Hello & advice please

[johnrt]

Firstly I'd like to say hello!

I'm very new to the whole astronomy thing, but hopefully in the right place to learn what I need to know to get some real satisfaction out of a new hobby.

I've done some considerable reading around on here and other sites too, and I (think) have a basic understanding of how to go about things and what to expect.

I have bought starmap pro for my iphone & stellarium to begin to learn my way around the sky and have spent a few (freezing) nights out with binoculars spotting, finding and identifying stars.

Looking at moving up to telescope in the very near future. My first requirement is that I will be able to carry it & set-up with relative ease. My back garden is small and overhung by trees, but I do have a large dark empty playing field right next door to use.

The scope I was looking at was the Skywatcher Explorer 150P, but with an EQ5 mount instead of the standard EQ3-2, as I would like to progress on to imaging with a DSLR in due course. I would be planning to add a motor drive in to allow tracking and longer exposure times on the camera.

Does this all sound reasonable or have I lost the plot?

John

[Nexus 6]

Hi johnrt welcome to SGL

looks like a fine choice of kit to get into astronomy with. Being someone who has only been observing 18 months I pondered over what type of scope I should go for to start with but hope to purchase a similar choice as yourself sometime in the future.

For now I am enjoying the views I get with my current equipment.

Good luck Hope the skies clear for for you!

Alan

Celestron cpc 925 Alt/Az

Celestron Nextstar 6se

Vixen/Televue EPs

Canon 1000D

[lguise]

Hi,

A 150mm or 200mm scope is a great starting point but you may find that an eq5 mount is limited for imaging although fine for visual. I would not worry too much about imaging first, get a 150-200mm scope on a solid mount (have you considered a Dobsonian) and enjoy learning the night sky and looking at the objects. Then if you decide you really want to get into imaging sell this and buy something like the HEQ5 pro mount and an appropriate telescope. If you buy your first scope wisely(2nd hand?) you can have a great year or so of use and then sell at very little loss.

For starters keep it simple and enjoy.

Linton

[rcwinter]

Hi John

I agree with Linton, it real easy to get bogged down on technical stuff and miss the point of what you wanted to do first, look and enjoy, a Dobby is a nice place to start simple and cheap. With the EQ5 its a nice stable mount but can be problematic getting it to track well which would make you frustrated,, just enjoy the show.

best regards

Richard

[johnrt]

Thanks for the advice.

Is there any point in buying an upgraded mount for the 150p if I would need to sell it down the line to get in to imaging? Maybe I should just take the standard EQ3-2 mount and replace that in one go down the line.

I really haven't considered a dobsonian scope as they look quite unportable. Remember I will need to take all my kit in to the field next door to set up. The way in and out of the field is through a row of trees on a narrow muddy path (lots of branches hanging etc) and I can't really be carrying any massive pieces of kit over there. They would end up just not getting used if it is too difficult.

[arad85]

I'd expect, size for size, a dobsonian will be just as easy to carry around as the EQ3-2. They do come to pieces easily and don't forget you have to lug a counterweight with an EQ mount. The only caveat to that is that the Skywatcher 150 dobsonian is a long tube f/7.8 rather than the 150p which is an F/5 design.

[John]

Dobsonians are easier to move around than an equatorially mounted scope of the same size. They are also much easier to set up and use. If you wanted you could always put the scope tube on an equatorial mount at a later date.

[Wobbly Bob]

Dobsonians are easier to move around than an equatorially mounted scope of the same size. They are also much easier to set up and use. If you wanted you could always put the scope tube on an equatorial mount at a later date.

Dobs are way quicker to set up, no counter wieghts, no polar aligning etc. Depending on the size of the dob, the move to the field next door could be done in two trips, 1st the Dob base with a small bag containing eyepieces, filters and RDF. 2nd trip the OTA over your shoulder (no bumps to disturbthe mirror (I was going to say, move the lot on a sack barrow, depends how bumpy the path is))

So once you are in position, put OTA on base, fit and align RDF, put eyepiece in focusser and you are ready

[Capricorn]

John, the 150P and an EQ5 would be a good start. I would possibly err towards the EQ3-2 mount for the simple reason it is cheaper and this appears to be your first time into astronomy.

Many people start into Astronomy full of enthusiasm then find that the reality is different. Read the posts of people giving up or people saying nothing but their equipment appears in the classifieds.

If you intend to "dabble" in imaging asap then yes go for the EQ5 now, the HEQ5 would be even better but costs more. The EQ3-2 would not really be up to imaging. If sticking your toe into astronomy and just visual then the EQ3-2.

Astro imaging is a specialist field. The people that do it tend use small apo refractors - expensive apo refractors. They then use HEQ5's or better EQ6's. Then they add in guide scopes and cameras to guide the system and that takes more equipment. So as I said specialist and expensive if done seriously.

If you go down the dob line then until you buy a EQ mount, motors and possibly a different scope then imaging is out of the question. Since you have expressed a specific interest in imaging then I cannot see why the calls to buy a dob are appearing. In reality you are not going to image with a dob.

