Telescopes for visual and imaging

[KcajCousland]

Hi there,

Sorry in advance, I imagine this kind of topics have been posted a gazillion times already, but for some reason I can't seem to find an answer, so here it goes.

I have been using a Natgeo 114CF telescope and cheap binoculars with my gf for visual astronomy. So far we've seen the moon, the pleiades, Orion Nebula, and a few random stars. It's safe to say we are getting hooked. We know the equipment could be better (specially the mount and tripod) but we are just getting our feet wet. 

If our interest keeps growing, we are planning to get a telescope later this year, maybe in the summer when the planets are in opposition giving us lots of time to make a decision.
We have thought about it and even though it was nice seeing the Orion Nebula, we were expecting to see a little more (some shades of colour). So we understood why people get into Astrophotography. Additionally, I've even found myself taking crappy pictures of constellations with my phone and sharing them with my friends. There's a strange joy in sharing these.

That being said, we live under terribly light polluted skies, and even though we'd love to get away from them from time to time, we know most of our observations would be from the city.
So we would like to get a scope that can give us a good observational experience and be useful for planetary imaging. I've read everywhere EQ mounts are the way to go for imaging, but these add a substancial cost to the system.

I've also read the 200P Dobsonian is a great scope and fantastic bang for the buck. https://www.firstlightoptics.com/dobsonians/skywatcher-skyliner-200p-dobsonian.html
Would a dobsonian be good for planetary imaging?

If not, then we would like to get scope and mount that can be used for great observation and imaging.  Sadly we'd have to reduce aperture since the 200mm scopes tend to be too heavy for the cheaper mounts.

Option A

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-150pl-ota.html
Mount:
https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/skywatcher-eq5-deluxe.html

I understand this mount could also be used with the shorter 150PDS, so if we were to transition to DSO astrophotography, we could improve the mount with the GoTo System and buy the new OTA over time. https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-150p-ds-ota.html . 

Option B:
https://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/skywatcher-skymax-127-eq3-2.html 

and if we transition to DSO, upgrade the mount with the GoTo system and get this small one over time.
https://www.firstlightoptics.com/pro-series/skywatcher-evostar-80ed-ds-pro-ota.html

If you've read this far thank you haha and I'd appreciate your opinions and suggestions.

Clear skies! 

[PEMS]

A dobsonian has the largest mirror for the £ but they are not the system for imaging, DSO or planetary. You might get the moon but the moon is a somewhat special instance. It is big and bright.

For imaging the equipment for ease and decent results is a reasonable goto equitorial mount, they track correctly and at the correct rate. And what is often a relatively small scope. Think here of a smallish refractor or a small reflector.

A Mak or SCT is generally more appropriate to planetary imaging, and at present there are few planets, and the one that is still available is now well past it's best position and distance.

For cost in the scope side look at the Skywatcher 130PDS and 150PDS, in refractors consider an 80mm ED or a 72mm ED. Anything bigger will mean a probable mount increase in size and so in cost.

In the mount aspect the Skywatcher EQ5 seems about the most suitable and fairly small for carrying around and transport. After the EQ5 they get big, maybe too big.

One fairly common warning is that astrophotography starts at a level of cost. That minimum is likely around £1200 these days. May get it down to around £1000 but do not assume it.

Plan on assorted accessories. If you can get an 80ED you would have a reasonable scope for both imaging and visual.

[Beardy30]

A dob is the favourite in terms of light gathering but I would advise a refractor 80ED on a Heq5 for imaging a Mak ( I believe the 127 is excellent) will be fine for lunar and planets but not dso photography, plus it will have a small FOV an SCT is a good jack of all trades system but it’s too fast a scope for dso photography imo - both will also need cooling time to be factored in.  

[Spile]

I decided after 50 years of using my eyes and a pair of binoculars, it was time to get a telescope. 

I chose a Dobsonian (200P) because I realised that what I most want to do is look rather than record.

