I need honest opinions on my setup.

[Stellaris]

Hi, I currently own a Sky Watcher 150/750P, a NEQ3-2 Pro Goto, and a Fujifilm x-t2. I’m more interested in your opinion vis-a-vis my scope. I’ve only recently gotten into Astrophotography, and I’m wondering whether i made the right choice of equipment or not. My most recent images are rather zoomed in when it comes to nebulae, I can’t seem to find targets that are more suitable for the FOV of my scope. Any feedback, thoughts, suggestions, and or possible targets to shoot would be greatly appreciated.
I also wonder if there’s a way to simulate a telescope’s view on a target based on aperture and focal length. (Like a composition simulator if that makes sense)
Thank you all for your answers in advance.

[Albir phil]

Stellarium will give you various FOV with different scope sizes as well as various eyepiece 

[Elp]

I always use telescopius website. Never fails to work even for mosaics.

As you have a long focal length scope it's suited to planetary nebulae, globular clusters and the majority of galaxies which are quite small like m64, any within markarians chain, m101 (which isn't so small). Stellarium points these out quite well with it's UI icons for each type of target.

[WolfieGlos]

I’ve never owned a reflector so cannot comment on its suitability. I generally use Stellarium for FOV and framing like Albir Phil suggests, but you can also use https://astronomy.tools/calculators/field_of_view/ to help frame targets.

As for suitable targets, it depends if you are in the northern or southern hemisphere, I’ll assume northern like myself. At 750 focal, smaller nebulae and galaxies are achievable - M63 in my profile image was with my 712 focal refractor - albeit cropped afterwards. M101, M51, M82 are all suitably sized. As are globular clusters, like M3, M13. 

Nebulae are achievable too, at your FL try the Crescent, Tulip, Pac-Man or Bubble. The larger ones, like North America, Veil and elephants trunk need something like 200-250, others like the Rosette are good at 360-400. If you don’t want to buy another scope, you can always create a mosaic using your current scope, and shooting at f/5, you can collect data quite quickly. Bottom line, they are all different sizes so one size won’t fit all.

[ONIKKINEN]

My honest opinion on the mount/scope combo would be that you have a mount one size too small, or a scope one size too large. Ideally you would have a little bit smaller of a scope, like an 80mm refractor, or even a 70mm one. Would be wider and easier to image with in general since the focal length will be more forgiving than your currently actually quite demanding 750mm. Or, better yet a mount one or two sizes larger and keep using this scope. For imaging an HEQ5 is a good suggestion for an all rounder mount, yes i know its twice the price of the EQ3 but spending for this part does make the most sense. The mount is really the heart of the operation when it comes to imaging and will be your primary source of headache for sure. I had an EQM35 (very similar to EQ3 on the inside) and i never not hated using it because it honestly just sucked as a mount.

Its not impossible to image with your current stuff by the way, so no reason to give up. But if i were you either the scope or mount would see a change for the kit.

As for targets, loads of stuff out there to image at 750mm focal length and your sensor. M33 in Triangulum fits like a glove, M31 almost fits, but you'll have to cut off the corners. The east veil nebula, or the west veil nebula separately will fit nicely on a frame. The Pleiades will just about fit in a frame once it rises a bit higher. Loads of nebulae in and around Cygnus to choose from too. Check out some of the suggested apps to see what to image (Stellarium, Telecopius, astronomy.tools FOV calculator etc).

[Adam J]

3 hours ago, Stellaris said:

Hi, I currently own a Sky Watcher 150/750P, a NEQ3-2 Pro Goto, and a Fujifilm x-t2. I’m more interested in your opinion vis-a-vis my scope. I’ve only recently gotten into Astrophotography, and I’m wondering whether i made the right choice of equipment or not. My most recent images are rather zoomed in when it comes to nebulae, I can’t seem to find targets that are more suitable for the FOV of my scope. Any feedback, thoughts, suggestions, and or possible targets to shoot would be greatly appreciated.
I also wonder if there’s a way to simulate a telescope’s view on a target based on aperture and focal length. (Like a composition simulator if that makes sense)
Thank you all for your answers in advance.

