beginner Which type of Scope provides the cleanest Images?

[dlrwest55]

I retired a few years ago and have always been interested in Astronomy and photography.  While I have been a photography enthusiast  for a number of years, a few years ago I purchased a small telescope - a cheap 70mm refractor - which I have used for some shots or the moon and the recent solar eclipse.  I have read a bit about astrophotography and the different types and kinds of telescopes, but I am still a bit confused as to which type of telescope would provide the "best" images with regard to contrast, color and crispness. Portability is an issue, as I believe that if the telescope itself, or any of it's component parts weighing more than 30 to 40 pounds would be more than I care manage.   Also a telescope that is GoTo capable is a must, as I am totally unfamiliar with locating objects in the night sky.  I'm hoping to purchase a good telescope for around $2,000.   I certainly would appreciate any advice or guidance as to which type of scope, or even a specific scope that you believe would be best.  Thanks in advance...!  

[Starlight 1]

As you all ready have a camera have a go at some widefield  you be shoting at iso 800 for just 1 or 2 sec  so Stars will not move much and have a go at put then all as one image with DSS.

[carastro]

There are two schools of thought to which telescope is best.  Refractor or Reflector, there are fans of each.  Are you planning on buying a dedicated astro camera - this will give better detail (a mono one) than a DSLR camera, since you asked about detail.  There are many good telescopes out there, but you need a good camera as well, so i think you might need to answer that question first.

Carole 

[ronin]

Probably the crispest and sharpes will be a good apo. Something like the William Optics GT81 but at a bit less cost there is the ES Essential 80. I think ES do an 80mm which is FCD100 - the name relates to the glass type used. Weight of the scope is around 5Kg so 10-11 lbs.

Mount more difficult, subtle differences between US and UK. Maybe look for an EQ5 goto. Reasonable mount, fair size and stable enough. Alternative could be the iOptron CEM 25 or their ZEQ30. Both iOptrons have inbuilt GPS which is a possible useful item if you take the equipment different places.

Not sure about the AVX mount, looks nice, appears a bit lightweight and I hear as many tales of woe as I do praise. Maybe best avoided at this time.

Right you have a DSLR. You will need a T-ring to fit to the DSLR, Then a nosepiece to fit the T-ring, this then goes into the scope focuser. Next is an Intervalometer (Amazon $25-30), this you set a short dealy 10 sec so you can put the thing somewhwere, then set the exposure duration, and a Wait time between expposures and finally the number of exposures - try 10 at first and just play.

EVERYTHING on the DSLR will be manual.Focus, Exposure length (=B), ISO, and I think one other but forget what - sure there are 4??

Clubs US General:  http://www.go-astronomy.com/

Georgis: http://www.go-astronomy.com/astro-clubs-state.php?State=GA

[gnomus]

I think that the telescope that provides the cleanest images would be the telescope that is bolted onto the highest quality mount.  Seriously, if you have a budget in mind ......  well, if you do have a budget in mind, then you should, probably get out now ...   But I would spend a decent chunk on a mount (eg the Skywatcher EQ6) and then you could get away with a relatively inexpensive telescope (ED80?).

I suggest getting hold of a book 'Making Every Photon Count' before spending anything.  It will save you money in the long term.

[Frank the Troll]

Hubble (FLO are offering it for sale) - Its horses for courses, newts or fracs, all have there use.  The best would be what your prepared to spend.  Hope you have deep pockets

 

[Starlight 1]

1 hour ago, dlrwest55 said:

 Portability is an issue

I said try the camera when I see this. I think wee all know and good scope and mount set-up time you add the rest of the kit 40 50 kg .

[Chris]

This is the 'classic' combo that fits your criteria and budget:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/pro-series/skywatcher-evostar-80ed-pro-heq5-pro.html

Plus this:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reducersflatteners/skywatcher-85x-reducer-flattener-for-ed80.html

and this:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/adapters/skywatcher-dslr-m48-ring-adapter.html

and this:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/bahtinov-focus-masks/starsharp-bahtinov-focus-masks.html

 

I believe all the above is just in budget.

 

Other scopes to consider:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/esprit-professional-refractors/skywatcher-esprit-ed-80-pro-triplet.html

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/william-optics/william-optics-zenithstar-61-apo.html

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/explore-scientific-telescopes.html

Other mount to consider:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/celestron-mounts/celestron-advanced-vx-mount.html

 

Hope that helps

Chris

 

 

 

[Uranium235]

From my point of view "clean" images are not really dependant on the telescope, but by the camera used and and amount of data acquired. The definition of clean data is to have a good signal to noise ratio (ie: more signal, less noise). This can be delivered either by using a CCD camera (or the latest generation of cooled CMOS cameras) - or by using a telescope that delivers photons at a very high rate (ie: a fast focal ratio). But, very fast focal ratios come at a cost which is far higher than the aforementioned cameras - not to mention the level of patience and skill required to get it working properly.

So, if you have a fairly average telescope (either an 80ED or a small reflector) - it can be made to produce outstanding images if paired with a camera which delivers low noise data.

I spent just £120 on the telescope that made the below image, but the magic happens in the camera and the mount it was all sat upon:

As long as your telescope of choice is able to deliver round stars in the corners, and have half decent colour correction (ie: not an achromatic refractor) - then it doesnt really matter what optics you use. If anything, optics only take third place in your considerations when setting up an AP rig.

 

[Ben the Ignorant]

2 hours ago, dlrwest55 said:

 which type of telescope would provide the "best" images with regard to contrast, color and crispness

Apo.

[Uranium235]

8 minutes ago, Ben the Ignorant said:

Apo.

Not quite!

