Astrophotography

[emilysarcos]

Hi Everyone

I'm looking to buy a telescope for astrophotography. Ideally I want to see as much as possible, but on a budget of £250 possibly £300. I will be using a Sony Alpha dlsr with it. All this is new to me, but I have been looking at the celestron astromaster 130eq? Any advice, and recommendations for a telescope, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. 

[steppenwolf]

Welcome to SGL.

The biggest problem that you are going to come up against is that you need a motorised mount for astrophotography as you need to track objects as they move across the sky and doing this manually really isn't going to work - the Celestron Astromaster 130eq is fine for visual use but sadly, not for astrophotography.

Beware, astrophotography is a slippery path and it starts with the getting the correct mount to begin your slide!

[vlaiv]

Hi and welcome to SGL.

Best that you can do on that budget is to get a decent star tracker and use your camera with regular lens to take images of the night sky.

This will let you have some fun with astrophotography and you will learn the processing and calibration of images.

With above you will be able to do - wide field astrophotography - nice images of star fields and constellations. Some large nebulae and couple of largest galaxies.

Setups that can do "closer up" astrophotography start at about x4-x5 your budget new (could be had for x2-3 second hand).

[vlaiv]

In fact, come to think of it - you don't need anything but your camera, lens and a nice tripod to start doing astrophotography and learning stacking and processing images.

Your exposures will be limited in length to avoid excessive star trailing. Star tracker that I mentioned above will help you do longer exposures and still have nice round stars.

[emilysarcos]

Thanks guys, I guess it's not as simple as buying a telescope recommended for astrophotography then? AHH why do I have to find these things interesting?? 😂😂

[emilysarcos]

13 minutes ago, steppenwolf said:

Welcome to SGL.

The biggest problem that you are going to come up against is that you need a motorised mount for astrophotography as you need to track objects as they move across the sky and doing this manually really isn't going to work - the Celestron Astromaster 130eq is fine for visual use but sadly, not for astrophotography.

Beware, astrophotography is a slippery path and it starts with the getting the correct mount to begin your slide!

What about this one? 

[vlaiv]

2 minutes ago, emilysarcos said:

Thanks guys, I guess it's not as simple as buying a telescope recommended for astrophotography then? AHH why do I have to find these things interesting?? 😂😂

It might be, but not on a budget that you have. Here is quintessential starter setup in astrophotography:

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

Just add suitable field flattener (I wonder why one was not included in this bundle).

[emilysarcos]

6 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

It might be, but not on a budget that you have. Here is quintessential starter setup in astrophotography:

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

Just add suitable field flattener (I wonder why one was not included in this bundle).

Ah thanks, but slightly out of my price range. Lol

[vlaiv]

2 minutes ago, emilysarcos said:

What about this one? 

There is many things wrong with that scope for astrophotography applications.

First is telescope design - which is ok in general but in this particular model - poorly executed. Then there is mount which is very light and wobbly and tracking is nowhere near precise for use of telescope for photography. Even using simple camera and lens on that mount would produce questionable quality of images. Then there is issue with focuser - being plastic and flimsy ...

Why do you need serious kit to properly do astrophotography? I suspect that you know a few things about regular photography, so I'll use analogy. You know how you really need a steady hand when you use longer focal length lens and shoot something like 1/60th exposure? Image is much sharper on tripod than from hand? Also - the longer exposure, worse the blur and also longer focal length - worse the blur.

Now imagine you have a moving target (earth rotates constantly - so stars move), you use at least x10 longer focal length than regular lens and you use at least x100-1000 longer exposures and you want to end up with sharp images.

Kit that you are using must be really precise and really sturdy in order to give you chance of doing that.

[Cornelius Varley]

9 minutes ago, emilysarcos said:

What about this one? 

Ignore the Powerseeker 127. It isn't a very good telescope and should be avoided.

[JamesF]

I think first it would be worth spending a bit of time understanding what you're getting yourself into   This is a common recommendation:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/books/making-every-photon-count-steve-richards.html

As vlaiv says, on your budget I think the best approach would be to stick to using your camera and existing lenses on a lower-end mount or star tracker.  Perhaps something like this:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-star-adventurer/skywatcher-star-adventurer-astronomy-bundle.html

(Also requires a reasonable tripod, but perhaps you already have one?  A ball head mount is probably useful, too.)