My honest opinion is that you need to switch out that telescope the NEQ3-2 pro is not going to Handel it for astrophotography. It will struggle with anything bigger than a 60mm refractor and the shorter the focal length the better. If you change the scope you can make the mount and the camera work for wide field targets. I assume the X-t2 is not modified. If not you will need to choose your targets with care. 

Adam

[vlaiv]

I would recommend 150/750 to a beginner - but not NEQ3-2 and certainly not with that scope.

If you can get at least EQ5 if not HEQ5 for that scope, that would be great.

Other option is to "downgrade" the scope to something lightweight

[GTom]

I second Vlaiv, either the mount needs to grow or the scope needs to shrink :).

If you like a little DIY, might try to tune your mount, that will turn it to a great transportable unit for 70-80mm refractors but the Newtonian is still a tough one.

 

[Carbon Brush]

Yet another bigger mount or smaller scope comment.

May I suggest something in the interim that won't break the bank?
Do you have a long lens for the camera? Say 200mm or 300mm FL?
Try photos using this combination. The wider FOV will be more forgiving of the mount.
That will show you just how well (or badly) the mount is tracking.
The shorter (than scope) assembly will put less flex/bend on the mount and tripod.
It will also allow you measure how well this camera works at low light and long exposure.
I don't know this camera at all. It may be superb at night, or it may have sensor noise and other problems. give it a try.

HTH, David.

[dweller25]

That’a a good idea @Carbon Brush 👍

[Stellaris]

@Carbon Brush, a shorter telescope or camera lens seems to be what everyone is suggesting me to invest in. (And I agree) For starters my telescope is pretty good for imaging, but my compositions are limited without reducers (because of the FOV). But camera lenses or wide field refractors are both expensive, so I ought to purchase a good one the first time around. I’m thinking I can put in something like 600-700€ in a refractor? (If anyone has any suggestions for wide field refractors that can fit in this price range I’d appreciate it).
I know I’m still new to astrophotography but my mount seems to be doing a pretty good job at tracking, even without a polar scope (with my Newtonian reflector).
In any case thank you all for your responses and feedback.

[Carbon Brush]

Before spending any serious money, I would prove camera performance in the dark.
If you said it was a Canon that many use for astrophotography, it would be different.
I don't know anyone using a Fuji camera for Astro - though I'm sure someone on the forum will be along with knowledge.
Cameras that are great in daytime, or evening light can be awful in astro applications.

Just put the camera + lens on the mount and run some 2 to 5 minute exposures.

In very basic terms on a few minutes of exposures....
If your stars are straightish lines, it is probably mount polar alignment.
If your stars are wobbly lines, it is backlash in drive, or errors in the gear train.
If your stars are well focussed in the centre, but oval at the edges, it is the lens. close down 2 stops from full. Does it improve?
If there is a noisy background, look to camera settings for the source. Lower ASA for example.
If the bright stars bloat over multiple pixels it could be the lens, or it could be the camera sensor.

 

[Mandy D]

@Carbon Brush The Fuji X-T2 is a real camera with a proper size APS-C sensor at 23.4 x 15.6 mm and offers a full range of ISO to 12,800 and pushes this to 51,200. It has no anti-alias filter in front of the sensor, so you get the full sharp resolution of the 24 MP sensor. It is properly made, using metal for the body, in Japan. It should be excellent.

https://www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/x-t2.htm

[LuckieEddie]

I've used a Fuji X-T2 with a Skywatcher N200/1000 newtonian on an EQ-5. I run it at ISO800 using kstars/Ekos/Indi. The only real issue I had was the unusual XTrans CFA requires proper handling. Shoot in raw. I use Siril for stacking. You can see some of my results on my telescopius page - equipment used is listed on each image. The other comments are spot on - I similarly found the 200/1000 was too much payload for the EQ-5 and have now upgraded to a larger mount.