Is a Meade LX200 10" the right choice for astrophotography?

[dc509]

Hi

I've ben considering buying a telescope for some time, have got thoroughly overloaded with the huge choice out there and could do with some good advice. I'm most interested in photographing nebulae and galaxies, am prepared to invest in the right kit and also spend the time learning the craft.

So far, I've been guided towards the Meade LX200ACF 10". It looks like the Celestron 925 CGEM might be better value, but I'm interested to find out if I should be considering something other than an SCT. All I have so far is an Olympus E1 DSLR, so I'm effectively starting from scratch.

Any help gratefully received!

Many thanks

Duncan

[Saturnalia]

I can't help you on your choice of scope (although I am becoming partial to the Celestron 925) but I think you should allow at least £1000 of your budget for a GOTO mount and tripod.

The main limiting factor of scopes of this size (particularly for imaging) is the stability and ability of the mount and tripod.

Do you have an idea of your budget...?

Does this setup need to be portable...?

[dc509]

Thanks for the response. I do need the setup to be portable, but only within the confines of my garden.

My budget might stretch to £4,500, maybe a little more, but that needs to cover everything. And I've only got a fairly limited DSLR so far!

Think I wil lhave to work off a field tripod for the foreseeable future, and the CGEM mount that comes with the Celestron sounds good - from what I can tell, wedges seem to be a very expensive way of sorting out the field rotation problem and makes the Meade potentially very expensive in comparison.

[Saturnalia]

It would be well worth checking out some of the Maksutov Cassegrain designs and Klevtsov Cassegrains - they offer seemingly better optical performance than Schmidt Cassegrains.

It's all to do with flat field of view and quality of mirrors - TAL make the 250K (Klevtsov) which is a 10" aperture with optional 1/10 wave mirror.

I doubt any Meade or Celestron could match that for imaging given a serious mount (250K OTA weighs 16KG naked).

The TAL 250K is available with an EQ6 Pro Synscan mount for around £2800.

Also, Orion (USA) have their Mak-Newt astrograph 190mm (7+") which looks very capable.

Of course, an APO refractor is always a possibility at your price point although they can get pretty heavy above 5" aperture - the TMB 130SS (5.1") weighs around 19KG naked.

Another thing that's worth asking here: are you interested in photographing Moon and planets or DSOs (Deep Space Objects)...?

I should add that I'm less than an expert - there are many more qualified than me to help and I'm sure you'll get some more replies soon.

Whatever happens, take your time to decide - you are far more likely to end up with the best option for you.

These are just a few options to consider - keep reading the reviews here and elsewhere...

*EDIT* - here's another couple that would be worthy of consideration:

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/proddetail.php?prod=skywatcher_mak_newt_astograph

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/proddetail.php?prod=promak180ota

[dc509]

Thanks for the help - had not come across TAL scopes before. Will start looking at the APO refractors as well.

Most interested in DSOs, by the way.

[Saturnalia]

My understanding is that if you want DSOs, you might be best not to choose a refractor (unless it is 6" or more which will cost thousands, weigh a ton and require permanent mounting).

For DSOs, the old adage applies - go for big aperture...as big as you can afford.

One of the links at the bottom of my last reply has a photo taken with one of the 'scopes to show you what is possible with it.

[barkis]

The EQ6 Pro mount is a proven unit for Astrophotography.

Many classy images on this forum were obtained from scopes and cameras driven, and guided by it.

I would look into that, and a good Apochromatic refractor in the 80 to 110 mm range, and another Apo, 66mm, as a guide scope plus second imaging unit. That may eat into your budget to the tune of £1800 ish. I could be a bit out with that estimate.

Which leaves money left for a good CCD Camera, and a guide camera. Some good choices can be made from what's left of the pot..

Ron.

[Saturnalia]

Thanks for the added help barkis - is a 110mm APO refractor really useful for DSO imaging...? I would be pleased to hear your reasoning - it's no doubt far more expert than mine...!

I would have thought a 150 - 250mm Klevtsov or Maksutov would be a better choice...bigger aperture = seeing further and the quality of imaging should be equivalent to an APO refractor, just with more light gathering ability for DSOs.

The TAL 250K I mentioned has 76 square inches of light gathering - a 110mm (4.33") refractor has 14.73. That's a HUGE difference - five times the light gathering power.

[pvaz]

I would have thought a 150 - 250mm Klevtsov or Maksutov would be a better choice...bigger aperture = seeing further and the quality of imaging should be equivalent to an APO refractor, just with more light gathering ability for DSOs.

Other then what I read I have no experience what so ever, but one of the things I read about the differences in scope designs is that the complex design on maks/SCTs (2 mirrors + 1 lens) reduces the transmitted light to around 70%, 75% with excellent coating on the mirrors, while APOs have a transmission above 90%. Multiplying that by long exposure times will certainly make a difference. I mean the light transmission on the refractor may make up for the the shorter aperture.

Also I would believe the longer focal length on the mak would mean higher mag and require a more precise tracking.

