to autoguide or not to autoguide, that is the question

[ste7e]

Hi all

 

I'm a noob.  Had a SkyWatcher 130P on EQ2 mount with the cheapest of cheap clock drives on the RA axis for the last 6 months.  I've been trying to do a bit of imaging but finding what you all already know - my kit isn't really designed for imaging.  There's a couple of examples of what I've managed on my flickr photostream: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ste7esmith nothing to set the world on fire there.

So, my next step is to upgrade - primarily the mount but also the OTA.  I'm thinking of stretching my budget to go for the HEQ5 and sticking a SkyWatcher 200PDS on it.  But auto-guiding would be another few hundred (GBP) on top.  Is AP a no-no without auto-guiding?  Will I be able to get decent DSO images without?

Any advice most gratefully received.

 

Steve

 

 

[kendg]

My advice is what you already are going to do.

Mount first, try it and see what it's like and where your interests lie.

OTA second. Again, see where that takes you.

Then you will be able to decide if auto-guiding in needed for what you need.

[bottletopburly]

Do it ,i have a 200p and i was using that on an eq5 ,ok couldn't really go beyond a min sub on that set up but big enough aperture and f5 ,the auto guiding wont be that much at a later date heres a picture i got on the 200p and Eq5 

 

[Scott]

Sorry, but I'm going to go the other way. Get the mount and use your existing scope. I have a 200p (not the DS) and use a much smaller 80 mm frac. there is a thread about what can be achieved with 130pds but if you take your time you can achieve good focus with a single speed focuser. spend the money you would have spent on the 200p and get the guiding. Guiding is by far the biggest improvement I have made to my imaging bar none. apart from some galaxies there are not many targets that will benefit from a 1000mm focal length.

As nice as Davids M42 is, it would (in my opinion) frame much nicer using a shorter 650mm focal length.
Have a look at http://astronomy.tools/ and compare different targets with different scopes

(Then you can start saving for a ccd camera  ) don't ya lurve spending other peoples money

[Scott]

Just an example of fov difference between 130p and 200p (using a canon 1100d)

http://goo.gl/iT3xGp

[Knight of Clear Skies]

Looking at your images on Flickr you've done well considering the limitations of your kit. Unguided imaging works well on bright objects (clusters and a few of the brightest nebulae) or with very fast optics. My 200mm f2.8 L lens goes deep even with 1 minutes subs, for example here's 70 minutes on the Belt & Sword.

It depends on what you want to image and what your planned upgrade path is, but for unguided imaging personally I'd take the lens over the 200PDS. On the other hand, guiding makes a huge difference at longer focal lengths.

Again, this is just personal opinion, but like Scott I'd go for the shorter focal length of the 130PDS over the 200. Easier to get going with and still quite a high level of magnification.

By the way, have you budgeted for a coma corrector? Both the 200 & 130 will need one I believe.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Knight of Clear Skies

[ste7e]

 

1 hour ago, Scott said:

Sorry, but I'm going to go the other way. Get the mount and use your existing scope. I have a 200p (not the DS) and use a much smaller 80 mm frac. there is a thread about what can be achieved with 130pds but if you take your time you can achieve good focus with a single speed focuser. spend the money you would have spent on the 200p and get the guiding. Guiding is by far the biggest improvement I have made to my imaging bar none. apart from some galaxies there are not many targets that will benefit from a 1000mm focal length.

As nice as Davids M42 is, it would (in my opinion) frame much nicer using a shorter 650mm focal length.
Have a look at http://astronomy.tools/ and compare different targets with different scopes

(Then you can start saving for a ccd camera  ) don't ya lurve spending other peoples money

I might re-think the 200PDS if guiding is going to make more difference.   I do think the EQ2 is where I'm suffering at the moment so I'm hoping for great improvements by going to the HEQ5.

As for guiding, what could I get away with?  I have a SkyWatcher 9x50 RACI finder - would the way to go be to stick a ToupCam on that?  Something like https://www.firstlightoptics.com/touptek-cameras/touptek-mono-imaging-guider-camera-gcmos01200kma.html or do I need to go for something more expensive like a Lodestar?  I'm a bit out of my depth here as haven't done any guiding at all so far.