[malc-c]

19 hours ago, KcajCousland said:

Hi there,

Sorry in advance, I imagine this kind of topics have been posted a gazillion times already, but for some reason I can't seem to find an answer, so here it goes.
<SNIP>

If you've read this far thank you haha and I'd appreciate your opinions and suggestions.

Clear skies! 

Hi,

You won't find "the answer" because there isn't one.  As you presumed the question you ask has been asked time and time again (and will probably get asked a gazillion times more).  Browse or search the forum for similar previous posts and you will see the millions of suggestions that people will give, some based on their own experience, or some just suggesting kit that fits your budget.  Part of the issue is the quality of the sky, and whilst something that works for me won't work for you as you may live in a different level of pollution.  Naturally it goes without saying that getting away from built up areas to a dark site will improve the results, and if you are not particularly suited for carting equipment 500 yards to a clear spot, then recommending an HEQ5 or EQ6 really isn't going to help.

Also there is no "one scope fits all" option.  To get nice large clear images of the planets you need a large aperture and long focal length scope, which are expensive.  Yes you can reduce the aperture and get a MAK or SCT type scope, but the brightness and resolution will be reduced.  But these scopes are not ideal for deep sky or faint object viewing.  Here you need a large aperture and a short focal length as you want to gather as much light as possible rather than magnification.  Like most things in life there are adaptors to come up with a compromise.  Barlow lenses to increase the focal length of fast scopes, or focal reducers to shorten slower long focal lengths, but  placing more and more glass between the sensor and the target can impact the image.

It also depends on what you expect out of the equipment.  If you are happy enough to capture the bands and red spot of Jupiter, or the ring system of Saturn, or the phases of Venus then just about any setup from £500 upwards will do that.  If you want to see the detail in Jupiter's weather, or see the divisions in the rings of Saturn, or the dust storms on Mars in detail then you're looking at gear that is going to be £1500 upwards.  Deep sky is slightly different, as you can get decent results with modest equipment under dark skies.  A 6" f5 reflector will capture most of the bright DSO's and £600 would be a starting point. 

Prerequisites for imaging, well IMO a Skywatcher goto mount for the simplicity of connecting it to a PC or laptop.  Why do you need a computer for imaging?  Because for DSO's you need to guide the scope to keep it on target.  You also need software to run the camera so it can take 20, 30 or more exposures, which are typically between 3 and 6 minutes long if using a normal DSLR camera which is the cheapest way to start serious imaging.

There is lots to think about, and reading up on similar post can help.  But as mentioned, there is no real answer to your question... 

[M40]

Hello and welcome, one of my favourite places here is the field of view tool in the resources/astronomy tools menu at the top of the page. By sticking in different telescopes with different eyepieces/cameras then selecting a target you get an idea of what you will be able to see or image. From that, you will realise that no single telescope covers all, so it's really down to where you would like to start your journey and what suits your budget. Definitely have a good look around to see what people are using and what has been achieved. 

Out of interest, I also enjoy taking crappy pictures and showing them to people 😜 I have upgraded in that I have gone from sticking the mobile on the eyepiece to bolting the DSLR directly onto the eyepiece (I still take crappy pictures though) 🤦‍♂️

[Xilman]

12 minutes ago, M40 said:

Out of interest, I also enjoy taking crappy pictures and showing them to people

Don't we all?

True whether you have a 10 year old smart phone, or £100k worth of extremely serious observatory equipment, or anything in between.

Edited January 30, 2021 by Xilman

[KcajCousland]

Hi Everyone,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

We are aware now is not the best moment for planets, which is why we are planning to get our planetary scope by August. 

Sad to read the Dobsonian won't do a good job for planetary imaging.

Regarding the crappy photos haha I really mean crappy photos. Just point at the sky and shoot with the cellphone. We recently got a plastic cellphone adapter for the binoculars and I think it could also work with our scope. We'll see if that helps get a somewhat less crappy image 😜.
 

