Looking to dive in

[Mcwaffles2003]

Hi everyone,

 

I'm new here and was hoping for some comments/criticisms to what I'm looking at possibly buying

My objective is to get my feet wet into some astrophotography in hopes that longer exposures could bring out some of the dimmer objects in the sky. Im looking for a telescope i can look at some DSOs with and maybe get to see the rings of saturn or the bands of jupiter.

Through shopping around Ive been looking to buy a 6" RC from orion. I figure with the focal length being around 1300 mm I might get some detail out of a planet, though I know not much as contrast is the weakness of an RC. I originally was looking into newts but it seems if I get an astrograph its going to be a hard time using it for visual, plus they are pretty heavy (I have read everywhere to start small as a big telescope tends not no be used) and that pushed me away from them.  Then looked into getting a schmidt cassegrain. It seemed great as I have found they can be used for AP and visual due to the way their focusers are set up, but I have heard that they have a long cooldown time and the corrector plate presents a problem with dew eaning I'm gunna have to immediately invest into some heaters and a battery to power them. So thats what brought me to the RC, so far the only draw back i have heard is that the large secondary reduces contrast on planets, but i feel thats alright as planets are secondary to me vs DSOs where I have heard RCs shine.

Now I'm looking for mounts, and am looking at getting a skyview pro, Ive heard these can have tracking problems after about a minute but have also found forums like "andys shot glass" which show ways to tune up the gears with a little elbow grease. That said, if anyone has a recommendation for a different mount thats under $500, I am all ears. 

Lastly, Ive looked at getting a laser collimator for maintainance, a diagonal so my DSLR doesnt stick way off the back (Ive herad small scopes can have problems with DSLRs hanging out far creating high torque throwing balance out), a 2" DSLR adapter, a polar alignment scope, a meade series 4000 8 to 24 mm zoom eyepiece, and a laser sight for spotting

 

 

Please, anyone that can, please offer adjustment ideas to my purchase.  comments, concerns, tips, anything. 

 

Thanks everyone for reading, cant wait to join in  

[Kriss Craik]

Hi McWaffles and welcome, my first thought was you are coming at this the wrong way, the first thing you should be focusing on is the mount as without a stable reliable platform the best most capable scope in the world is useless. 

I would recommend buying the sturdiest mount you can, I have the SWHEQ5 and this is probably the starting position for most people getting into AP. As for the scope whatever you have left in the bank after the mount is what you are working with. Have you looked at refractors? The SW80 DSpro is well regarded for DSO AP.

Then once you build up your skills/knowledge and take the plunge further the refractor can become your guide scope. Allowing you to take even longer exposures

hope this helps

[Waldemar]

Hi McWaffles, don't dive in... walk in slowly step by step and read that famous book at least three times as a first step: "making every Photon count"  Diving in will mean that you will bump your head in a very costly way...

A RC is a difficult scope... not for beginners!

[Mcwaffles2003]

9 hours ago, Waldemar said:

Hi McWaffles, don't dive in... walk in slowly step by step and read that famous book at least three times as a first step: "making every Photon count"  Diving in will mean that you will bump your head in a very costly way...

A RC is a difficult scope... not for beginners!

Perhaps I misspoke, probably should have titled looking to get my feet wet. I'll definitely look into getting that book, I've seen it mentioned several times. Any chance you could explain how the scope would be difficult? Excuse my naivete but I'd figure after collimation the process, simply put would be point, focus, shoot. 

 

14 hours ago, Kriss Craik said:

Hi McWaffles and welcome, my first thought was you are coming at this the wrong way, the first thing you should be focusing on is the mount as without a stable reliable platform the best most capable scope in the world is useless. 

I would recommend buying the sturdiest mount you can, I have the SWHEQ5 and this is probably the starting position for most people getting into AP. As for the scope whatever you have left in the bank after the mount is what you are working with. Have you looked at refractors? The SW80 DSpro is well regarded for DSO AP.

Then once you build up your skills/knowledge and take the plunge further the refractor can become your guide scope. Allowing you to take even longer exposures

hope this helps

Thanks for the recommendations, but just that mount alone would empty the bank and then some, adding the refractor essentially doubles the original estimated cost. I know this is a costly hobby but there's no way I can spend $2000-$2500, even $1300 is pushing my wallet really hard. Is the setup I've chosen really going to lead  to nothing but unusable photos?

