GT mount (and not having enough cash for better),  I decided to mount the Skywatcher  ST 80 on it instead and see what I could do with unguided imaging, but taking bias, flats and darks. The exposure time of the subs was 45seconds.  Most images are based on around 40 subs, except for the Horsehead, which was based on about 8 !  Horsehead, NGC2683  in Lynx and NGC 2403 in Camelopardis.

[happy-kat]

The last image has interesting bits to look at (I'm not technical so excuse my description).

Do you have filters already, you might find this post interesting to compliment your imaging with your ST80.

Link

 

[MAN or ASTROMAN]

I'm constantly amazed by the quality of images that 'amateurs' can produce these days-even with what is considered 'basic' equipment.

The 'Humble' ST80 shows what it can do (in the right hands) yet again.

Inspiring images!

[Dave In Vermont]

Indeed! Very nice work. Please keep going!

Dave

[stevewanstall]

On 2/16/2016 at 10:16, happy-kat said:

The last image has interesting bits to look at (I'm not technical so excuse my description).

Do you have filters already, you might find this post interesting to compliment your imaging with your ST80.

Link

 

That is a great image.  It shows  what can be done with the right experience, regardless (almost) of the equipment to hand.

[alacant]

I like it. I too use an affordable refractor because I can't do apo prices and I can't live with those awful false spikes that reflectors put on stars. Keep it up and clear skies!

[Thalestris24]

Hi

I've quite enjoyed imaging with my ST80 in the past. However, I reckon the ST102 might be better as it has a 2" focuser and should take a field flattener though the extra cost of a ff might be hard to justify... Still, with a ff and a SW autofocuser you'd have a decent narrowband setup

Louise

[Dave In Vermont]

I installed a 10:1 Crayford on my humble ST80. 2-inches, of course. Coupled that with a William Optics 2" Dielectric-diagonal. Cost more than the original scope, but I love it!  

Dave

[alacant]

Why doesn't anyone use achromats for imaging?

[Dave In Vermont]

3 minutes ago, alacant said:

Why doesn't anyone use achromats for imaging?

Evidently, some people do and have. But mostly we hear from folks who a £650 apo instead. People seem to be terribly concerned with a bit of CA - even though this can be filtered out in processing, according to the people who have used achro's and still do.

For sometime, the world's biggest telescope was the 40" refractor (achro) at Yerkes. I image that beast was capable of some wonderful photographs - back in the Olden-Days of early astro-photography.

Dave

 

[alacant]

Hi

Yes, I agree. I got a big refractor for €400. I get great views and use use it for photos. I have a 80mm as a finderscope. If I had only the latter, I'd see a lot less. I don't get the ca thing. It looks a lot more natural than having 4 spikes emerge from every star. If you need to I found a filter in StarTools which dumps the blue back on the RG.

Wonderful photo. Thanks. I think it's still going. That's one heavily modified EQ6 they've got it mounted on!

[happy-kat]

I have just done a very quick and dirty edit in StarTools to remove the blue CA blooming, I hope you don't mind. It might be interesting to someone.