Is this a good combo, do you recon?

[GasGiant]

Hi Folks

Im thinking of getting either of these

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/sky-watcher-az-gtix-dual-saddle-alt-azimuth-astronomy-mount.html

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/sky-watcher-solarquest-solar-tracking-mount.html

prob the dual saddle due to payload ?

 

and pairing it up with this 

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/stellamira-telescopes/stellamira-110mm-ed-f6-refractor-telescope.html

 

Am i right in saying I shoud get a decent field of view ?

I want to try some basic astro photog with my dslr.  Im going to make a pillar at my site, instead of using a tripod. At this stage I dont want to go mad on larger mounts.

Do peole think this is a good combo?

Thank you

Carl 

 

 

Edited March 13 by GasGiant

[PhilB61]

Field of view will vary depending on what eyepieces/camera you use so best to use of of the online checking tools. With astronomy tools website you can add in your equipment, telescope, eyepiece or camera and chosen targets, to see what the field of view will be.

For traditional long exposure astrophotography (anything over about 15 sec) I think you will be severely hampered with either of those mounts as they are both Alt/Az not Equatorial mounts and because they are too lightweight, ie you would be under mounted. The results would likely be bloated and not round stars plus field rotation. It can be done with stacking thousands of extremely short exposures but this brings it's own challenges and issues. 

If you want to stick with those mounts then a smaller and lighter telescope, no more than an 80ed would be better, and more forgiving but still with the issues related to Alt/Az mounts for DSO photography.

 

[Elp]

If that's the budget for the scope get the Starfield 102 doublet or Askar 103 triplet instead. The triplet will be better for AP though for imaging with either if you want a flat star field you'll need to also budget for a field flattener/reducer.

The SF is FPL53 glass and is also has internal baffles for better contrast.

With either scope you'll need a better mount and tripod, AP is no good when youre at a mounts payload limit, and I'd say the tripod is the most important part of any setup.

[Cosmic Geoff]

 

6 hours ago, GasGiant said:

Am i right in saying I should get a decent field of view ?

A decent field of view for what?  Potential deep-space imaging targets vary hugely in size, from the Orion ring (very large) to planetary nebulae (often very small).  Any given rig will only cover a limited range of targets to advantage.  A telescope like the one you cite will cover a range of targets but you may struggle with the very large, or the very small.  With the Seestar S50, for instance, some nebulae fit nicely, but some are too big for it, and all but the nearest and brightest galaxies come out looking rather small.

I would suggest that both your quoted mounts are totally inadequate for the intended purpose.  I suggest you look at the EQ-5 Synscan as a minimum. A lot of imagers who presumably know what they are doing use an Eq-6.  For long exposure runs you would want an equatorial mount to avoid field rotation.