I am looking for a good telescope for both visual and photography.

[Nair al Saif]

I think a 5inch mak on an eq3-2 is a very good idea but a Bresser AR127L on an eq5 (skywatcher) Mount. Would love some advice ! Max budget 400 pounds

(ps: sorry if you have seen my earlier posts if so pls forget this post! )

 

Edited October 12, 2020 by Nair al Saif

[Adam J]

29 minutes ago, Nair al Saif said:

I think a 5inch mak on an eq3-2 is a very good idea but a Bresser AR127L on an eq5 (skywatcher) Mount. Would love some advice ! Max budget 400 pounds

(ps: sorry if you have seen my earlier posts if so pls forget this post! )

 

What is it you are thinking of imaging?

[Nair al Saif]

Planets definitely! Not so much dso

[vlaiv]

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/stellalyra-telescopes/stellalyra-6-f12-m-crf-classical-cassegrain-telescope-ota.html

+

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/skywatcher-eq5-deluxe.html

[Adam J]

1 hour ago, vlaiv said:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/stellalyra-telescopes/stellalyra-6-f12-m-crf-classical-cassegrain-telescope-ota.html

+

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/skywatcher-eq5-deluxe.html

yes I would probably go with that too.

Adam

[Nair al Saif]

What is a cc6 and what are it’s advantages over maksutov and act and refractor design?

[happy-kat]

Sct or mak are more compact in design. Refractors get longer and heavier the bigger they get and more expensive if you don't want a shorter achromatic.

[vlaiv]

3 hours ago, Nair al Saif said:

What is a cc6 and what are it’s advantages over maksutov and act and refractor design?

CC6, Mak150 and SCT 6" are all variants of Cassegrain design.

They are short tubed scopes with long focal length. Mak and SCT have spherical primary mirror and corrector plate to offset that (eliminate spherical aberration of spherical mirror) - thus they are catadioptric telescopes that combine both reflective (mirrors) and refractive (corrector plate) elements.

CC6 is pure reflective system, while refractor is purely refractive system (no mirrors).

Advantages over Mak and SCT would be - pure reflective system, open tube design - thermal management is much better. It has regular focuser while Mak and SCT focus by shifting primary mirror. This has advantage that it enables much greater focusing range but has disadvantage in what is called mirror flop - mirror is not fixed and moves around and image can shift when changing focusing direction and telescope can get out of collimation because of this (this happens on larger scopes not so much on smaller ones because of weight of primary mirror - on 6" going out of collimation should not be concern).

CC6" has generous back focus to compensate for fixed mirror. Because it does not have front corrector plate it is much less susceptible to dew. Since it does not have any refractive elements it can't suffer from chromatic aberration - worst enemy of refractor.

Refractor in this aperture class - 5" - 6" is going to be very expensive compared to other offerings if you want to have good color correction and eliminate much of chromatic aberration (which lowers the contrast and kills details on planets). It will also be long and heavy and require more expensive mount (capable of carrying large scope).

 

[Nair al Saif]

Would that work on an eq3-2 Mount?

 

Also doesn’t an cc suffer from spherical aberration and coma?

Edited October 13, 2020 by Nair al Saif

[vlaiv]

31 minutes ago, Nair al Saif said:

Would that work on an eq3-2 Mount?

 

Also doesn’t an cc suffer from spherical aberration and coma?

It should. It is about 6Kg in weight (FLO lists it at 6.3Kg while TS has it at 5.4Kg) so it is not one of the lighter scopes. Add diagonal, eyepiece and finder scope and you could easily push past 7Kg.

Since it is short tube it might work without too much trouble, although I've seen just few quotes that Eq3-2 can carry 7kg and most of the time it is listed at 5kg.

Maybe consider EQ5 after all as it will be much more stable platform.

CC are completely corrected for spherical aberration, so are SCT and MCT. SCT can have spherical aberration because its correction depends on distance between mirrors and since they focus by moving primary mirror - there can be more or less spherical at certain focuser position.

CC does not suffer from this and it should be completely free from spherical aberration. It does have some amount of coma and astigmatism and here are expressions for those:

As a comparison here is coma of Newtonian telescope:

D is diameter of aperture F is F/ratio of the scope. Expression for coma is the same and CC has as much coma as F/12 Newtonian - very small amount of it.

In comparison, 8" F/10 SCT will have coma similar to F/6 Newtonian.

All above info can be found here: https://www.telescope-optics.net/

 

 

[johninderby]

CC 6” is 6.4kg  with finder and diagonal and eyepiece and focuser extensions.I’ve fitted a 6x30 finder and a Baader prism to keep the weight down.

Edited October 13, 2020 by johninderby

[happy-kat]

also the imaging load capacity of a mount is less than the visual weight limit

[nfotis]

On 13/10/2020 at 21:00, happy-kat said:

also the imaging load capacity of a mount is less than the visual weight limit

An approximate rule of thumb would be 2/3rds of visual observation load limit for imaging, if you have a relatively short tube (Newtonians have more moment of inertia due to their length, so they are more sensitive to wind as well - for these, 1/2 of the load limit would be advisable)

So, a mount rated at 15 kg load limit should work well for imaging at 10 kg (accounting all the camera stuff, filters, etc hanging out of the tube)

N.F.

