Is the advice "The HEQ5 is the entry point to AP" just plain wrong?

[ollypenrice]

1 hour ago, malc-c said:

Olly, that's a fair comment, but also highlights that you can't just take the mount as singularity, the whole rig has to be looked along with the individuals expectations.  Throughout the thread its been mentioned that a decent camera is more suited, but then bolt that ideal camera to a scope with poor optics and you're back to square one with disappointing results, same could be said for vice-versa, but I'm in the opinion that a decent set of optics will give a better result with a less than ideal camera than the other way around.   

It may well be that something like an a £580  ED80 with a cooled camera such as the 314L that was mentioned above (currently around £1100) would do very nicely on a £200 EQ3 with a £140 dual motor drive.  But at circa £2k that is way above what we see in a lot of the "I want to get into AP - I have £300" type post.  If you compare the price of the EQ3 pro goto at circa £480 and the HEQ5 at £949, I think it's worth throwing that additional £470is at the mount and getting the HEQ5, especially if you have a grand to spend on a cooled camera. - But that's my opinion.  Not based on fact, just on preference if I was shelling out two and a half grand on an "serious" (there's that word again) imaging rig

I disagree on the camera-optics priority and think that the gain per pound with optics is tiny compared with the gain of going from a DSLR to a cooled camera. The 130P performs out of its skin when well fettled, as shown in its dedicated thread. A bit big for an EQ3, perhaps? I don't know. There are limits, though. The Skywatcher ST series, for instance, are non starters for imaging, in my book.

With expensive optics, what do you gain? Usually it's

- larger corrected imaging circle/flatter field so use a small-chip camera and it doesn't matter at all.

- faster F ratio in refractors nice but not essential.

- better colour correction in refractors Important, though not needed for narrowband imaging.

- better focuser  Important.

- improved resolution A bit of a myth for imaging, though not for visual. The difference is tiny. I've used  'good affordable' optics from WO, Meade, Skywatcher and Altair Astro and premium optics from Takahashi and TEC. In terms of resolution the difference is scarcely discernible.

I agree that the older generation, small chip CCDs are great value and I'd rather do DS imaging with an old Atik 314L than with a new unmodded 5DMk1V.

The good news, here, is that the excellent old CCDs are both excellent and cheap.

Olly

[vlaiv]

3 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

I agree that the older generation, small chip CCDs are great value and I'd rather do DS imaging with an old Atik 314L than with a new unmodded 5DMk1V.

Now, that is interesting assertion.

Let's see what numbers say, shall we?

ICX285 has 9.0 x 6.7 mm or 60.3mm2

APS-C sized sensor (not even full frame like 5D) has about 330mm2 - that is x5.5 more surface area.

If we take say DSLR like Canon750 - it will have 6000x4000 so it can be binned at least x4 and still have more pixels than ICX285.

If we put both sensors on same type of scope - say F/4.5 apo (F/6 reduced to F/4.5) - then for same FOV DSLR will use scope with x5.5 more aperture and if we bin DSLR to same resolution - it will have larger pixels than ICX285.

3.75 * 4 = 15µm pixel size

Even if ICX285 has x2-x3 better QE and even if we account for dark current noise - there is still massive signal advantage if we equate working resolution / FOV / pixel size by using different (but same type) optics.

I would not so boldly state that Atik 314L will beat DSLR on any particular target if we set working resolution and make choice of optics accordingly.

[wuthton]

5 hours ago, newbie alert said:

Id say so yes,  are you trying to say it isnt then?

The skywatcher 80ed is a awesome scope, punches  way above it's price tag.. as it happens I used one with a 825 sensor and I'd happily use both again .. I only got rid of it as I thought I was getting a better scope with my ZS80.. anyhow I am going way off topic here

I think we posted at the same time and it sort of looked like an answer to your question. What I was saying is you can you can now pick up a good F6 for what a F7.5 cost,  pound for pound for 15 years ago.

-------

With large pixel cameras and fast, short optics available for comparatively little money is the "work from the mount up" dogma getting old? I very much think so.

[newbie alert]

1 hour ago, wuthton said:

I think we posted at the same time and it sort of looked like an answer to your question. What I was saying is you can you can now pick up a good F6 for what a F7.5 cost,  pound for pound for 15 years ago.

-------

With large pixel cameras and fast, short optics available for comparatively little money is the "work from the mount up" dogma getting old? I very much think so.

I think you're very much mixed up in f ratio over anything else

[wuthton]

37 minutes ago, newbie alert said:

I think you're very much mixed up in f ratio over anything else

You're going to have to explain to me what is more important than the speed of the system in the context of this discussion? 

[newbie alert]

9 hours ago, wuthton said:

You're going to have to explain to me what is more important than the speed of the system in the context of this 

Sorry but you're going to have to work it out yourself 

[ollypenrice]

11 hours ago, wuthton said:

You're going to have to explain to me what is more important than the speed of the system in the context of this discussion? 