At least with what you have specified you will be able to do some imaging and will learn the set up and general use of an EQ mount, imaging software, and god knows what other assorted bits and pitfalls for a possible future deeper delve into the subject.

[Helen]

If it was me I'd go for something completely different (sorry, this might make the decision harder not easier ). If you want to carry it to a dark public site you need something that only takes one trip - you don't want to leave expensive equipment unattended in the dark! For me, that points to a refractor or small Mak/SCT on an alt az mount, and a rucksack to carry the scope and bits in!

Helen

[johnrt]

Quite a bit to think about there!

The requirement for imaging is fairly key, I'm not looking to produce any award winning images but would like to record what I have found/seen for my own records and to share with friends and family.

The dobsonian 150p has a much longer focal length that the explorer 150p. What effect will this have on targets I can view?

[lguise]

John,

Loads of good advice here from others. If you go for an equatorial mount the EQ3 will be cheaper and a little lighter to carry than an EQ5 and probably will be good enough for your first scope. However! Carrying it down the path you describe may be a pain with the tripod legs etc.My guess is you will take it in two pieces anyway. Inch for inch a dob is very compact and not hard to shift around, no counterweights and less things sticking out to catch in the dark. Helen's suggestion of a small Mak or SCT is also very good particularly if your main interest is Moon, Planets and the brighter Deep sky objects. You could invest in a good optical tube on the altaz mount she describes and then keep the same tube on a driven mount in the future.

IMO the bottom line is there is not one scope that suits every consideration, which is why you see so much of a range at Star parties etc. My advice is keep it simple for your first scope A dob or simple manual drives on and Altaz or Eq. You will learn so much from this especially if you have a local Society close to you. In the future you can sell it with little loss and by then you will probably know which type of scope suits your interest etc.

Hope this helps,

Linton

[arad85]

The requirement for imaging is fairly key, I'm not looking to produce any award winning images but would like to record what I have found/seen for my own records and to share with friends and family.

Not being rude, but have you set your expectations here... Even in a fairly large 'scope, all you'll see are faint fuzzies for galaxies and globular clusters will be patches with not much resolved. Certainly, you won't see through the 'scope what you see as photos on this board. If photography is key, you will need (for anything other than planetary photography) an EQ mount with at least tracking. The main problem with astrophotography is that you will need long exposures and the accuracy you can track with is determined by your polar alignment and mount quality. Most people start astrophotography with an EQ mount and a smallish (80mm) APO refractor which is more forgiving of errors as the area covered by the field of view is larger.... That's not to say that you can't image with a 6" reflector, just that you'll have some problems to worry about (getting focus - you may not be able to reach a focal point with the reflector without a change of focuser, coma where stars to the edge of the frame will become elongated, collimation will be critical...).

The dobsonian 150p has a much longer focal length that the explorer 150p. What effect will this have on targets I can view?

The longer tube will hav more magnification for a given eyepiece, smaller field of view for a given eyepiece, longer exposures needed for photography and more forgiving of lower quality eyepieces.

[Scott Tilley]

Hi John, I am fairly new to astronomy as well and was faced with some of the choices you have. My only difference is that my garden looks out over the trent valley with no obstruction so I can view and image from my back garden.

I plumped for the SW200p on the EQ5 mount and added the motors at the same time. Imaging was key for me too! I wanted to get into astrophotography but didn't want a massive outlay to start with.

I will be upgrading to an EQ6 mount by the end of this year I think.

I could get good tracking on the mount for about 60 seconds with a reasonable polar alignment. I have since added an Ian king imaging 70mm refractor piggybacked on the back (same as a William optic 70 only rebranded I think!).

My mount is probably just about passed its weight limit now, but I use a skywatcher illuminated eyepiece in one of the scopes and have my digital camera linked to the laptop in the other and do some manual guiding (hard work but rewarding). I'm still experimenting with this at the moment but can normally concentrate long enough to get five minute exposures.

In short this has offered me a way in and I'm able to upgrade in the future. I bought a pretty expensive refractor to piggyback, but I now have the choice of guiding or imaging through both depending on which suits the subject. I know a lot of people use the SW startravel 80 which is a lot cheaper.

Hope this helps!

Scott

[johnrt]

Not being rude, but have you set your expectations here...

Not sure what you mean here, but if you think I'm setting my expectations too high I would be more than happy with some smudgy shapes to begin with. It's really just about documenting what I've looked at and charting my progress and improvements over time.

Scott that's really helpful always good to hear what someone else decided in a similar position and with the benefit of hindsight!

John

[arad85]

Not sure what you mean here,

Just that all you'll see through the lens is a smudgy shape for 90% of DSO objects (star clusters are the exception where you will see more or less of the stars depending on their distance and intensity). Getting anything approaching the photos that some people show on here in the "Imaging - deep sky" section is both quite difficult and very expensive.... As I said, no offence meant

[johnrt]

Just that all you'll see through the lens is a smudgy shape for 90% of DSO objects (star clusters are the exception where you will see more or less of the stars depending on their distance and intensity). Getting anything approaching the photos that some people show on here in the "Imaging - deep sky" section is both quite difficult and very expensive.... As I said, no offence meant

None taken

I imagine there are many folk who turn up on here & other forums expecting to be able to produce images like those in 10mins with less than £200 worth of equipment, it's only proper that you make sure newbies have reasonable expectations in what they will be able to achieve.