 

[johnrt]

I'm going to agree with Scott, successful DSO rigs are built from the mount up, by the very best mount you can afford and stick with the 130PDS.

[Scott]

2 minutes ago, ste7e said:

 

I might re-think the 200PDS if guiding is going to make more difference.   I do think the EQ2 is where I'm suffering at the moment so I'm hoping for great improvements by going to the HEQ5.

As for guiding, what could I get away with?  I have a SkyWatcher 9x50 RACI finder - would the way to go be to stick a ToupCam on that?  Something like https://www.firstlightoptics.com/touptek-cameras/touptek-mono-imaging-guider-camera-gcmos01200kma.html or do I need to go for something more expensive like a Lodestar?  I'm a bit out of my depth here as haven't done any guiding at all so far.

 

I, and many others have used the qhy5-II which I think is very similar to the camera you've linked to, with the finderscope. It works fine. I don't know how the raci would go with it but I'd be inclined to use a straight through as the less glass in the way, the better. Have you ever read the book, making every photon count? It truelly is a great book for getting up and running with astrophotography. £20ish on the book, can save you alot through ill informed purchases. I wish I had it before I spent a penny :).

[tomato]

I think I  recall Steve Richards writing in 'Making Every Photon Count'  'sooner or later you will want to guide' and I  think he is dead right.

I have a Mesu 200 mount which I think is regarded as a decent mount for imaging, but even after careful drift alignment PHD still sends both RA and DEC corrections on a regular basis, not very often to be fair, but they are still needed.

So unless you intend to keep to short subs and short FLs  I would suggest you spend some of your upgrade budget on an auto guiding set up.

[ste7e]

21 minutes ago, Knight of Clear Skies said:

Looking at your images on Flickr you've done well considering the limitations of your kit. Unguided imaging works well on bright objects (clusters and a few of the brightest nebulae) or with very fast optics. My 200mm f2.8 L lens goes deep even with 1 minutes subs, for example here's 70 minutes on the Belt & Sword.

It depends on what you want to image and what your planned upgrade path is, but for unguided imaging personally I'd take the lens over the 200PDS. On the other hand, guiding makes a huge difference at longer focal lengths.

Again, this is just personal opinion, but like Scott I'd go for the shorter focal length of the 130PDS over the 200. Easier to get going with and still quite a high level of magnification.

By the way, have you budgeted for a coma corrector? Both the 200 & 130 will need one I believe.

Thanks for this.

I have a 200mm on my Nikon (full-frame) but not tried using the lens for AP yet.  I've been shooting through the 'scope.  Once I have the tracking mount I'll give that a go.

I like your shot, by the way.  Was that 70 unguided, 1 minute exposures stacked?

Thanks for the comment on the coma corrector - no handed budgeted for that

[ollypenrice]

Think of two people trying to photograph the bride at a wedding. One's a professional with a £30k Nikon and the other is auntie Mave with a £19.50 Tesco Mega-auto-pix. The professional has a drunken rugby team jostling him him and slapping his back. Auntie Mave is on her own. Who gets the best picture?

Olly

[Knight of Clear Skies]

1 hour ago, ste7e said:

I like your shot, by the way.  Was that 70 unguided, 1 minute exposures stacked?

Thanks. Yes, that's right, 70x1min.

1 hour ago, ste7e said:

As for guiding, what could I get away with?  I have a SkyWatcher 9x50 RACI finder - would the way to go be to stick a ToupCam on that?  Something like https://www.firstlightoptics.com/touptek-cameras/touptek-mono-imaging-guider-camera-gcmos01200kma.html or do I need to go for something more expensive like a Lodestar?  I'm a bit out of my depth here as haven't done any guiding at all so far.

 

I'm not sure, I've only just started to dabble with guiding, but I think a 200PDS or even a 130PDS would require a proper guidescope rather than a finder-guider. Hopefully someone with more experience can confirm or refute that.

[Uranium235]

I have to agree with Scott, the 200 will be too much to cope with - the 130pds is a much better choice. Always better to overmount a telescope rather than run the fine line.

A taste of what the 130 can do given a good camera:

Or... if you want something a bit more plug n' play, you cant go wrong with the Skywatcher 80ED, the HEQ5 would guide that all night without a dropped sub.