 I'm not looking for great photos, honestly at this point I'm simply trying to pull out some of the smaller /dimmer objects from the sky

[TareqPhoto]

Don't make mistakes because your budget doesn't allow, buy something expensive at once then you may never look back or won't look back for long time.

From everywhere i read about astrophotography there is one word, big word that ringing the bell always = MOUNT.

Don't buy cheap mounts even if it can do the job, i started this year in Feb, and i waited until maybe April or May then i bought AZ-EQ6, first i looked at something like iOptron25, then AVX, but the more i read the more i feel that i should go with lowest entry level because i know at some point i will upgrade and i can't sell anything when i buy it, so i waited and saved, i looked also at EQ5 versions and was s close to go with one of those, but then suddenly i saw EQ6, then i felt that it should be the sweet spot, although expensive but it should be the minimum requirement, EQ5 should be a minimum requirement, and i went with AZ because i wanted it for visual, so look at AVX at least if you really at tight budget, if you can stretch little more then EQ5 and i recommend HEQ5, if you can stretch even more then why not EQ6 such as NEQ6 or EQ6-R if not AZ-EQ6? i bought mine roughly for about $1600, from a UK vendor popular here, if you can save with shipping then you can have it for less than what i paid it for, there is also AZ-EQ5, much cheaper and can do the job for long time too.

So, first get one of above mounts, then later when you recover think about scopes and accessories, don't rush, i bought ST80 along with AZ-EQ6 and i am enjoying doing DSO AP only, next year i am planning for scopes, but i am happy with the mount, it is capable, and funny that there are forums saying that it is still not enough, yes, if i want heavy scope it isn't, but that time will be long in the future, i may be able to buy another mount by then, but for refractors up to 120mm and SCT/MAK upt to 11" i am very fine with this mount, and again, i am not in rush, but i made a right decision for the mount and that alone opened many possibilities for me about scopes in the future.

[Kriss Craik]

7 hours ago, Mcwaffles2003 said:

Perhaps I misspoke, probably should have titled looking to get my feet wet. I'll definitely look into getting that book, I've seen it mentioned several times. Any chance you could explain how the scope would be difficult? Excuse my naivete but I'd figure after collimation the process, simply put would be point, focus, shoot. 

 

Thanks for the recommendations, but just that mount alone would empty the bank and then some, adding the refractor essentially doubles the original estimated cost. I know this is a costly hobby but there's no way I can spend $2000-$2500, even $1300 is pushing my wallet really hard. Is the setup I've chosen really going to lead  to nothing but unusable photos?

 I'm not looking for great photos, honestly at this point I'm simply trying to pull out some of the smaller /dimmer objects from the sky

I’m not saying a smaller/cheaper mount would not work just that it would be so much harder. For example if you are taking even a modest 20/30 second exposure the mount has to be absolutely still. The smaller the mount the greater the chances of wobble and thus producing an unusable image. That said some of the shots you take on an evening may be useable. But the aim is to gather as much  usable data as possible on a given target.

this problem is compounded when you add more weight to the mount.

OTA, camera, finder, guide scope and diagonal this will all push a mount beyond is practical capability, factoring in the bigger the setup the the more the wind can spoil your shots.

For $1300 (£975 ish) you should be able to source secondhand some very capable kit?

please don’t take my words as criticism I started off with a Celestron 76eq on a 2/3gem and took some IMHO breathtaking shots with any iPhone jammed up against the eyepiece but nothing compared to even a 15 second exposure of M43.

hope this helps

 

[TareqPhoto]

Also, if you really want to start with a good camera but cheap then you can look at ASI120 versions, i advice you to go with "S" version which is for USB3.0, then it is up to you if you want a color one or a mono one, it is cheap so you can't expect a lot from it, but it can do the job and you will learn with it by the time, if mine is still working then i will sell it for you, it is a capable planetary camera, you can use it for guiding too when you upgrade later to a better camera, so there is always a value out of cheaper camera, but the mount should be good one and don't go cheap in that, don't rush, read more about mounts, compare them, look at images or examples done by different mounts, and different cameras, ask more questions, and read books when you get them, it is not about "I want to do it now or very soon with current budget", it is about "How far can i go with it or what i want to do later or what is my plan", don't waste now then you regret it even if it will work for you, believe me even a tripod that is $50 with a mount that is $400 will do the job, but then don't push it to compare it with higher quality ones, be wise and smart in your purchase, even if it will cost you, but "BUY ONCE if possible".

