Advice for astrophotography

[apkent]

Hi,

I'm Andy, and am already heavily into my (earthly!) photography. I've currently got a Canon 40D and would love to start stargazing, and in particular getting some nice images of (hopefully) the planets, if not further afield.

Other than the basics of the types of telescopes, tripods and mounts, I've got no idea what would be best to look at purchasing. I've looked and looked at First Light Optics website but theres a lot to choose from and I don't really know what all the specs mean!

I've got around £400 to spend and, like everyone I guess, want the best bang for my buck. First and foremost, I must be able to attached my DSLR to whatever I buy, and I'm guessing I'd want it motorised for tracking during the night. Other than that, I haven't got a clue!!!

So, would anyone care to advise on what might be the best telescope for my money then?

Or point me in the direction of a good thread which I've clearly missed!

Cheers,

Andy

[greenkat]

Hi Andy

Before you go spending your money, why dont you try some widefield astrophotography by just pointing you camera at say Orion, set the camera to manual, set the lens to infinity, set the appature to its lowest , f2 or f4 , then take some exposures of varying lengths. Youl be surprised how many stars show up and youl probably pick up the Orion nebula too.

Check out the imaging forum and the widefield threads.

Have fun anyway

Greenkat

[LukeSkywatcher]

You could also buy an astrotrac. That will allow you to take lovely widefield images. For planets, most people use webcams attached to their scopes. Dobsonians telescopes (well Dob mounts) are not much good for imaging as most of them are manual and not practical for tracking.

Fixed tripod photography (your camera on a tripod pointed at the night sky) works pretty well. You will get better results if you take many images (of same object) and stack them. Registax works for lunar images and DSS (Deep Sky Stacker) works for deep sky objects (nebulae etc).

[Vega]

I agree... Widefield may be the less technical way of taking astro-photo's but there certainly have been some right belters on here in that category. Quite a satisfying way of starting out and with tracking devices, it can produce some of the best astro photo's out there.

A short note on the aperture.. its best to close it a couple notches back from completely open. F5.6 seems to be the sweet spot on my 400D with stock 55mm lens. Otherwise your photo's will suffer from stretched stars around the edges even when in perfect focus (the name of this effect escapes me at the mo).

For planets, a webcam through telescope is the way to go. A DSLR will struggle to get the detail. As for deep sky, thats when things start to get more tricky and expensive however, the time, tears and money can produce very rewarding results :-)

Cheers

Matt

[apkent]

Thanks all. I've got a nice F2.8 24-70mm lens which I reckon could do the job in that case. Stick it to F4 and should work ok.

I've just looked into an Astrotrac - not cheap are they, hence why I was looking at a tracking scope to sort of kill two birds with one stone.

I'm guessing without layering images I'm not going to get great images though? And I'm not going to be layering without a tracker.

I'll certainly give widefield a go though - its free to try and I can see what results are achieveable.

I'd still be interested to hear whether anyone has any telescope suggestions though......

[apkent]

Well, I had a quick go. Disaster!

Took near on 60 shots, and anything above 28mm was out of focus. I set the lens to infinity (although according to the scale, I actually set it to beyond the infinity marker slightly).

Never mind, have another go tomorrow if the sky is still clear......

[arad85]

I have to say that astrophotography is the biggest biatch out there. If you value your sanity, don't bother attempting it, and if you do, be prepared to spend thousands doing it...

Don't say you weren't warned!

[Astro_Baby]

LOL

So true though

[room16]

Is it really true?

Tbh i don't think so.

I've seen great results from very cheap setups, it all depends on how high you set your bar. If you want to have the best of the best images, then maybe it does cost thousands, but if you aint got the ability to process them, then its all a big waste.

I've seen some cracking pictures taken both just with a dslr of widefield and dso with apo lenses, awesome tbh. I've also seen cracking photo's and videos made with cheaply modified webcams and decent processing.

Tracking is the main issue in it all, without this, dso photography is a nightmare to get into. But with tracking, even basic unguided, you can get really nice images.