 

Edited October 15, 2020 by nfotis

[Nair al Saif]

Ohh!

I should get a light but large telescope. I think the cc is to heavy and a bit out of my price range. I could always check used tho.

if that’s the case I think imaging with the maksutov 127 will be far better than imaging/observing on a large 127L refractor!

[Nair al Saif]

What’s everyone’s opinion about a 4inch frac on the eq mount? 102/1000 Bresser 

Would this be good for visual and photography?

btw I’m looking for visual first, then upgrading to photography once I get a good camera.

Edited October 15, 2020 by Nair al Saif

[nfotis]

Note that scopes with a long focal length like the CC6 and the Bresser 152/1900 need a stable mount, if you really want to enjoy using them.

A HEQ5 mount is considered the minimum for enjoyable astrophotography and visual observation at such long focal distance, from what I understand.

N.F.

 

[Nair al Saif]

Oof!

[Nik271]

On 12/10/2020 at 20:08, Nair al Saif said:

I think a 5inch mak on an eq3-2 is a very good idea but a Bresser AR127L on an eq5 (skywatcher) Mount. Would love some advice ! Max budget 400 pounds

(ps: sorry if you have seen my earlier posts if so pls forget this post! )

 

Dear Nair,

 

I second the option of the 5inch Mak on eq3-2. I used exactly this set up all of last year (Skymax 127 on  the Celestron mount for Astromaster 130) mostly for visual and occasionally took some images with a Canon camera in prime focus.

I was very happy,  it can resolve a lot of classic double stars (the double-double, Izar, Castor, Rasalgethi, basically anything up to 2'' is easy with this scope subject to seeing conditions). I  saw globular clusters and galaxies and took photos of the planets.

It's a very portable set up and hard to beat for this aperture. I'm attaching three photos I took with this scope. Note that my imaging skills were at beginner level in 2019 so somebody more experienced can get even better results with this set up.

Nikolay

   

 

 

Edited October 17, 2020 by Nik271

[Nair al Saif]

Wow those are very impressive pictures. You took those on the astromaster Mount  as well which isn’t the Celestron equivalent to the eq3-2. I think that this is the best route for me! Great shot of Jupiter!

Edited October 17, 2020 by Nair al Saif

[Nik271]

Actually for imaging the planets and the Moon you don't need a fancy mount because the technique is 'lucky imaging' : you take hundreds of short exposures, in a  video which are then stacked together with software. As long as you keep the image of the planet in the field of view the software can do the rest.

For DSO the mount becomes more important. The ring nebula image is just a single exposure at 15 seconds, using the motorised version the celestron mount and this was the best I can do before the stars started to trail. (Celestron calls this mount CG3, which is really equivalent to EQ2 I think). At F/12 the Skymax is not very suitable for imaging DSOs. It can be done but ideally you need longer exposures, minutes instead of seconds and then you need precise tracking mount which is very expensive. Personally I stick with visual and take pictures only when I want to show friends who can't be bothered to stay cold and late at the eyepiece

[happy-kat]

DSO can be rewarding to take with camera and camera lens as they (DSO) can be huge, plus the shorter focal length is less demanding on a mount so longer exposures can be possible.

Edited October 17, 2020 by happy-kat

[Nair al Saif]

Personally, I think the mak fits perfectly for what I need. I don’t care much about dso (have Binos) but I would love to do some planetary imaging and observing!

[himori]

Hi, it is not very cost effective to consider buying a telescope at the moment. In order to enjoy the scenery and take cool photos, you just need to use a drone. I often watch various videos on YouTube and noticed that many picturesque pictures were made with the help of a drone. Video creators use it to view the area, choose the best angle for themselves and create more interesting content. When I bought myself a drone, it was much difficult to deal with the control and focusing of its camera, but now it is an indispensable device in my arsenal. Over time, I will try to achieve the same results with Graydon Schwartz.

Edited March 27, 2021 by himori

[JemC]

19 minutes ago, himori said:

Hi, it is not very cost effective to consider buying a telescope at the moment. In order to enjoy the scenery and take cool photos, you just need to use a drone. I often watch various videos on YouTube and noticed that many picturesque pictures were made with the help of a drone.

That may very well be true, but then again it's never cost effective buying one because there's always something else you need to buy to go with it, unfortunately if you want to take photos of the planets and dso's  a Drone isn't going to up to the job, and i'm pretty sure the cost of a decent drone these days is not very cost effective as well 😀 although they do look like fun,
 

[Tiny Clanger]

1 hour ago, himori said:

Hi, it is not very cost effective to consider buying a telescope at the moment. In order to enjoy the scenery and take cool photos, you just need to use a drone. I often watch various videos on YouTube and noticed that many picturesque pictures were made with the help of a drone.

 🙂Trouble is, sending the drone to the Moon, Mars, Saturn and Jupiter might cost a bit ... then there's no atmosphere on the Moon, so the drone won't fly and the gas giants & Venus are going to be so turbulent and inhospitable that they eat the drone in seconds .

How long do the batteries on those things last ? Minutes rather than hours even on the top spec.  ones . Bit difficult to recharge them in space  And then there's presumably the need to retrieve the memory card ...