[ronin]

Really it is difficult to mix visual and AP. The different requirements mean that the equipment ends up different. Simple way is Visual = Big scope on small mount, AP = small scope on big mount.

A big mount will do both but the scope aspects are different. I suggest you look upon an SCT as a visual scope. People do use them for AP but it all works out different. One aspect is you buy a long focal length scope then buy a reducer to reduce the focal length.

Never used one but most posts on RC's are describin the problms they have with them. Getting them set up is not easy, boardering on impossible.

For AP the simple approach of a decent apo triplet on a good (biggish) equitorial mount is the tried and tested route. You can get imaging reflectors, Skywatcher 130PDS being one. For simplicity do not go down the "fast" scope options, there are f/4 ones out there but again they need more care and setting up and are more critical. They aslo need a coma corrector. I suspect that an f/6 scope will be an easier option and lose you little. One of the ES 80mm apo's and a good goto equitorial, flatener (at sometime), DSLR, Intervalometer, couple of adaptors for the DSLR. Get an AP camera at a later stage when you have more experience.

You need a bigger mount then just for the sacope as usually people getting into it add on guide scope and camera and other bits. If he scope you coinsider is say 10lbs then look to a mount that will take 25lb to 30lbs.

Suppose you are no where near Headlands? Assuming not: http://www.go-astronomy.com/  Club list bottom left. Seeing what is used helps enormously.Will suggest that whatever you do do not dive in.

[Ricochet]

On 25/11/2017 at 12:16, Mcwaffles2003 said:

My objective is to get my feet wet into some astrophotography in hopes that longer exposures could bring out some of the dimmer objects in the sky. Im looking for a telescope i can look at some DSOs with and maybe get to see the rings of saturn or the bands of jupiter.

What exactly do you mean by "dimmer objects"? What equipment do you already have? The rings of Saturn and bands of Jupiter can be seen visually with a decent telescope, they don't require long exposure photography. Do you really want to see celestial objects or do you want to take photos, because those are really two different things.  In fact even planetary and DSO photography are completely separate endeavours requiring different approaches. If it is really "seeing" that is your objective then you might find that the best use of your money is to spend it on fuel, driving a visual scope out to a decent dark location.

9 hours ago, Mcwaffles2003 said:

Excuse my naivete but I'd figure after collimation the process, simply put would be point, focus, shoot. 

I hope that you understand that it is not like using an instant camera where you can take a photo, look at it instantly, and then move onto the next photo. Astrophotography requires hours of data, perhaps even over multiple nights, before combining all of that in processing to produce a single photo. You won't be stood at the scope looking at the object on your camera's display. If that's what you're really after then you need to look into EAA/video astronomy which may (or may not) require different equipment choices.

[Waldemar]

19 hours ago, Mcwaffles2003 said:

Perhaps I misspoke, probably should have titled looking to get my feet wet. I'll definitely look into getting that book, I've seen it mentioned several times. Any chance you could explain how the scope would be difficult? Excuse my naivete but I'd figure after collimation the process, simply put would be point, focus, shoot

Collimating a RC telescope is an art on it's own, because it is really different from collimating a Newton or a SCT. You fall from one collimation problem into the other, it is a VERY secure job and not feasable for a beginner. On top of that the fl of RC's make it a difficult instrument for lower quality mounts.
'dimmer and small objects' are the hardest ones to start with. 'bigger and bright objects' would be the way to go. With a small refractor or a 130PDS newtonian you will have reasonable to good results a lot faster and you will be ahead of frustration, on the right mount that is. Saving money on a mount will make you very unhappy when you have to spent it twice... 

'Simply point, focus and shoot' is really not part of imaging vocabulary...