If I had the choice between say, an f5 Espirit (refractor) - and a well fettled f2.8 Tak Epsilon 180 (reflector)... I'd go for the Epsilon every single time - that would make burger mince out of all but the very best refractors (but, that depends on whether you are a fan of diffraction spikes or not). Not that I could afford either one of them! So I have to spend my time in the cheap seats.... bah!  

And - to throw another hat into the ring, RC or RH telescopes also produce world-class images.

Also, (at risk of sounding like a broken record) its not always about the telescope, but how you capture and process the data.

[steppenwolf]

15 minutes ago, Uranium235 said:

And - to throw another hat into the ring, RC or RH telescopes also produce world-class images.

But so too do APO refractors!

There is no single answer to this question - as there are so many other variables. Besides, the telescope isn't the most important part of the equation anyway and at the risk of also sounding like a broken record, the mount will contribute mightily to clean images!

[Alien 13]

If using a DSLR then the obvious choice is camera lenses used with a good mount although as mentioned by Uranium a TAK epsilon would also work..

Alan

[Uranium235]

29 minutes ago, steppenwolf said:

But so too do APO refractors!

There is no single answer to this question - as there are so many other variables. Besides, the telescope isn't the most important part of the equation anyway and at the risk of also sounding like a broken record, the mount will contribute mightily to clean images!

Heh I knew someone might chime in at that point!

Quite right.... so many variables, one bit of equipments weakness can be made up for by anothers strengths. But it doesnt really matter what telescope or camera you have - if you dont have a solid mount to support it, the end result will still end up looking like a dogs dinner...lol.

[Chris]

The OP sounds new to AP, so I'm of the thinking that an Apo would be easier to get along with than a fast Newtonian. 

3 hours ago, dlrwest55 said:

which type of telescope would provide the "best" images with regard to contrast, color and crispness

The unobstructed aperture of an Apo should provide the best contrast in theory right? Colour and crispness I think it's a close call, but are diffraction spikes clean? I guess that's in the eye of the OP so it might be worth checking out pictures taken with both Apo's and Newt's online. 

I third what's said though, the right scope is only one element in producing a clean image! 

 

[TareqPhoto]

I can feel about the OP, when i started i thought it is all about the scope, but later on i learnt that i should get equipment as complete set to have best results i can, so i got the mount, then i bought the camera, now i don't have an APO scope yet, but i will test my Achro scope first and see how much quality i lose, learning with less capable scope will always help to get ready when upgrading to a better quality scope.

[ollypenrice]

A gentleman uses a refractor. A professional uses a reflector. Those of us embedded in the nineteenth and early twentieth century regard professionals as somewhat low beings incapable of distinguishing the difference between quantity and quality.  A refractor is rather like a good butler. (So hard to find these days.) It stands front of house and regards incoming photons with a critical eye. For some it's 'tradesman's entrance' but the better class of photon passes directly to the drawing room to be welcomed by Lord and Lady Chip.

I really have no idea why this simple reality attracts so much hostility in the modern world. Ho hum.

Olly

 

[kens]

The Canon 400mm f/2.8 L IS II USM is reportedly very clean. It's used in the Dragonfly array. A bit pricey though.

[iapa]

On 07/09/2017 at 20:01, steppenwolf said:

..........

at the risk of also sounding like a broken record, the mount will contribute mightily to clean images!

the mount will contribute mightily to clean images.... click!

the mount will contribute mightily to clean images.... click!

the mount will contribute mightily to clean images.... click!

the mount will contribute mightily to clean images.... click!

vinyl rules!!!!!! Click!

once you have a mount, personally ive settled for a mount with 50lb payload, then Most of the rest is how much effort you want to put into the rest.

refractors, generally, need longer exposures, but, can suffer Chomatic Aberration; basically different colours focus as different places.

The field of view aka FoV  (how wide an area of sky can be captured ), is dependent on the aperture diameter, but refractors will cost more than an equivalent reflector due cost of the lenses*

A point of debate, it has been said that a ‘good’ APOCHROMATIC ( two lenses ) can be better than a more expensive ‘triplet’, which has 3 lenses. I haven’t seen much CA with my Skywatcher Equinox ED80 Pro apochromat. Others will disagree..... everyone has their favourite.

reflectors do not need as long an exposure on a target, and they do not have the CA, but, may take a significant time to get the mirrors aligned.

One Mr Steve Richards has a publication, ‘making every photon count’ which is, I would say, essential reading.

I’ve managed some reasonably ( in the opinion of SWMBO) decent images with a Nikon D90, 400mm lens, on the back of a Star travel 80mm mounted on a Celestron AVX.

* I’d hate to consider the cost of an 8” refractor vs the £500 Oreo for a half decent reflector ?

then, consider the comments of @ollypenrice

On 10/09/2017 at 21:40, ollypenrice said:

A gentleman uses a refractor. A professional uses a reflector. Those of us embedded in the nineteenth and early twentieth century regard professionals as somewhat low beings incapable of distinguishing the difference between quantity and quality.  A refractor is rather like a good butler. (So hard to find these days.) It stands front of house and regards incoming photons with a critical eye. For some it's 'tradesman's entrance' but the better class of photon passes directly to the drawing room to be welcomed by Lord and Lady Chip.

I really have no idea why this simple reality attracts so much hostility in the modern world. Ho hum.

Olly

 

 

file

[Stub Mandrel]

Your best images will be taken with the kit you enjoy using and are motivated to set up and use enough to get used to using it.

 

[newbie alert]

The best scope is the one you use the most...depents on what you're doing..settings up each night or on a fixed mount in your astro man cave,there's  too many variables for all different tastes...if there was a best scope we would all have the same one

The basis is a good mount,with decent optics taken with a camera that resolves the image for you..its all about fun...