The speed of the system is very important in this discussion but it is not defined by F ratio in isolation. The system's speed is defined by flux per pixel, so a larger aperture putting more light onto larger pixels is a fast system irrespective of F ratio. (The larger pixels can be binned pixels in this case.)

 

15 hours ago, vlaiv said:

Now, that is interesting assertion.

Let's see what numbers say, shall we?

 

We could see what the numbers say but, where I live, there might not be any numbers to look at!    Night time temperature varies between about 23C in summer (making the DSLR very noisy) and -20 in winter, causing DSLRs to drop dead!

Olly

[wuthton]

2 hours ago, newbie alert said:

Sorry but you're going to have to work it out yourself 

If I've said something to antagonise you, it wasn't my intention. I'm quite light hearted in person but I'm very aware that my writing style can be blunt and for that I apologise.

If were talking about the quality of the optics then I can't help but think of Narrowband. If I bring out my trusty standard bearer, the Atik 314 and put a Ha filter in front of it then the quality of the optics matters (almost) not a all, as long as you can flatten it and focus it. If you put a decent focuser on a Startravel 80 you'd be hard pushed to tell the difference between what you can achieve with that vs a Takahashi.

Then there's light pollution. This forum is littered with great images, taken with DSLRs under light pollution but it's difficult and the fact remains if you take your kit to dark site, you can take a better image with less effort. With narrowband and a cooled camera, the effort-reward ratio with light pollution is much, much higher.

Edited February 3, 2022 by wuthton

[newbie alert]

2 hours ago, wuthton said:

If I've said something to antagonise you, it wasn't my intention. I'm quite light hearted in person but I'm very aware that my writing style can be blunt and for that I apologise.

If were talking about the quality of the optics then I can't help but think of Narrowband. If I bring out my trusty standard bearer, the Atik 314 and put a Ha filter in front of it then the quality of the optics matters (almost) not a all, as long as you can flatten it and focus it. If you put a decent focuser on a Startravel 80 you'd be hard pushed to tell the difference between what you can achieve with that vs a Takahashi.

Then there's light pollution. This forum is littered with great images, taken with DSLRs under light pollution but it's difficult and the fact remains if you take your kit to dark site, you can take a better image with less effort. With narrowband and a cooled camera, the effort-reward ratio with light pollution is much, much higher.

Your first comment is now going to really upset the Tak owners.. but if that really was the case no-one would own a Tak and do narrowband would they? They would all be buying the startravel at 1/10th the price

Or would the price difference  be because of the superior glass, the superior figure of the lens, the superior way it's housed within it's cell and collimated,... now I've never owned a Tak, never seen one in the flesh but I'm not that ill informed to think that there be no difference between that and a mass produced Chinese product.. nothing wrong with the Chinese scope but I'd guarantee a difference.. 

I can visually see the difference between my HA data on my esprit to the same ha filter on my old William optics 80mm, so I'm pretty positive there be a difference between a Tak and startravel.. 

Are you assuming it's because it's capturing a very narrowband width it be the same?  

The second part I really don't know where you're heading... the obvious thing is there's reasons why professional grade equipment are often in the darkest skies in the world, often pearched on top of a mountains.. for obvious reasons

And none of this is relevant to the thread 

Edited February 3, 2022 by newbie alert
Adjusted

[wuthton]

1 hour ago, newbie alert said:

And none of this is relevant to the thread 

My apologies, as usual I'm being overly brief and unclear.

I pointed the finger at the HEQ5 because it's often the most recommended mount, but I think it's fair to say that SGL and any other astro forums' advice to AP newcomers is "get the best mount you can afford and work from there" But I think this advice should change to get yourself a cheap, mono CCD as it blows your mounting options wide open. What I was trying to say with the above post is that, that same camera with some cheap narrowband filters also allows for much cheaper optics that will give excellent results under light pollution.

Could I take an Atik 314L+ with a baader 1.25" Ha filter and an ST80 on a guided EQ3 and take what could be considered a good image, yes, I could. With some patience buying second hand, the whole lot would cost less than a HEQ5 (new admittedly). It'd be fairly likely though that I'd need some counselling after spending a night with "that" focuser. Obviously it's not a scope I'd recommend to a beginner, I just used it to make a point about mono narrowband being extremely forgiving on the optics and therefore, the cost.

[iantaylor2uk]

57 minutes ago, wuthton said:

My apologies, as usual I'm being overly brief and unclear.

I pointed the finger at the HEQ5 because it's often the most recommended mount, but I think it's fair to say that SGL and any other astro forums' advice to AP newcomers is "get the best mount you can afford and work from there" But I think this advice should change to get yourself a cheap, mono CCD as it blows your mounting options wide open. What I was trying to say with the above post is that, that same camera with some cheap narrowband filters also allows for much cheaper optics that will give excellent results under light pollution.

