Help needed

[Dr Gloom]

Hi all

am looking for help in getting started. I don't have much spare money and don't have good health (classed disabled) so am hoping this could be a good hobby to get into as Its always fascinated me. I can't join my local club as its too far for me to drive at the time it's held, as I get more tired as day goes on.

I am looking for recommendations of a reasonable scope that can be used for photography and can see beyond the moon, if such a scope exists. I live in the UK and would buy secondhand from a reputable dealer, can't afford to take chances.

i enjoy photography when I can get out. On that basis I would need a scope with tracking. What is the least I will need to spend?

any help will be greatly appreciated

[Chris Murray]

hia, you can start with just a camera on a tripod, take lots of pics and stack them, some good images done like this, if you want a scope go with a refracter, no collimation probs, very little to go wrong ect... 80mm good all rounder, to get good tracking you realy need an eq mount, again with an 80mm you dont need a huge mount. call one of the shops, first light optics, modern astronomy, telescope house, f1 telescopes are the ones i use, and are all very helpful, tell them what you want to do and how much you have to spend, they will recommend the best for what you want and your money, also do lots of googling, theres a lot to learn. by the way it is addictive, good luck

 

[ronin]

Astrophotography is difficult to give a simple answer on. A "simple" setup would be something like an EQ5 with goto, a 72mm refractor (assume here that a reflector is more difficult for you to physically use). You would need a DSLR on the end for the images and a few adaptors and what is termed a remote timer or intervalometer to get the long exposures.

I have in the past said you can get a fair setup for £1500-2000. Here's the BUT, I know people with astroimaging setup's that are in the region of £20,000.

One aspect to realise is that astrophotography does to some extent bear little resemblance to photography. When in "normal" use with a camera do you take a 3 minute exposure and have to track what is a moving object almost 100% accurately - you are allowed to drift a pixel maybe two, and then usually one exposure is insufficent so you get say 5 exposures and stack one on the other? It really is a different field. And the exposures being long you have to allow the sensor to cool down between 2 shots.

If you have a DSLR and an intervalometer then you can simply head off to somewhere dark (very dark) put the DSLR on a tripod, aim at the milky way (or something of interest), set the exposure for 20 to 25 seconds, short focal length, 18mm-30mm, and say iso 800 and take a shot. Everything set to manual including focus.

That would give a wide field image. You cannot get really beyond 25 seconds but you could increase iso and perhaps have the lens a stop or two down for the first attempt so giving th option to open it up a little.

I would try the wide field option first, then move up from there. It is an inexpensive introduction to the "quirkiness" of AP. If the wide field aspects are all you want then you can get smaller units to carry the DSLR and track that will I think go on a tripod. They are about £250 - minor problem is that the name of the 2 common ones escape me. Probaly Skytracker.

[Putaendo Patrick]

When you talk about photography, be aware that to do this seriously entails a considerable outlay of cash! Perhaps the best mount to start is the HEQ5 which new will cost over 700 pounds without telescope!

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

These do come up second-hand, but not cheap.

There are many cheaper alternatives to start in photography, but few will give you the long-term potential to develop.

If you were to put off photography for period while you learn more about the sky and decide if astronomy really is the hobby you are looking for, then a 6 or 8 inch reflector telescope on a Dobsonian mount would be a very good starting point at approx 175 or 275 pounds respectively. Both models come up quite frequently second-hand and you may get a good bargain.

[Louis D]

By "don't have good health" do you imply you don't have normal strength anymore?  If so, watch out for equatorial mounts.  They tend to be heavier than alt-az mounts because of the counterweights.  I had to pass on a good deal for a 125mm Mak because all together, the tripod, eq mount, scope, and counterweights were crushing my damaged spine trying to carry it outdoors fully assembled.  I wanted a grab and go setup.  I didn't want to have to take it outside in pieces and assemble it there.  I ended up going with an AT72ED on a DSV-1 mounted on a sturdy Manfrotto tripod.  I can carry it outdoors one handed and without crushing my spine.

[happy-kat]

Ok astrophotography can be done with out an eq mount, not everyone can carry a heavy eq mount, I can't.

This post shows what members are managing without an equatorial mount. They are using a alt az tracking mount so you take lots of say upto 30 second images and stack them, the whole thread is a good read.

Link here

Do you already own a dslr?

You could build a barn door tracker if you are into light diy.

If you already have a dslr this is a good read.

Link here

 

[Louis D]

For equatorial tracking on a photo tripod for wide field photography, there are the Vixen Polarie and iOptron SkyTracker mounts to consider.  A little on the expensive side, but quite light weight.