My thoughts on which telescope/mount to get

[Alan Davis]

I have been reading about getting into imaging (I want to do) and most opinion appears to be that the mount is the most important thing.
I have been looking at this mount. There is the suggestion on here that a syntrek would be cheaper as I have a laptop and could control it from there, but i have not been able to find any now. No longer made?
Anyway, I have also found this mount, which is described as an imaging mount, but costs an extra £300. There is some hype at the top of the description that gives reasons why it is better, but I don't know enough to know whether these things are worth the extra money. What do more experience people thing?
Once that decision is made I need to consider the telescope.
This one has good reports. I think to connect it to the mount for imaging I would need this? As the scope comes in two bits, I could add the rings and use it on one of the mounts? This would make the cost £1306/£1606 depending on which mount. It would give me tow options for use. I could use it as a dobsonian for casual visual or add it to the mount for imaging, so good for flexibility.
The other one I have been looking at is this one. This is f5 rather than f6 which would be good for imaging and is a slightly cheaper package overall (£1294/£1594) which would be good for my pocket (the £12 dufference is not make or break), but I would only be able to use it on the mount, so not as easy to set for a casual visual session, so not so good for flexibility.
I know there are lots more things I am going to have to get as I go along, but, from these options, which mount and which telescope would you go for?

[rigradio]

EQ6-R Pro + small triplet/quadruplet refractor (William Optics, Stellarvue, TS-Optics)

[ronin]

Mount is right but the scopes are really visual scopes. Big reflectors can do imaging but they are not the best.

Easy way to describe it is that a lot of people for imaging (and good imaging) use the William Optics Star 71. Kind of the other end to the large reflectors you are looking at. Imaging is big mount and small good quality scope.

With the small number of posts indicated, have you been star gazing before and have you done imaging previously? Reason I ask is you appear to be jumping in and jumping in at the expensive end. Collecting images is a somewhat slow and maybe painful job. Sixty exposues of sixty seconds will take close to 2 hours to collect - DSLR's need a bit of sensor cool down time and write to memory time, so double the length of each exposure is a good estimate. Then you head inside and start the transfer and processing.

I always say to add a location, it helps when suggesting things, usually clubs and places.

Have you seen an EQ6 in whatever format, they are not small which is a reason for a location and so suggest a club or two.

[Ricochet]

I suggest the first thing to do is to buy this book. Read it several times over and then start considering which bits of equipment to buy.

[scitmon]

I second the book recommendation too.  It will give you good insight to make an informed decision.

I was exactly in your situation a year ago, and bought the Sky-Watcher 80ED Ds-pro which comes highly recommended for imagers.  I think the William Optics which has been mentioned is also an excellent way to go.  Mount wise, with a small refractor like these, something like a HEQ5 is more than adequate.  However, you should consider future proofing yourself.  Once you get the imaging bug you may want to branch out into bigger and heaver scopes.  If you think that might happen then you may want to get something more heavy weight like the EQ6-pro.  

 

[Kaliska]

Jusy my 2p worth here. I've just stared (last couple months) buying my imaging equipment and I've taken a lot of advise for the members here. First thing I bought was the most important, the mount and spending a little more on the mount and a little less on the scope i think would be the best thing to do, So i ended up buying a second hand AZ EQ6 GT, which should last me quite some time (a little overkill for my scope, but i'm just thinking of the future). The scope that pretty much everyone recomended was the Skywatcher 80ED (which I now own). It's great quality, for a very reasonable price and some of the images that it can produce are quite stunning.

[newbie alert]

The neq6 pro is a great mount for imaging but the eq6 r pro has the edge over it as it's fully belt driven..think the power ports are a better design and the adjustment bolts...You could use a Newtonian on either mount but if using a small frac then maybe a eq5 size would be better..

[Waldemar]

When imaging, the size and weight of the mount is of less importance than the quality. The EQ6R-Pro is of far superior quality compared to the EQ5, so in fact if it fits your budget, there should be no doubt which one to buy, independent of the scope you will put on it right now. In the future that will change anyway. 
So, a 'future-proof' investment would be EQ6R-Pro, at least for quite some years. Stay away from the bigger Newtonians, they act like sails... hard on the mount. The 130PDS may be an option or as is mentioned before a 80mm or so ED refractor. And yes, please read that book a couple of times before buying anything. It will save you money and offers a lot of insight!

[Cosmic Geoff]

The superWASP professional sky survey (see here: http://www.superwasp.org/technical.htm) uses lenses of 11.1cm aperture to image huge numbers of stars with short exposures.

If 11.1cm aperture is good enough for them...

[MattJenko]

Imaging with an 8" Newtonian is tough going for experienced astrophotographers, let alone ones just starting out. The smaller 130PDS is a brilliant choice, as are the small ED refractors, and there are a lot of extremely good options on the market these days, lots of them.

[Alan Davis]

Thank you all for your advice.

I will certainly get and read that book. It will probably answer a lot of my questions.

If I have got what people are saying, it looks as if the R mount would probably be worth the extra cost.

About the telescope i have one concern. Id ownloaded a programme that shows what things look like through different telescopes and cameras. The one on the left is the ED80 and the one on the right is the skyliner. I could always enlarge the end result of the ED80 but would that be as good as the skyliner one? Surely the bigger original image would always be better than the enlarged smaller one.

[rl]

For a given camera the ED80 covers a much wider field at a much smaller scale than an 8" Newtonian...you are comparing apples and oranges. On a small target like M51 you need resolution,  which is a combination of the aperture,focal length and pixel size. The aperture sets the ultimate resolution possible (with perfect sky conditions), the pixel size relative to the focal length decide how much of the ultimate resolution gets translated into the image. In the M51 case, the Newt is going to win. For large scale targets like the California nebula, you will be better off with the short refractor. Sadly no one scope does everything....

The ED80 is a very good starting point..it's virtually a rite of passage. It's easy to guide with a small guidescope. An 8" Newt is better guided with an off-axis guider which is awkward to adjust and provides a poorer choice of guide stars.

It's all in the book!

RL

[tooth_dr]

Alan, the more you magnify the image then the more you magnify your difficulty in keeping every working. The ED80 is just a delightful scope for imaging. 

[newbie alert]

The 80ed is a great scope for astrophography..covers lots of bases..some of those  tick box nebulae out there are huge..

[ollypenrice]

12 hours ago, Alan Davis said:

Thank you all for your advice.

I will certainly get and read that book. It will probably answer a lot of my questions.

If I have got what people are saying, it looks as if the R mount would probably be worth the extra cost.

About the telescope i have one concern. Id ownloaded a programme that shows what things look like through different telescopes and cameras. The one on the left is the ED80 and the one on the right is the skyliner. I could always enlarge the end result of the ED80 but would that be as good as the skyliner one? Surely the bigger original image would always be better than the enlarged smaller one.

You simply cannot do all objects in one telescope, just as a professional photographer cannot do every shoot with one lens. M51 is a great object, we all love it, but this might be time for a reality check.

I like this image but this gentleman provided the kit and a lot of the expertise...

Big scope, big mount, high resolution. On the other hand, if you settle for a smaller, less accurate mount and a smaller scope with a wider field of view and lower resolution you can still take pictures! This was from an 85mm refractor.

 

Don't damn a small scope because it can't do a great M51. A big scope can't do a great Pleiades... (other than via a mosaic.)

Olly