Could I take an Atik 314L+ with a baader 1.25" Ha filter and an ST80 on a guided EQ3 and take what could be considered a good image, yes, I could. With some patience buying second hand, the whole lot would cost less than a HEQ5 (new admittedly). It'd be fairly likely though that I'd need some counselling after spending a night with "that" focuser. Obviously it's not a scope I'd recommend to a beginner, I just used it to make a point about mono narrowband being extremely forgiving on the optics and therefore, the cost.

I think most experienced astrophotographers would consider "get the best mount you can afford" very good advice. I personally don't think a mono camera with narrowband filters is a good starting point for a beginner. You have to get used to focussing, which is more difficult with narrowband filters, and you will need longer exposure lengths, which will require a reasonable mount. A cooled OSC camera would be a better starting point in my opinion, but you still need a good mount. 

[newbie alert]

1 hour ago, wuthton said:

My apologies, as usual I'm being overly brief and unclear.

I pointed the finger at the HEQ5 because it's often the most recommended mount, but I think it's fair to say that SGL and any other astro forums' advice to AP newcomers is "get the best mount you can afford and work from there" But I think this advice should change to get yourself a cheap, mono CCD as it blows your mounting options wide open. What I was trying to say with the above post is that, that same camera with some cheap narrowband filters also allows for much cheaper optics that will give excellent results under light pollution.

Could I take an Atik 314L+ with a baader 1.25" Ha filter and an ST80 on a guided EQ3 and take what could be considered a good image, yes, I could. With some patience buying second hand, the whole lot would cost less than a HEQ5 (new admittedly). It'd be fairly likely though that I'd need some counselling after spending a night with "that" focuser. Obviously it's not a scope I'd recommend to a beginner, I just used it to make a point about mono narrowband being extremely forgiving on the optics and therefore, the cost.

Yes it would give you a decent image, then you would start at looking at ways to make it a better image, so before you knew it the scope will go, and undoubtedly so would the eq3.. you could sell on the mount and scope and put it towards something better, but you would lose money on both items .. so sort of back to square 1..If you went Heq5 from the start then that would last you alot longer, at least up to a higher payload capability than the eq3, and possibly a long time if you never went much higher than a 150pds/120mm frac

So I agree, heq5 is a very good starting point

[wuthton]

2 hours ago, iantaylor2uk said:

I think most experienced astrophotographers would consider "get the best mount you can afford" very good advice. I personally don't think a mono camera with narrowband filters is a good starting point for a beginner. You have to get used to focussing, which is more difficult with narrowband filters, and you will need longer exposure lengths, which will require a reasonable mount. A cooled OSC camera would be a better starting point in my opinion, but you still need a good mount. 

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. A mono CCD is easier to use in almost every respect apart from channel combination but that's hardly difficult(comparatively). At +4"/pixel just a few minutes will be plenty for a narrowband sub, my AZ-GTI can easily go five minutes. I agree with  @vlaiv, it's not I mount to recommend to a beginner which is why I've lingered on the EQ3 which I refuse to believe is worse.

 

2 hours ago, newbie alert said:

So I agree, heq5 is a very good starting point

I fear you're never going to join me in my heresy. But out of interest what would you recommend to a beginner with £1500 to spend? My vote is in my original post and I'm fairly sure I'd have enough budget for a finder guider too.

[iantaylor2uk]

You should have made it clear you only wanted advice that you agree with!

[wuthton]

Just now, iantaylor2uk said:

You should have made it clear you only wanted advice that you agree with!

I'm sorry but I thought we were having a debate about pixel scale vs mount guiding accuracy. I never asked for your advice, but you are very welcome to an opinion. Both sides of the debate are correct but I'm saying the cheapest route to a great image is pixel scale over guiding accuracy. This is firmly a debate, please don't think I want to argue.

[Stu]

Let’s keep this courteous please. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, so  this shouldn’t be about persuading others that that you are right and they are wrong. There are different approaches which may have validity so airing those is a good thing.

[malc-c]

1 hour ago, wuthton said:

But out of interest what would you recommend to a beginner with £1500 to spend? My vote is in my original post and I'm fairly sure I'd have enough budget for a finder guider too.

The EQ3 has been mentioned a lot in this thread, and we have been mentioning the HEQ5 being the centre of the topic, but how about the EQ5 pro goto. as a compromise? - Better load capability than the EQ3, so (in theory at least) a sturdier mount...

• EQ5 pro goto  £650
• ED80 DS pro   £580

• ZWO ASI 120MM Mini USB 2.0 Mono  for a guide camera £140, plus £30 for the C ring to finderscope adapter

That still leaves £100 to put towards a camera or other accessories....