Regarding our future options, the more we read, the more puzzled we get 🤣
One thing seems consistent though. People everywhere in the internet seem to always recommend the HEQ5 almost no matter what. Could someone explain why? I mean, technically the EQ5 Pro or an EQM-35 which was just recently brought to our attention https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/skywatcher-eqm-35-pro-synscan-goto-modular-mount.html can handle around 6 to 7kg for imaging. 

Assuming something like our Option B
 
127Mak weighs around 5 Kg,  giving around 1.5Kg-2kg for the additional equipment. Also the Mak would be for planetary imaging, which I understand is more forgiving regarding tracking. 

The 80ED refractor (for DSO AP) weighs 4.1Kg, giving even less trouble to the mount. 

Yet I am almost sure if we say want to purchase the EQ5 or the EQM-35 we will still be recommended to get an HEQ5. Are the EQ5 and EQM-35 mounts bad? Don't they work as advertised?  

Thanks again for all your help!

[M40]

 

14 hours ago, KcajCousland said:

Yet I am almost sure if we say want to purchase the EQ5 or the EQM-35 we will still be recommended to get an HEQ5. Are the EQ5 and EQM-35 mounts bad? Don't they work as advertised?  

If you get the HEQ5 then you need the Rowan upgrade.... trust me it never ends 🤣 I am sure that the EQ5 is a solid mount as is the HEQ5 but both have their limits and capabilities. Looking at the info on FLO, the EQ5 can handle 9Kgs and the HEQ5 15Kgs. I know I can plonk the OTA on the HEQ5, followed by the secondary focuser, plus the eyepiece plus the DSLR and a dew shield and the finders and the adapters ..... and still have room to spare so you know that you are not putting too much of a challenge on the mount, that was my aim. Hope it helps 👍

[malc-c]

When I got back into astronomy after a long break I purchased a 200P on an EQ5 pro goto mount.  The mount was OK and handled the load of the 200P for visual observing.  However due to the poor light polluted skies at the time (pre LED streetlights) I got interested in astrophotography.  For me the mount's limitations then became evident.  The slightest gust and the 200P acting like a sail would move.  The weight of the camera and cables took the mount to its limit if not beyond.  

In 2011 I started the construction of my observatory to home the EQ5 / 200p 

The images I got were good, but as I wanted to add a guidescope, additional cameras etc I really needed to upgrade the mount, and was lucky enough to pick up a secondhand HEQ5 with an ST80 and QHY5 from a fellow SGL member.  

In the observatory the mount is more than capable of taking this weight, and the higher precision gearing of the mount has resulted in decent tracking and for me, I'm really pleased with the results.  My claim to fame was to do the first belt drive modification of the HEQ5 back in 2011 Detailed in this post

The only major inconvenience for a portable set up is the weight of the mount, but it is still what I would say is manageable.  The HEQ5 in my opinion provides the ideal platform.  It's not as heavy as the EQ6, yet has the same precision.  It's load capability makes it ideal for most of the "non specialist" scopes (you wouldn't want to try it with a 12" planewave) and is reasonably priced at under £800 (or under £1000 with the Rowan belt drive fitted).  In hindsight I should have opted for an HEQ5 from the outset.  It would have saved me money, even though I went down the secondhand route, and had sold my EQ5 mount and tripod, but hindsight is a wonderful thing ! 

[Xilman]

On 08/02/2021 at 20:12, KcajCousland said:

Sad to read the Dobsonian won't do a good job for planetary imaging.

It is POSSIBLE to take superb images of solar system objects with a Dobsonian. It is emphatically NOT easy. I would recommend not going that route until you have gained some experience.

Martin Lewis routinely gets sub-arcsecond resolution with his 18" Dob located in St. Albans. One of his images I've seen shows detail on the disk of Ganymede.  Let's see if I can find it ...

Yup, here we are:

https://skyinspector.co.uk/jupiter-archive-2/#bwg8/366

And here is one he took of Mars:

https://skyinspector.co.uk/mars-archive-1/#bwg4/139

and one of Saturn:

https://skyinspector.co.uk/saturn-archive-1/#bwg12/547