And in all honesty, arad85's comment really isn't a way to inspire new potentials into the astro community. Being a newbie myself, it's a good job i haven't just given up by some of the comments left here....it aint all the time, but it's noticable here n there.

[Astro_Baby]

Yes but I think its fair to add a dose of reality. Astrophotography is no easy road to hoe and I think we'd be dishonest not to put that across. I have seen plenty of posts on here in my time with beginners rushing in to buy kit and then realising that buying a Sky-Watcher 130 was never going to be the solution to produce images - a lot of these people never post again whcih suggests that a fair amount of them just give up because of the technical hurdles.

Even hooking up a DSLR is potentially fraught with problems as the endless posts regarding lack of in-focus attest to. When people reliase that even hooking up a DSLR has a potential to cost hundreds in a low profile focuser they can easily be put off for good.

Lots of these folk never post much after the initial disappointment so I think its fair to raise some of the issues and set expectations and not sugar coat a rather bitter pill.

Its a sort of truism that astroimaging is one of the reasona a lot of people pack up the hobby - they come in with high hopes and then find that the cost of pursuing it is way beyond them.

When I came back to it I kind of imagined that astro-imaging would have become simpler thanks to digital technology in the 20 years I had been away from it. In some ways it has but in other ways the bar has been raised higher and the costs have gone up - ok the kits more capable but its still an expensive hobby and its STILL very technically challenging.

When you see the newbie posts on here where people struggle to get their heads around stuff like polar alignment and collimation you can see the jump from that to astroimaging is quite immense. Thats not to say impossible but very, very challenging and potentially expensive.

I'd agree you can do it cheap - years ago people used to manually guide a scope you know for long exposure BUT to do it on a budget is just as tough a proposition - its cheaper but its likley to be even harder work and all that assumes you have the ingenuity and the technical nous to pull it off.

I'd wish anyone luck whos doing it but I'd also want them to be suitably aware of the hurdles.

[adamsp123]

A major part of the problem for someone new to Astronomy and wants to jump in with imaging is the lack of understanding how the mount and scope need to be correctly set up and how they work. Equatorial mounts "behave" strangely to a newbie and basic things on polar alignment, tracking, meridian flip, balancing etc need to be understood first. Once the setup and operation is OK all you are really doing is replacing the eye with a camera albeit with another set of things to learn.

I recommend Steves book "making every photon count" as the first thing to buy, IMO it is the best book for the budding astro-imager that I have read, a good investment, a real help and could save you a lot of money by not getting the wrong equipment.

[jgs001]

Some good advice here, and it's not easy, focus is really hard, although I think you have liveview and that really helps. Also, have a look at http://stargazerslounge.com/imaging-tips-tricks-techniques/73737-basic-widefield-camera-tripod.html for widefield with just the camera, I wrote it for a photography forum ...

[arad85]

Is it really true?

Tbh i don't think so.

Yup, it is. Perhaps I'm making some assumptions here, but someone who owns a D40 is going to be picky about the image quality, so something that is a small blob for a planet or a fuzzy fuzzy probably isn't going to cut it.

Planetary requires a webcam, not DSLR (although some people are starting to try with liveview, but they aren't as successful as the webcams yet) and a long focal length to get any scale. Long focal length is an SCT (expensive!), expensive refractor so you can up the mag, or a big newt with some afocal - or a top quality newt with lots of barlowing. All on a driven mount which needs to be capable of supporting the equipment. That's expensive to do well. Did I mention that all this costs money

I've seen great results from very cheap setups, it all depends on how high you set your bar.

Yup, see comment above about someone who owns a D40 . Cheap setups will limit what you can achieve. Yes, you can get some great widefields with something like a barn door mount (although most people seem to be getting their widefields with either an Astrotrack or close to £1000 of mount underenath the camera), but show me any good photos of DSOs done without at least an HEQ5 being used. Normally, they are done with an EQ6 at least and guiding, which adds an awful lot into the price/complexity. And that's without even processing it!