No idea how well it would perform, but at around 4.5kg for the scope and camera, its within the 6.5kg imaging weight (as specified on FLO's website) and well within the 9kg limit for the mount.  Decent stepper motors and similar microstepping and arc second performance as the EQ3, but for the extra £179 you get 2Kg more payload 

Just throwing this into the mix....

Or for £98 more than the £1500.... the ED80/HEQ5 combo From FLO  👍😁

 

(Edit:... this was just based on pricing alone... not looked into pixel counts / arc sec etc... just really trying to answer Matts question)

Edited February 3, 2022 by malc-c

[MalcolmM]

From my perspective, I think you have to be careful to avoid a one size fits all recommendation. There are so many input variables such as budget and so many output variables such as what quality of the final image you are after and how much time and effort you are willing to invest. I can only give my perspective (which many would probably classify as not really AP) which was an unguided alt/az mount, SW strartravel 102, an unmodified DSLR using 1 second subs and DSS and Gimp. I was really pleased and amazed at my results, though they were pathetic compared to images posted in this forum. But my point is, it worked for me! 

The important thing is that recommendations need to reflect the reality and the expectations of the questioner.

Malcolm

[newbie alert]

4 hours ago, wuthton said:

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. A mono CCD is easier to use in almost every respect apart from channel combination but that's hardly difficult(comparatively). At +4"/pixel just a few minutes will be plenty for a narrowband sub, my AZ-GTI can easily go five minutes. I agree with  @vlaiv, it's not I mount to recommend to a beginner which is why I've lingered on the EQ3 which I refuse to believe is worse.

 

I fear you're never going to join me in my heresy. But out of interest what would you recommend to a beginner with £1500 to spend? My vote is in my original post and I'm fairly sure I'd have enough budget for a finder guider too.

My advice always has been heq5, ed80... can't see anything else that cones to performance verses cost,  ed80 as previously said punches above it's price tag 

[malc-c]

39 minutes ago, MalcolmM said:

From my perspective, I think you have to be careful to avoid a one size fits all recommendation. There are so many input variables such as budget and so many output variables such as what quality of the final image you are after and how much time and effort you are willing to invest. I can only give my perspective (which many would probably classify as not really AP) which was an unguided alt/az mount, SW strartravel 102, an unmodified DSLR using 1 second subs and DSS and Gimp. I was really pleased and amazed at my results, though they were pathetic compared to images posted in this forum. But my point is, it worked for me! 

The important thing is that recommendations need to reflect the reality and the expectations of the questioner.

Malcolm

Well done on getting results using what most would say is not really the ideal combination of equipment.   With regards to the last line, that's the nub.  Most of those seeking recommendations base their expectations on the images seen in books and on forums but don't have the  budget to achieve those results which are often taken with equipment costing four figures, but expect to get those results without a lot of effort for £300 or so.

[Uranium235]

On 31/01/2022 at 21:08, ollypenrice said:

Give me an autoguided HEQ5, an APSc CMOS camera and a Samyang 135 lens and I could die a happy man.

 

Make that x3 sammys, now that would be nice   (hoping to get my second in April... all part of the plan)

[malc-c]

This thread looks interesting...   £38 for one step up form budget bearings plus washers and delivery so guestimate £55-£60  -  Does make you wonder why Synta didn't do this form the off when developing the EQ3, I mean given the volume of bearings used, and trade discounts it wouldn't have put much onto the retail price.

[MalcolmM]

1 hour ago, malc-c said:

Well done on getting results using what most would say is not really the ideal combination of equipment.   With regards to the last line, that's the nub.  Most of those seeking recommendations base their expectations on the images seen in books and on forums but don't have the  budget to achieve those results which are often taken with equipment costing four figures, but expect to get those results without a lot of effort for £300 or so.

Accepted

Malcolm

[wuthton]

2 hours ago, newbie alert said:

My advice always has been heq5, ed80... can't see anything else that cones to performance verses cost,  ed80 as previously said punches above it's price tag 

In the spirit of friendly debate would you mind explaining to me (like I'm five) the advantage of a 80/600 over 80/480  of similar price and quality when used with a DLSR?

[ollypenrice]

8 hours ago, wuthton said:

In the spirit of friendly debate would you mind explaining to me (like I'm five) the advantage of a 80/600 over 80/480  of similar price and quality when used with a DLSR?

I think the question may be unanswerable because, if the faster scope is of similar quality, it won't be of similar price.  Faster optics are more expensive to make and harder to colour correct, not to mention harder to flatten. It is possible to have a fast, well-corrected scope in this class but it's very expensive. The Tak Baby Q.

The 'DSLR' clause in the question is a bit of a curved ball since these cameras do thrive on fast optics. I've no idea how the comparison would play out in this regard.

Olly