Lunar imaging equipment advice.

[pbyrne]

Hi all

 

OK, I've been bitten by the desire to begin to take photographs of the moon, inspired by images seen on SGL and various other sites.  I am a visual observer, binoculars being my thing, dipping my toe into the imaging scene brings with it it's own set of questions as regards the scope, mount, etc.  After much trolling of the net, hours of Youtube videos, I have decided that the weapon of choice is the Mak.  I have narrowed the choice down to two potential candidates, both of which have their strong points, and some drawbacks.

The Skywatcher, Skymax 127 Synscan:  I am really impressed by the reviews this mak gets online, the samples of lunar images using this scope have been really bobbling and another attractive feature is the price, £389 at FLO.  The downside is that with mount there is very little room for improvement, the range of scopes that can be attached is limited, if I wanted to branch out into serious deep sky imaging I am limited.  Also, I would like to attach a R&P focusser and I'm not sure if this can be done.

Skywatcher Skymax PRO 150.  A serious instrument, great resolution, ability to get really deep into the lunar surface and the producer of outstanding photographs.  This scope can be modified to take a R&P focusser.  The downside is that this scope is a lot more expensive than the 127, £527 at FLO for the OTA alone.  For a scope such as this a mount such as the HEQ-5 or NEQ-6 would be required, adding another £1000 to the budget, and that's before I add cameras, etc.  For the addition of another thousand pounds+, will the images I obtain be worth the extra lay out?

Here's my final thoughts. 

The 127 is a great instrument, grab and go, inexpensive and has the ability to take great photos.  Also, I can afford it now, the difference in costs will pay for the camera, power source, etc.

The 150 is another stunning performer, for the jump in price it had better be, it can be modified with better add ons, the additional costs for the mount are high, however, with regards the mount, the improved mount has the ability to take on a range of heavier scopes, if I should decide to upgrade in the future, I am not limited to smaller instruments.  This set up will have to wait until I can cobble together the funds.

I am not in a crazy rush to rush out and by the first scope I see, I am more than happy to continue with my binocular observations.

One final note, I know that people will be advocating the SCT route, and I understand that, but I want to step down the Mak road, though it doesn't have to be Skywatcher brand.

Any and all advice gratefully accepted.

Paul

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Maks are great lunar and planetary scopes, and both Skymax scopes give great results. For lunar, I doubt an HEQ5 or EQ6 is needed with the Skymax 150. That OTA is about as heavy as my C8, and my Great Polaris (GP) works just fine on lunar solar and planetary. I am pretty sure an EQ5 (GP-clone) would be enough, for both lunar, solar and planetary (many of my solar shots are taken with an EQ3-2, albeit with a lighter scope). Guiding ports and the like are also largely superfluous, I find. An HEQ5 with guiding port and goto would be more future proof if you. As an example of what can be achieved with the GP and the C8, here are some images of the moon and Jupiter

[nightfisher]

I have to ask, what camera are you planning to use, if going with a DSLR you wont fit a large moon onto the chip with a 150 pro, but will just do it with a 127, i would be tempted to suggest a 127 with an EQ3 and RA drive if its just Luna imaging or a bit of planetary as well

[pbyrne]

I was thinking of a camera such as a ZWO ASI120MC, nightfisher.

Looking at Michael's stunning images, this is something I am aiming for.  I take what you are saying about the mount and it makes total sense.  What camera do you emp!oy?

 

[JamesF]

I've done a lot of lunar and solar photography with a 127 Mak on an EQ3-2 and a Canon 450D.  It works quite nicely.  At around 1500mm focal length the lunar disc just fits in the camera frame, though it is squeaky tight when the Moon is closest to the Earth and near full.  To use the ASI120 on the same OTA you'd probably need a 16-panel mosaic for the full disc which is going to be a lot of work, especially if you want maybe thirty or forty copies of each panel to stack.

Michael is a bit of a "mosaic monster", doing 30-ish panel mosaics with his C8 and ASI178MM and I'm not really sure that's where you'd want to start, though if you're determined then starting with a slightly smaller number of panels might make life easier

I think there's a huge amount to be said for the 127 Mak.  I've used mine for visual, lunar and solar imaging and even some imaging of bright DSOs such as globular clusters an the occasional planetary nebula, though the latter two do test the limits of an EQ3-2.  If there's room it's the one I put in the car to take on holiday.  You might outgrow it, but you may well never get rid of it   I'd be tempted to go for a motorised EQ5 over the EQ3-2 if the budget will stretch that far just because it's a little more robust, but the smaller one will generally do the job.  For imaging of any kind I think an EQ mount just makes life a bit easier.

So, if I were starting out on lunar imaging today I'd probably go for the 127 Mak on an EQ5 with the simple aftermarket motor set and a used Canon DSLR with a not excessive shutter count -- something like an 1100D maybe, but have a look around, see what there is and then do a bit of research.  Some of them produce far more noisy images than others.  If you're controlling it from a PC then a mains power adaptor for the camera may also be handy, but isn't necessary.

James

Oh, and the obligatory pic (taken with my 127 Mak, EQ3-2 and 450D)

[nightfisher]

I think JamesF pretty well covered how well the 127 can perform, here is a shot from last night, 127 on EQ5 with dual drives, this is with my trusty Canon 1000D and no mosaics

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

12 hours ago, pbyrne said:

I was thinking of a camera such as a ZWO ASI120MC, nightfisher.

Looking at Michael's stunning images, this is something I am aiming for.  I take what you are saying about the mount and it makes total sense.  What camera do you emp!oy?

 

For the Jupiter images I used an ASI224MC in the first image and my previous ASI120MC in the second, older image. The big lunar mosaic was made with the C8 and ASI178MM. I also image with the C8 and DSLR, using a 0.63x focal reducer to get down to 1260mm focal length or thereabouts. I can then squeeze it into FOV of the crop sensor camera I have. Making mosaics of the moon is quite easy, however. Once I have stacked the frames for each of the panes (automatically in AutoStakkert), I sharpen them in batch mode in ImPPG, and then chuck the data either into MS-ICE, or AutoStitch, and sit back. I sometimes tweak curves in Gimp.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Here is a link to the some DSLR+C8 results:

 

[Owmuchonomy]

I agree with Michael and don't be put off by mosaics.  My fave Lunar pics have been with my ASI290 and an IR pass filter narrowly beating my ASI174 which has the larger chip and pixels.

[pbyrne]

Many thanks for the replies, and I have to say, stunning images, gentlemen.  I am thinking I might have to change my stance when it comes to getting an SCT, a 200mm SCT will offer greater resolution than a 127mm mak, right?

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

3 hours ago, pbyrne said:

Many thanks for the replies, and I have to say, stunning images, gentlemen.  I am thinking I might have to change my stance when it comes to getting an SCT, a 200mm SCT will offer greater resolution than a 127mm mak, right?

Definitely. The Skymax 127 punches well above its weight, and is a great little scope, but the C8 will get more detail. It also has more light grasp for visual DSO work.

[pbyrne]

In the end I saw two deals I could not turn down, a 127 Skymax pro and a Celestron 8 inch Newtonian on a Celestron CG-5 mount with powertank.  The budget is blown for the time being and the camera will have to wait.  Still, plenty of time for observing.