[pvaz]

Being a bit of a newby myself I think you have 2 options now:

1) Go for a strictly visual setup (cheaper) and learn astronomy before taking the plunge on astro photography.

2) Go for a setup that will allow you to start visually and add gear as you start imaging.

(I went for the 1st option.)

For the 2nd it's general consensus that you need at least an HEQ5 or an EQ6 to allow you safe upgrades in telescopes/imaging gear without requiring another investment on the mount. Take a look at the imaging section and average the gear used by the best astro photographers here. I done that and found most use one of the 2 mounts mentioned (Celestron CG5GT comes up often too) usually with a 80mm APO refractor and a SCT/MAK for planetary work.

On my reading on the subject the APO refractor haves an advantage over reflectors when it comes to imaging, due to the fact it's always well collimated. Photography is much more sensitive to collimation than visual work, so if you go down the reflector path take into account the need to buy a good collimator such as the hotech laser collimator (over 100£).

As you probably understand now, imaging is the top of the hill when it comes to astronomy and can be complex. Reading a book such as "Making every photon count" before taking the plunge may save you a lot of money (on possible wrong buys) as well teaching you all the technics and options available.

[Astro_Baby]

I think if this is yorr firts foray then get either the 150 on an EQ3-2 and see how it goes or spend out on an Alt/Az SCT type scope depending on the portability requirement and how much you want to spend. A 150 will give you the best bang for the buck though but an SCT may give you better portability. Both will have their own issues regarding photography.

Bear in mind most of this kit is bulky and heavy. Heavier than you might think looking at pictures of the hardware. Dont forget if you go motorised you start needing battery packs which add to the overall bulk. You also need to lug eyepieces with you.

In terms of portability, to give you an idea, my SkyWatcher 200/HEQ5 is quite a few trips up and down stairs. In carry order to my car it gees like this - this is just to give you an idea of weights and size and how much can be carried - you wont have all this gear to start with;

Trip 1 - Telescope tube in backpack and power tank #1

Trip 2 - Tripod legs and power tank #2 ( I need 2 power tanks)

Trip 3 - Mount head in case and eyepiece case

Trip 4 - Counterweights and accessories case (contains leads, tools, torches, finderscopes etc)

That gives you a rough idea what a person can carry - I am female and not over strong by the way.

Even my small Maksutov takes 2 trips because ou dont want to be at maximum carrying capacity when carrying fragile items.

I'd disagree with the Dob approach if you intention is to take up photography but I'd also suggest photography may be beyond you at the start. Handling an EQ mount with a reflector just on its own can be a steep learning curve and without a lot of kit and know how photography, other than for bright objects like the moon and brighter planets, is probably a non-starter.

Lots of people (me included) come into the hobby with aspirations of photography - quite a few of them leave it again very quickly. I'm going to be contentious and suggest that there are two major reasons beginners quit this hobby. The first is poor quality telescopes (the SkyWatcher stuff is excellent so no worries there) but second is astro-imaging.

Theres a third reason too - lousy weather which tests anyones patience to its limits at times

If you really want to do photography then you may as well learn how to handle an EQ mount from the off - you'll have to eventually anyway if your ambitions are photography. But buy cheap to start with with by all means and accept you'll have to upgrade later. Alternately you could buy expensive to start with and not upgrade IF your convinced the hobby will be for you. 150/EQ3 scopes sell relatively easy 2nd hand (as does the smaller 130/EQ2) so if you decide you either dont want to carry on or decide its for you and want something bigger/better you most likley will find the 150 will sell on quite fast and retain a decent amount of cash.

Bear in mind there are potential issues doing photography with reflecting scopes regarding their focusers - I shall leave it to an imager to advise on that.

EQ mounts require set-up for polar alignment but for visual use that doesnt have to be overly accurate and once your practiced you wil find you can do it very fast. I'm missus fussy on that score and I can do a very accurate polar aligment from scratch in about 10 minutes in a field. For just rough and ready its just a case of point the mount North and setting the latitude scale (which stays the same for any location). I could dump my old 130/EQ2 down and have rough alignment almost instantly.

It is a tough choice at the outset and I wish you luck with it and clear skies.

[johnrt]

Thanks for all the great advice here folks. I have made my decision and placed an order with FLO for the 150p on the EQ5.

I think dealing with the equatorial mount from the outset will stand me in good stead for the future, and the EQ5 has more scope for extra bits and bobs than the EQ3-2, which I thought could get to capacity much quicker.

The EQ5 should last me a good while before I progress to a point where I need to upgrade it to one of the mounts mentioned above, and will retain a good percentage of it's value in the second hand market.

I understand FLO are a little swamped due to weather etc but hoping my order will arrive soon! (not that you can see anything through the cloud we have at the moment)