[Saturnalia]

Yes pvaz but have you looked at the spec of the Klevtsov...? (this is the smaller 200K):

The Novosibirsk TAL 200K Klevtsov Cassegrain - Review

There's no front lens in the way...!

See the comparisons at the end of the review.

[skye at night]

Leaving aside budget...

the meade 10 inch sct is a weighty beast and not easily moved around by one person,,, and down right dangerous if steps are involved...

also... it is not an equatorial mount and will need a wedge (not cheap) in order to modify fro equatorial tracking...

Plus.. for DSO's you would require focl reducers, thus increasing costs further...

If telescopes are new to you.. I would put astrophotography to the back burner until you got to grips with your setup and knowing the sky...

You can still buy your kit with AP in mind...

and something like the EQ6 is the accepted 'workhorse' mount that is capable of all thet you may demand in the next while... they also hold value well in case you wanted to sell...

as mentioned above.. a good refractor would be the best starting point with maybe a small mak or sct to follow if solar system stuff became of interest.

Steve

[Beyond_Vision]

For astrophotgraphy the important thing is the focal ratio. A lower F number will mean less exposure time. The aperture is less important, although the more aperture will give you a higher resolutuion. An F10 SCT or the higher focal ratio Maksutov are not really well suited to DSO astrophotography (unless you are going for smaller targets where you need the magnification).

The Skywatcher Explorer 190MN Mak-Newt Astrograph mentioned before is a good compromise between aperture and focal ratio being nearly 8" diameter and F5.3.

Maksutov Newtonian

Regards

Kevin

[Wiltshiresaint]

As a fellow newbie I'd have to agree with Skye at Night's view - get into the astronomy side of things first, then if you're still keen move on to astrophotography.

The learning curve just getting used to a scope is a steep one, as I've discovered. That said, there's nothing to stop you buying a good mount and scope that are suitable for astrophotography now even if you don't use them for taking shots straight away. I can recommend the EQ6 mount and an equitorial mount is definitely going to make taking photos easier, although I do find it heavy to carry even when split into its component parts.

Do a search of threads on 'Astrophotography' and you'll see some great advice. Your budget is certainly going to get you some great kit but you'll probably find it'll take a while before you can take full advantage of it.

[dc509]

Thanks to all of you for the advice. From what I've read, the most important things to have are patience and perseverance! This is a highly useful forum and it has really helped out pushing me up the learning curve!

[RainyDayInterns]

We live in the Boston and have been assembling a portable system for astro-imaging. All of the components were purchased used via AM, EBay, and CL.

- Celestron NexStar 6SE OTA

- CCD camera : Starlight H9C

- Hyperstar for the Celestron 6SE

- Celestron ASGT CG-5 mount

The first three components are easily portable. The tripod is still under evaluation. We got that for easier pointing due to light pollution in the city. However, it is heavier than we would like. Good tracking is not as important as the Hyperstar turns this system into a F2 for super fast imaging.

We are considering a used Questar TriStand to replace the CG-5 mount for greater portability and faster setup.

Something to consider :-)

[fatwoul]

...Also, Orion (USA) have their Mak-Newt astrograph 190mm (7+") which looks very capable...

I can vouch for the virtually-identical SkyWatcher MN190, which is a delight to use.

[ollypenrice]

I would avoid a big SCT like the plague from a deep sky imaging point of view. Although some expert souls get them to work, most have immense difficulty with the tracking which, at long focal lengths, has to be incredibly accurate. The scarcity of images from these instruments on the deep sky imaging board tells its own story.

For all its considerable virtues the MN190 is not a n imaging scope I would automatically recommend to a beginner. A small fast refractor is easier for a host of reasons. I would tackle longer focal lengths, a metre or more, only when I had mastered the shorter, wider field side of imaging.

Don't underestimate small telescopes and camera lenses for deep sky imaging.

Olly

ollypenrice's Photos

[dph1nm]

We use Meade's for the students here at Durham. For imaging we on-chip bin the CCDs 2x2 or 3x3, which effectively makes them F5 or F3.3 scopes. With all that aperture they are them mighty fast, and the tracking problems are much reduced.

NigelM

[fatwoul]

...For all its considerable virtues the MN190 is not a n imaging scope I would automatically recommend to a beginner...

Of course you're right, Olly. It's definitely more work than a small refractor - both in terms of maintenance and simply in terms of carrying the OTA up the garden.

Having said that, it was my first scope, if you don't include the few hours I spent using my dad's Vixen 80M over the years (which is now my guidescope).

The collimation seems fairly straightforward to the degree that I need to do it so far. Collimation itself isn't something that a beginner should be afraid of, and lots of people on here seem to start with newtonians of some description or other.

I agree with you about camera lenses, too. I was so bowled-over by your Orion widefield recently that, when I get my 383L+, I fully intend to include an adapter to use my own 85mm/1.4 with it.

[msinclairinork]

Where is RobH when you need him? lol

He will tell you the trials and triblulations of SCT imaging.

He IMO has mastered that art!

Michael

[rowan46]

if you want to learn about photography before you buy any equipment this book may help it has rationales behind the equipment choice and may help you a lot before you buy Books - Making Every Photon Count - Steve Richards