I really would do the reading and research first though.  You're peering over the edge of a very deep rabbit hole   And in the meantime just given a tripod you could experiment with star trail shots and stacking relatively short exposures which would get you into the processing side of astrophotography.

James

[emilysarcos]

7 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

There is many things wrong with that scope for astrophotography applications.

First is telescope design - which is ok in general but in this particular model - poorly executed. Then there is mount which is very light and wobbly and tracking is nowhere near precise for use of telescope for photography. Even using simple camera and lens on that mount would produce questionable quality of images. Then there is issue with focuser - being plastic and flimsy ...

Why do you need serious kit to properly do astrophotography? I suspect that you know a few things about regular photography, so I'll use analogy. You know how you really need a steady hand when you use longer focal length lens and shoot something like 1/60th exposure? Image is much sharper on tripod than from hand? Also - the longer exposure, worse the blur and also longer focal length - worse the blur.

Now imagine you have a moving target (earth rotates constantly - so stars move), you use at least x10 longer focal length than regular lens and you use at least x100-1000 longer exposures and you want to end up with sharp images.

Kit that you are using must be really precise and really sturdy in order to give you chance of doing that.

Erm.......in a short answer, I like taking photos? 😂😂😂 My dad gave me the camera, it's a good camera. Seriously, it's all new to me. I haven't the faintest clue. So, just trying to find out really. 

[emilysarcos]

7 minutes ago, JamesF said:

I think first it would be worth spending a bit of time understanding what you're getting yourself into   This is a common recommendation:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/books/making-every-photon-count-steve-richards.html

As vlaiv says, on your budget I think the best approach would be to stick to using your camera and existing lenses on a lower-end mount or star tracker.  Perhaps something like this:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-star-adventurer/skywatcher-star-adventurer-astronomy-bundle.html

(Also requires a reasonable tripod, but perhaps you already have one?  A ball head mount is probably useful, too.)

I really would do the reading and research first though.  You're peering over the edge of a very deep rabbit hole   And in the meantime just given a tripod you could experiment with star trail shots and stacking relatively short exposures which would get you into the processing side of astrophotography.

James

Thank you, a spot of light reading for me then. 

[emilysarcos]

So this one would be no good then? I get what vlaiv is saying, buying a mount for my camera. I forgot to add, it's not just for me, it's for my kids to view the planets, nebulae etc, etc. https://www.tringastro.co.uk/sky-watcher-skymax-102-synscan-az-goto-telescope-508-p.asp?gclid=CjwKCAjwhOD0BRAQEiwAK7JHmNZD1MykViBNjDG4TNSP_mB3mcPlei1DW6KwVTS15nJaechLfaorJRoCOdAQAvD_BwE

[JamesF]

Just now, emilysarcos said:

So this one would be no good then? I get what vlaiv is saying, buying a mount for my camera. I forgot to add, it's not just for me, it's for my kids to view the planets, nebulae etc, etc. https://www.tringastro.co.uk/sky-watcher-skymax-102-synscan-az-goto-telescope-508-p.asp?gclid=CjwKCAjwhOD0BRAQEiwAK7JHmNZD1MykViBNjDG4TNSP_mB3mcPlei1DW6KwVTS15nJaechLfaorJRoCOdAQAvD_BwE

That's really not suited to astrophotography because of the type of mount.  It would work fine for viewing the planets and the Moon (even the Sun with a proper filter), but for galaxies and nebulae etc. it would be quite tough.

James

[emilysarcos]

Just now, JamesF said:

That's really not suited to astrophotography because of the type of mount.  It would work fine for viewing the planets and the Moon (even the Sun with a proper filter), but for galaxies and nebulae etc. it would be quite tough.

James

Ahhhh this is getting more complicated, for something that seemed so simple. 😂😂😂 I'm obviously too poor for this kind of hobby. 😂😂😂

[Stub Mandrel]

Many of teh best targets for astrophotography are quite big. There are great things you can image with any lens, so a star adventurer on a decent tripod is a great way to start.

