Advice on telescope for astrophotography

[WonderStar]

Good evening all

I currently have a Celestron Powerseeker 127 EQ. I brought it new a few years back. After trying it out it, like many other scopes sat in my front room collecting dust. At the turn of the year I decided to get it out & have another try. It was ok at shots of the moon but that's pretty much where it ends. Trying to view planets such as Jupiter is near impossible, it's almost like a pea in the eyepiece. I could see some of the moons but no detail in the planet, focusing is also a real problem. The slow motion controls are next to useless and as for the tripod, don't get me started! It's really put me off but I love photography and really want to get some good shots, so my question is can you guys recommend a good scope. I know it's a good idea to have auto tracking and my budget is around £500 Here is a shot of the moon I did earlier in the year. Thanks in advance :-)

Steve

 

[Beefybean]

I have the same scope as you. I agree the slow motion controls can be a bit awkward. Otherwise i'm finding it a good introduction into telescopes. I have viewed jupiter on many occasions and also took photos using my mobile phone - sse below. Sorry cant actually answer your question as i am currently looking at getting better pictures with my current scope. A motor drive and new lenses on my shopping list.

 

[wuthton]

Steve, 

For astrophotography the most important thing is the mount (full stop!!). 

If I were to take your current mount and place upon it 4 grands worth of Takahashi glass with a full frame CCD and a set of Astrodon filters and pitch it against a good mount with your current scope and a DSLR then the latter would produce the better images... No doubt.... Dead certainty. 

Use a few pounds of your budget to buy the excellent book Every Photon Counts before you buy anything else. 

[happy-kat]

Assuming you have all the DSLR camera and lenses already then you could look at the skywatcher staradventurer. Easy in budget including getting decent tripod legs.

[sagramore]

I can add another vote for the mount being #1 priority, especially if you already have a DSLR.

I agree with the purchase of the book, but ultimately (if you are serious about entering the deep deep money pit of astrophotography!) I would strongly recommend spending every penny you have on a mount and then move on to looking for a scope later when you can afford another purchase (FYI something like the Skywatcher 130-PDS is a BRILLIANT and inexpensive scope for imaging at ~£150 delivered, but the mount is much mroe important!). Scopes can be swapped around but a good mount is for life

[WobblySkipper]

I am new to Astronomy, but whilst researching the subject it was drilled into me that the mount is the most important piece of the setup for Astrophotogarphy. Having ventured out under the night sky, I can start to appreciate this. A good, accurate, sturdy mount is a must if you are serious about the subject. It was about this point in my own journey into Astophotography that I realised this is a very expense hobby! I remember reading "A cheap scope on a good mount will always beat the most expensive scope on a bad mount"

I too would recommend the book "Making every photon count". Get the book, read it through, and then re read it many times!

All the best

Jim

[CraigT82]

In my humble and probably worthless opinion, you'd do well to spend £400-500 on a good 2nd hand HEQ5 Pro mount (they come up often in AstroBuy&Sell).

Then I'd stick your DSLR and lenses on it and do some widefield astrophotography and learn all you can about that.

Then once you've got a bit more money to burn you can pick up a Skywatcher 130pds Newtonian (£150ish)  to go on the heq5, with which you can get a bit deeper and closer to the night sky still using your DSLR. 

Craig 

[The Admiral]

Okay, I'm going to offer different advice here . Contrary to popular and highly experienced advice about the mount that you should get, always bear in mind that at the end of the day it depends on the sort of photography you want to achieve. If it's salon wall stuff, or you are a perfectionist who can't abide stars which are anything more than 1% out of truly round, then be prepared to spend heaps of both time and money. However, if you are just content to visualize objects that you'd have trouble seeing through the eyepiece, then there are other ways. Have a look at the "No EQ DSO challenge" thread ( https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/228101-the-no-eq-dso-challenge/) and see if you'd be content with that sort of output. If so, then perhaps you can get away without committing a fortune, initially at any rate, and in any event, it's a good introduction to the art with a relatively small investment, and you can decide whether to further your interest later. Remember though, you're more than likely to get sucked into the black hole that is astrophotography.

Right, now to hide from the brickbats

Ian

[Knight of Clear Skies]

The first question is "what do you want to image"? Planetary imaging requires a long focal length (magnification) while DSO imaging greatly benefits from fast optics and a sturdy equatorial mount. 

[ollypenrice]

8 hours ago, The Admiral said:

Okay, I'm going to offer different advice here . Contrary to popular and highly experienced advice about the mount that you should get, always bear in mind that at the end of the day it depends on the sort of photography you want to achieve. If it's salon wall stuff, or you are a perfectionist who can't abide stars which are anything more than 1% out of truly round, then be prepared to spend heaps of both time and money. However, if you are just content to visualize objects that you'd have trouble seeing through the eyepiece, then there are other ways. Have a look at the "No EQ DSO challenge" thread ( https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/228101-the-no-eq-dso-challenge/) and see if you'd be content with that sort of output. If so, then perhaps you can get away without committing a fortune, initially at any rate, and in any event, it's a good introduction to the art with a relatively small investment, and you can decide whether to further your interest later. Remember though, you're more than likely to get sucked into the black hole that is astrophotography.

Right, now to hide from the brickbats

Ian

No brickbats here. (By the way, the great and the good of the 'No EQ mount' thread hit me pretty hard with brickbats when I said I liked the thread but felt that the Alt Az mount was still the wrong mount for deep sky imaging - and it is. It just is. But it is not an impossible mount to use.)

Any 'one phrase' bit of advice is almost certain to be inadequate* and 'mount before all else' falls into this category. If you wish to DS image with a 70mm refractor with a focal length of about 350mm then what will change if you use either a second hand autoguided HEQ5 or a £13,000 10 Micron? In my opinion, almost certainly, nothing. If you want to DS image at a focal length of 3 metres then everything will change. Buy the 10 Micron.

The worship of the mount abvove all else comes with the long exposure. Solar system fast frame imaging is quite different and the mount is far less important.

Olly

* Like my previous paragraph!!!

[StuartJPP]

Buy the book, it will save you money in the long run...King Of Clear Skies says it all...what do you wish to achieve?

Ask 100 people and you will get 100 different answers. If you peruse the imaging section you will get a feel for what kit produces what results...planetary, solar, DSO all require different disciplines/kit...but if you choose right you can double or at least dabble in various categories.

 

[The Admiral]

36 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

By the way, the great and the good of the 'No EQ mount' thread hit me pretty hard with brickbats when I said I liked the thread but felt that the Alt Az mount was still the wrong mount for deep sky imaging - and it is. It just is.

You tease! I think you know my view on this Olly; I think we'll have to agree to differ on this one . Each is fit for its purpose, it's the purpose that changes.

I think you agree though, that it is important that anyone new to the field needs to be aware of the gamut of possibilities which will fit their own requirements. Not everyone, myself included, wants, or is able, to embark on the level of committment that you and many others are prepared to, and OK, we might not get the superb quality of results, but are still content with our output. As you exemplify above, horses for courses.

Ian

[ollypenrice]

4 minutes ago, The Admiral said:

You tease! I think you know my view on this Olly; I think we'll have to agree to differ on this one . Each is fit for its purpose, it's the purpose that changes.

I think you agree though, that it is important that anyone new to the field needs to be aware of the gamut of possibilities which will fit their own requirements. Not everyone, myself included, wants, or is able, to embark on the level of committment that you and many others are prepared to, and OK, we might not get the superb quality of results, but are still content with our output. As you exemplify above, horses for courses.

Ian

lly