I do not want to discourage you nor underestimate your skills or intelligence, just want to spare you the frustration of being disappointed to the bones by the wrong choices you will probably make...
if you start reading the book I mentioned, you will start understanding why people give you the advices they do.

[Mcwaffles2003]

On 11/27/2017 at 03:06, TareqPhoto said:

Don't make mistakes because your budget doesn't allow, buy something expensive at once then you may never look back or won't look back for long time.

From everywhere i read about astrophotography there is one word, big word that ringing the bell always = MOUNT.

Don't buy cheap mounts even if it can do the job, i started this year in Feb, and i waited until maybe April or May then i bought AZ-EQ6, first i looked at something like iOptron25, then AVX, but the more i read the more i feel that i should go with lowest entry level because i know at some point i will upgrade and i can't sell anything when i buy it, so i waited and saved, i looked also at EQ5 versions and was s close to go with one of those, but then suddenly i saw EQ6, then i felt that it should be the sweet spot, although expensive but it should be the minimum requirement, EQ5 should be a minimum requirement, and i went with AZ because i wanted it for visual, so look at AVX at least if you really at tight budget, if you can stretch little more then EQ5 and i recommend HEQ5, if you can stretch even more then why not EQ6 such as NEQ6 or EQ6-R if not AZ-EQ6? i bought mine roughly for about $1600, from a UK vendor popular here, if you can save with shipping then you can have it for less than what i paid it for, there is also AZ-EQ5, much cheaper and can do the job for long time too.

So, first get one of above mounts, then later when you recover think about scopes and accessories, don't rush, i bought ST80 along with AZ-EQ6 and i am enjoying doing DSO AP only, next year i am planning for scopes, but i am happy with the mount, it is capable, and funny that there are forums saying that it is still not enough, yes, if i want heavy scope it isn't, but that time will be long in the future, i may be able to buy another mount by then, but for refractors up to 120mm and SCT/MAK upt to 11" i am very fine with this mount, and again, i am not in rush, but i made a right decision for the mount and that alone opened many possibilities for me about scopes in the future.

listening to everyone here screaming "MOUNT" I will definately take the advice. looking around I've seen many others recommend the SW HEQ5 as a good beginning mount. Also, realizing the mount ive picked being rated for 20 lbs, that will dictate on my first choice of adding an upgrade thatd id be well over weight anyway. Ive found a store that sells them for about $1000 here (https://www.binostore.com/en/accessories/tripod/heq5-mount-synscan--power-supply-220v/?reffr=FRGL&utm_source=Froogle&utm_medium=catalog&ifrom=US&utm_campaign=Froogle-US&gclid=CjwKCAiAr_TQBRB5EiwAC_QCq4SxFZyeesz5UwypS-RWZxApo-QF-_ht8aDrbZNtkBCZhb5QBF1ElRoCIR8QAvD_BwE)

hopefully its reputable and will look more into this

On 11/27/2017 at 03:21, TareqPhoto said:

Also, if you really want to start with a good camera but cheap then you can look at ASI120 versions, i advice you to go with "S" version which is for USB3.0, then it is up to you if you want a color one or a mono one, it is cheap so you can't expect a lot from it, but it can do the job and you will learn with it by the time, if mine is still working then i will sell it for you, it is a capable planetary camera, you can use it for guiding too when you upgrade later to a better camera, so there is always a value out of cheaper camera, but the mount should be good one and don't go cheap in that, don't rush, read more about mounts, compare them, look at images or examples done by different mounts, and different cameras, ask more questions, and read books when you get them, it is not about "I want to do it now or very soon with current budget", it is about "How far can i go with it or what i want to do later or what is my plan", don't waste now then you regret it even if it will work for you, believe me even a tripod that is $50 with a mount that is $400 will do the job, but then don't push it to compare it with higher quality ones, be wise and smart in your purchase, even if it will cost you, but "BUY ONCE if possible".

