5D mark III vs ccd?

[wimvb]

If you consider the EQ6 as a mount, and living in Norway, I would strongly advise you to have a look at the EQ6 wedge as well. It will make polar alignment so much easier. The Alt bolts on a standard EQ6 are just not up to the job if you live "up north"

http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/language/en/info/p7490_Vimech-EQ6-Wedge-fuer-einfachere-Einstellung-der-Polhoehe-und-mehr-Stabilitaet.html

and

http://www.eq6wedge.com/

[FudgeMaster]

So many people have mentioned the Star 71 now that I'm starting to second guess my interests in the Orion 10" f/3.9 newtonian:/

Wouldn't the newtonian give me more bang for the buck? It's both faster and has a longer focal length. And the star 71 being a refractor won't that cause more coma and chromatic aberrations?

Too many things to consider:/

 

Iv'e at least decided to go for the EQ6 mount:) This seems to future proof the hobby somewhat.

The EQ6 Wedge seemed like a good idea!

[wuthton]

For astrophotography I'd take the Star 71 over a 10" newt any day of the week as you can just plug your camera in and you're good to go. 

The newt would be trickier to balance and at f3.9 collimation is not going to be fun. It's also big enough for the guiding graph to register an owl breaking wind and the longer focal length is no friend to your DSLR. 

Regarding the EQ wedge, I have one and can certainly recommend it for northerners but if the budget is getting out of hand you can just extend the north leg of the tripod to tilt the mount backwards which gives the altitude bolts better purchase.

There's a general belief that the tripod needs to be level to polar align, it doesn't. If you are relying on the polar scope (you shouldn't) then being somewhat level East/West helps but North/South matters not a jot. 

[wimvb]

Fl is only important for the targets you go for. Most dsos are extended objects, that do well with shorter focal length.

Newtonians have generally more coma than refractors, I believe. They don't have chromatic aberation, but neither does an apochromatic (triplet) refractor. If/when you do mono imaging, ca should also become less of a problem. As you noted, reflectors are generally faster, they have more bang for the buck regarding aperture.

Just as there isn't one single best (daytime) camera lens, there is no single best scope.

[Knight of Clear Skies]

On 14/10/2016 at 02:35, FudgeMaster said:

So many people have mentioned the Star 71 now that I'm starting to second guess my interests in the Orion 10" f/3.9 newtonian:/

Wouldn't the newtonian give me more bang for the buck? It's both faster and has a longer focal length. And the star 71 being a refractor won't that cause more coma and chromatic aberrations?

I don't have any experience of imaging at that focal length, but I have heard a lot of people say they made a mistake by going for too big a scope initially. It depends on how steep a learning curve you're prepared to take on and what you want to image.

 

[ollypenrice]

The problem with the Star 71 is that it has to be a good one. A vast number of these scopes went out with optical defects which it turned out were not always rectifiable. But a good one does cover a full frame chip and give nice tight little stars.

As for focal length, there is no good or bad one. They are just different.

Olly