[Dbswales]

3 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

Think of two people trying to photograph the bride at a wedding. One's a professional with a £30k Nikon and the other is auntie Mave with a £19.50 Tesco Mega-auto-pix. The professional has a drunken rugby team jostling him him and slapping his back. Auntie Mave is on her own. Who gets the best picture?

Olly

LOL. That made me chuckle. Great analogy. 

[ste7e]

12 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

Think of two people trying to photograph the bride at a wedding. One's a professional with a £30k Nikon and the other is auntie Mave with a £19.50 Tesco Mega-auto-pix. The professional has a drunken rugby team jostling him him and slapping his back. Auntie Mave is on her own. Who gets the best picture?

Olly

Nice analogy.  I guess I was thinking the tracking of the mount would handle most of the rugby team just leaving the fly half for the auto-guiding to deal with.  And, I was wondering if I could cope without the luxury of auto-guiding.

[ollypenrice]

31 minutes ago, ste7e said:

Nice analogy.  I guess I was thinking the tracking of the mount would handle most of the rugby team just leaving the fly half for the auto-guiding to deal with.  And, I was wondering if I could cope without the luxury of auto-guiding.

Not autoguiding is a luxury which costs a bomb. You need a 10 Micron to do that or, if you are an electronics engineer capable of making it work, an ASA direct drive! Autoguiding is cheap, elegant and effective. It turns the gigantic periodic error of an HEQ5 or 6 into a sub arcsecond precision mount.

Olly

[ste7e]

Sounds like auto-guiding is the way to go. 

Thanks for all your help and time.  I really appreciate it.

Going to go with upgrading to the HEQ5 Pro and rig up some auto-guiding with a guide cam.

Lots more learning to do

[wxsatuser]

You can't beat it whatever gear you use, made a huge difference to my AP, money well spent.

[Coco]

Pays to collimate like a boss Rob

 

[Uranium235]

Ummm yeah, there is that aspect of it thats why I suggested the 80ED as it cuts out all that business.

[RSM]

Hi, guiding and dithering is the biggest improvement I've seen. I have a 200PDS on an HEQ5 mount together with a Lacerta MGEN2 guiding system attached to my skywatcher finderscope which came with the 200PDS. Guiding took my exposure time up from 45 seconds to reliably 6 minutes and now with a decent light pollution filter I'm going to start pushing on from to up to 10min. In combination with the dithering and some good calibration frames, background noise is much lower meaning you can really stretch the image. Like a few others have suggested, I would stick with the 130 for now as you will get a wider Field Of View (I've thought more than once about potentially getting a 130 to go with my 200 PDS as some of the targets I've looked at would benefit from a wider FOV). My image of Orion's Sword was made up of 3 sets of images stitched together in a mosaic. 

for me, the 200PDS on the HEQ5 with all the other gear is just about OK. Agree with the comments about have an oversized mount for the size of scope you have. Have considered an NEQ6 but not splashed out ... yet! 

[ste7e]

Right!  Having decided (with the help of you good folks) that auto-guiding is the way to go, I've just received my shiny new HEQ5 and QHY5-II-M.

Thanks for all your help and time.  I really appreciate it.

So, I'm back with questions... I'm going to put the QHY5-II onto my SW RACI 9x50 for guiding and have got the appropriate adapter from ModernAstronomy.  The instructions say to remove the eyepiece and star diagonal.  There are four temptingly exposed screws which appear to be holding the star diagonal onto the finderscope - before I take my screwdriver to them, can anyone reassure me that that's the right thing to do?  And I'm not going to do irreversible damage to the finderscope?

[ste7e]

I was over complicating it, the eyepiece and diagonal simply unscrew!

Now I just need an evening without clouds... Can anyone help with that?!

 

[SW130p]

I have a 130p been modified to reach focus with a dslr, I now got a 200pds and find the little 130p better for imaging. the 200pds is a beast to handle and work with compared to the 130p, its just easier to handle and it holds collimation much better. I have it on a HEQ5 mount on a concrete pier and its rock solid. There's noticeably more movement with the bigger 200pds.

I 've done 3 mins + without guiding with the 130p and no star trailing. 

I  use a 130p for imaging and the 200pds for visual.

Edited May 11, 2016 by SW130p