I already have a Canon rebel t6, Ive used it for general photography, then i tried taking pictures of the orion nebula and the pleiades with my 250mm but couldnt get expoures over 15 sec until large trails appear so I looked into just getting an orion min-EQ to mount my camera on and kept looking further. Finally a couple months later of reading, watching videos, and shopping I've come here

On 11/27/2017 at 05:41, Ricochet said:

What exactly do you mean by "dimmer objects"? What equipment do you already have? The rings of Saturn and bands of Jupiter can be seen visually with a decent telescope, they don't require long exposure photography. Do you really want to see celestial objects or do you want to take photos, because those are really two different things.  In fact even planetary and DSO photography are completely separate endeavours requiring different approaches. If it is really "seeing" that is your objective then you might find that the best use of your money is to spend it on fuel, driving a visual scope out to a decent dark location.

I hope that you understand that it is not like using an instant camera where you can take a photo, look at it instantly, and then move onto the next photo. Astrophotography requires hours of data, perhaps even over multiple nights, before combining all of that in processing to produce a single photo. You won't be stood at the scope looking at the object on your camera's display. If that's what you're really after then you need to look into EAA/video astronomy which may (or may not) require different equipment choices.

My current equipment is a camera and a tripod, so nothing so far really. By dimmer objects I was referring to nebulae and galaxies mostly. I know the planets dont require long exposures, very short ones in fact, but the require larger focal lengths to see more than just dots from what ive gathered. I figured the RC was a good compromise in focal length between a newt and an sct. I was planning for large objects that would be larger than the frame to process them as mosaics and see how that worked out, and then for planets I figured I could use a barlow to get closer as needed.

 

On 11/27/2017 at 15:02, Waldemar said:

Collimating a RC telescope is an art on it's own, because it is really different from collimating a Newton or a SCT. You fall from one collimation problem into the other, it is a VERY secure job and not feasable for a beginner. On top of that the fl of RC's make it a difficult instrument for lower quality mounts.
'dimmer and small objects' are the hardest ones to start with. 'bigger and bright objects' would be the way to go. With a small refractor or a 130PDS newtonian you will have reasonable to good results a lot faster and you will be ahead of frustration, on the right mount that is. Saving money on a mount will make you very unhappy when you have to spent it twice... 

'Simply point, focus and shoot' is really not part of imaging vocabulary...

I do not want to discourage you nor underestimate your skills or intelligence, just want to spare you the frustration of being disappointed to the bones by the wrong choices you will probably make...
if you start reading the book I mentioned, you will start understanding why people give you the advices they do.

I wasn't planning to start on smaller and dimmer, my plan was to start with large and bright nebulae and galaxies. My first photographs will be of the orion nebula the pleaides and andromeda. In fact, from what I've gathered using stellarium, my first attempt with my equipment I was planning on not even using my telescope yet and simply attatchng my camera with my 250mm lens to my mount. Getting the andromeda galaxy, as stellarium shows me, at such a low FL it will sit at a comfortable size in the frame. After I got the hang of doing this I was planning to move onto smaller and smaller objects. At some point far down the road Id like to take a photo of a bipolar nebula like eta carinae if thats possible.

Ill definately look into a higher quality mount btw, everyone here telling me I should has been pretty convincing, thank you for the advice.

As far as collimating the RC goes, the only way a beginner can stop being a beginner is by doing it right? I'm not someone who is entirely foreign to setting up optics either, I've had to use optics tables in some labs for an optics course Ive been through. Im no where near very experiencedd, but im not entirely foreign either. Im well aware that if the focuser is off that my adjustments to the secondary will be off and my primary will be exponentially more off. Personally spending a long time working on collimating the scope sounds more enjoyable than frustrating even if I have to start over 5 or 10 times. 

BTW theres a reason I didnt say 'Simply point, focus and shoot', I specifically said 'Simply put' as in I realize the process is more complicated but I was putting it simply. Also I was referring to the process of using the scope itself, since you told me it was a difficult scope to use, not the entire process from setting up my mount, through taking data, to image processing. Aside from collimation, in what manner is using an RC difficult though? After its collimated, mounted, and pointing at the sky what about the telescope do you believe will provide me with agony?

 

To all who have offered in their 2 cents to me here, I really am grateful. Its nice to know the community in this hobby can be so informative and willing to help those starting out. So to all of you, thank you very much

[TareqPhoto]

^^^ Great then, good luck!