Mix and match tripod and mount?

[SpaceBob]

Hello from across the pond! TL;DR at the bottom

I've been looking into upgrading my equipment so that I can have a proper astrophotography and visual setup. I understand that an apo is the way to go for AP but with as much as they cost and the limitations with my budget, I can't get an apo and a large enough scope for visual work, plus I love diffraction spikes. So my thought process is to get a large Newtonian that comes with a Dobsonian mount (without GoTo) that I can use for visual and then get a heavy duty GoTo EQ mount for AP. I was thinking about getting the Orion HDX110 mount without the tripod/pier (saves me about $900) and then using the tripod my Celestron Advanced GT came with as the tripod.

TL;DR: would the HDX110 mount fit on an Advanced GT tripod? Any advice would be appreciated (even if it's to make my own tripod)

[Sunshine]

With those particular two i can't say, but to reassure you i can say that i have often managed with success the mating of different mounts and tripods, i know there are aftermarket adapters for mounts which allow for interplay between them.

[SpaceBob]

Any particular place I should look for those adapters?

[Sunshine]

Hmm, looking at the specs for these two you'd like to mount, i see a point of concern, with some research i gather that the HDX110 is quite a bit heavier than the advance GT normally mounted on that tripod.

I see the weight of the HDX Eq mount is about 55lbs and the weight of the Advanced GT  EQ mount is 17lbs, unless someone else with more experience than i says otherwise id say that huge HDX mount will 

easily overwhelm the Advance GT tripod. They simply are not in the same class, let alone adding the counterweights and scope to the equation, the HDX110 looks gargantuan!

[SpaceBob]

Thanks for the help. Would it be easier/cheaper to build my own tripod? I wouldn't think there would be a lot of engineering involved to make it work...

[Sunshine]

I have no experience making tripods, it involves some degree of engineering know how, the most important factor in a tripod for astrophotography is stability, rock solid is key, its not outside the realm of possibility though.

I must ask, is there any reason why you want such a huge mount for AP? unless you're planning to mount a 165mm refractor, a smaller EQ mount will do the trick, for example an Ioptron IEq45 mount has a capacity of 45lbs, well suited for a wide range of refractors ideal for astrophotography. Also, for AP you don't want to encroach on the capacity rating of any mount, you want to keep your total gear weight at no more than maximum 3/4 the mounts capacity.

You can achieve superb AP with an 80MM refractor or lets say a 200mm newtonian, and they won't require mounts as huge as the HDX110.

 

[SpaceBob]

I'm thinking through a bunch of combinations of what I could get with my budget, and ever since I looked through someone's 25" Dob I've been drooling after a large scope. My budget is around 9,000-10,000 USD and I can't find a combination of a big dob and an apo with other things I need, such as a CCD and filters, that would allow me to have a sufficiently big dob for viewing and a high-quality APO for imaging. I currently have a 10" Newtonian and a DSLR and the views/images are merely ok, and I don't think getting a 14" or 16" for visual would deliver an improvement worthy of the cost/trunk space. I was considering getting a Hubble Optics UL18, something that has a lot of aperture, is light enough for the HDX110, and something that would break down into smaller parts than say, for example, the Orion SkyQuest XX16g, for AP work. On the other hand, one of my options is to get a 5" or 6" Explore Scientific APO with a CGX mount and tripod, but my visual work with that would only improve with brighter DSOs considering the contrast, and not the dimmer DSOs, such as M51, 81, 82, 101. I want a scope that I can look through and say "Hey, I see a galaxy" instead of "Yup, that's a smudge".

I'm also concerned with resolution. My CCD of choice is a ZWO ASI183MM, which could deliver 4K images, which would be nice since I use a 40" 4K TV as my computer monitor. I've spent a few hours on Astrobin sifting through 6" APO images and they seem really soft compared to the really crisp ones taken through a 16" reflector. I don't want to spend several thousand dollars on a setup and be disappointed that my refractor doesn't have the resolution to deliver a 4K image. I understand getting an 80mm APO would be much cheaper and then I'd probably be able to get a large dob for visual, but resolution is the main thing holding me back on this option. Of course, I can be wrong (and I would love to be wrong, since a small APO would be much cheaper than a 16" Newtonian), so if you have info to the contrary I would be very appreciative. So I guess if a 5" or smaller APO can deliver high-res photos, then I could use that for imaging and then get a large dob and forget about an HDX110/18" Newt setup.

In case you were going to bring this up, I did plan on building an observatory/tent thing without the dome to eliminate wind. I also already have an autoguiding solution that can get up to 8 minute exposures without wind.

[Cosmic Geoff]

13 hours ago, SpaceBob said:

I want a scope that I can look through and say "Hey, I see a galaxy" instead of "Yup, that's a smudge".

That's what we'd all like, but alas it ain't gonna happen. The difference between the faint fuzzy blobs seen visually and the amazing images obtained by some people with small aperture telescopes is such that it is obvious (to me at least) that if you want 'great views' of galaxies, the best, and most cost-effective way of getting them is to image.  (Or to try EAA).

Even with the planets, I am finding that imaging results tend to surpass what I can see with my eyes through the telescope. 

Re resolution, I would suggest that aperture is not the only thing that affects (image) resolution.  Atmospheric conditions, guiding accuracy, focus precision and mount vibration will also play a part.  The fact that a lot of people use 80mm refractors for deep-space imaging suggests that they are satisfied with the resultant resolution.

[SpaceBob]

6 hours ago, Cosmic Geoff said:

Atmospheric conditions, guiding accuracy, focus precision and mount vibration will also play a part.  The fact that a lot of people use 80mm refractors for deep-space imaging suggests that they are satisfied with the resultant resolution.

That first part is what concerned me with using a large newtonian on an EQ mount. My heart says to go with a large scope but my brain says to go with a 152mm refractor. I'll more than likely end up going with the refractor; it seems that even though a large newtonian would have a higher resolution, I would be hard-pressed to get a cheap enough mount that could handle that kind of weight to take advantage of that resolution.

As per the second part of your quote, I've seen a lot of the images taken with 80mm APOs and I'm not happy with the resolution. The images may show up well on a 1080p screen but on my 4K screen they look like they're missing a lot of detail; the 130mm and 150mm APO images show a lot more detail. Another thing I heard about the 80mm APOs is that they require longer exposures; how much longer of an exposure would an 80mm require than a 150mm APO?