[Alan White]

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/skywatcher-star-adventurer-astronomy-bundle.html

Link to Star Adventurer for use with a camera and lens.

[Davey-T]

See here what can be achieved with a Star Adventurer and DSLR, this would satisfy imaging needs for lots of targets

To show planets you only need a cheap long focal length refractor on what's called an Alt/Az mount so two separate things is the cheapest way to accomplish both requirements.

Dave

[Alan White]

12 minutes ago, emilysarcos said:

Ahhhh this is getting more complicated, for something that seemed so simple. 😂😂😂 I'm obviously too poor for this kind of hobby. 😂😂😂

Anyone in this hobby is soon too poor, it gets expensive if you let it.
Settle for simple and short steps into it and take your time, the sky will always be above your head.

[Craney]

Hi Emily,

Welcome to SGL.   There are so many variations on scopes and mounts, tripods, lenses.....  it is all very confusing and daunting.  From what I read the Sony camera is a good one for photography in general and works well with low light.

My advice would be to figure out what you want to photograph ... stars, Moon, Planets, Aurora, meteors etc.... Have a go at it as soon as possible..... probably make a real mess of it, but then ask yourself the question.... "How do I make it better? "  .....and then do the research to determine how you need to do it.  People on here are all very helpful and have done the hard yards in terms of getting it wrong or being mis-led my manufacturers hype.

As a general rule It tends to be easier to photograph bigger, brighter objects that do not move very fast.....  Once things get faint and small you will need good optics. Once things start to move then you will need a mount and a means to track.   

It is a rewarding hobby, but sometimes you do have to question   ( as you are sat in the freezing cold garden at 2am in the morning )  your sanity!!!

Remember there are great technical pictures of faint remote galaxies, but there are also really imaginative ones that were taken on simple cameras that are just as great.

I have always been interested in astronomy, but my first  serious attempt since being a teenager to get a astronomical picture was when I was watching a Lunar eclipse in 2015.

This is the picture I took...

.... and it all started  from there......  Good luck.

 

Sean.

 

 

[JamesF]

11 minutes ago, emilysarcos said:

Ahhhh this is getting more complicated, for something that seemed so simple. 😂😂😂 I'm obviously too poor for this kind of hobby. 😂😂😂

It can get complicated, depending on what you want to achieve.  Astrophotography can get exceptionally expensive, but then it is often done in a way that is quite demanding of the kit used.  Tracking an object for ten, fifteen or even twenty minutes across the sky for a single exposure (which might be one of dozens) without any kind of visible blurring in the final frame does not come cheap because the accuracy required is really quite astonishing.

But it does not have to be that way.  Once you have an idea of what you're doing and accept that there are limits to what you can achieve you can have a lot of fun doing astrophotography on a much more limited budget and if you get more into it and are patient you can often pick up kit second hand as you go that will take you further.

Purely visual astronomy can be done much more easily on a budget, especially if you're prepared to learn your way around the sky and hunt down objects yourself rather than wanting the telescope to just point at them for you.

It's all down to what you want and what compromises you're willing to make, really.  There's no single piece of kit that does everything brilliantly.

James

[Beardy30]

Welcome to SGL 

[Beardy30]

3 hours ago, emilysarcos said:

Hi Everyone

I'm looking to buy a telescope for astrophotography. Ideally I want to see as much as possible, but on a budget of £250 possibly £300. I will be using a Sony Alpha dlsr with it. All this is new to me, but I have been looking at the celestron astromaster 130eq? Any advice, and recommendations for a telescope, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. 

Have a look at the skywatcher 127 or the Celestron 127 ( bit more expensive as it uses better software) but it’s a good scope I believe for beginners wanting to take images on a budget - you’ll just need 
an EOS ring I think

I would avoid the Celestron 31045 AstroMaster 130 EQ Reflector 

[Cornelius Varley]

12 minutes ago, Beardy30 said:

you’ll just need 
an EOS ring I think

Only if you have a Canon EOS camera.