Tracking is the main issue in it all, without this, dso photography is a nightmare to get into. But with tracking, even basic unguided, you can get really nice images.

Yup... and this is where you start to spend... HEQ5 or EQ6 is what people recommend. Not cheap... and that's without spending on the scope/apo lens or active guiding systems. And dedicated cams to pick up the Hydrogen-alpha nebulosity.

And in all honesty, arad85's comment really isn't a way to inspire new potentials into the astro community.

Sorry my bluntness causes a problem, but all I was saying is that to produce images that are world class requires money, and lots of it.

YMMV of course.

@Astro_Baby: thanks for sticking up for me

[room16]

I understand what your saying mate, don't get me wrong, it's good to have the reality check, especially in this field as expectations are often twarted by some technological hitch and if it aint that its the damn weather!

But looking at that persons post, they already have a 40d and im guessing some lenses.

What lenses does this person already have? would any by any chance be of the apo type with a long focal length? if so then even a mount to track manually would get something decent.

I've been out with my 1000d on these past few clear nites, got a nice piccie of the moon through my scope, and whilst testing that out i took some images of m42, i haven't had time to do anything with them, but even so, mounted on a non tracking 10" dob, i was over the moon with what the camera picked up.

I know that if i want better then i'll have to save and get more equipment, but even just taking widefield shots, viewing through a scope and possibly a cheap webcam recording images of the planets, is enough for the time being. Theres a hell of a lot of information to go through and taking your time is obviously key.

I just think it would be easier sometimes if people looked back to when they were just starting out and advise on the best possible options instead of just posting a couple of lines basically saying "don't bother unless you have loads of cash".

One such option being, find an astronomical society near you. You may find some there who are able to advise you and maybe help you out on your quests.

There are others who could probably advise better on a budget imaging scope but there are deals to be had on this forum as well as astro buy n sell.

For a budget of £400 you should be able to pick up a skywatcher equinox 66/Orion ED80 or similiar and eq5/heq5 second hand. You will need an adaptor to fit camera to scope which will set you back about £30-ish.

Cheap modified webcam, toucam, spc900nc,quickcam 3000/4000 pro about £50-£75 if you want to do planetry.

Thats just a rough idea, as i said, there are a few here who can put you onto decent budget equipment, but don't expect miracles

[arad85]

I just think it would be easier sometimes if people looked back to when they were just starting out and advise on the best possible options instead of just posting a couple of lines basically saying "don't bother unless you have loads of cash".

Ahh... my message didn't come through then. I was saying that it's really tricky to do and that if you do decide to get involved, be prepared for it to be very addictive and cause you to want/buy lots of expensive stuff as you'll see the limitations in the stuff you first bought (assuming you didn't jump in with both feet and buy £30,000 of equipment first off )...

That better?

[omahaastro]

Yeah, no doubt... you can do far more... with far less today, than one could ever do before. It can be intimidating if you focus only on trying to attain the results of those who are using dedicated CCD imagers/autoguiding/filter wheels/complex post processing/etc. The fact is, you can get good results doing fixed tripod/unguided piggy back photography. I attached my Nikon D70 (wish I knew back then, what I know now about red sensitivity) to an 80mm shorty refractor... unguided on a basic tracking mount and got fairly decent results (I thought at least for my first attempt... note, I didn't even do any noise reduction or any processing, these are raw 'snap shots')... I even picked up a dust lane in M-31... along with M-32/110. It did help to have a laptop in the field... enabling focusing. A good start I thought. It does take a lot of patience... time, I'd personally rather spend observing. Who am I fooling... I'm a visual astronomer.

OmahaAstro.com

[jgs001]

For the budget you have suggested, I'd recommend, save up a little more, and get an HEQ5 Syntrek. The just mount your camera and lens directly to the top. That'll certainly get you going widefield. Lenses up to 400mm will work nicely. (400mm is just about right for M45 and M31) and other targets. In the meantime, have a try with some widefield work with a short lens and a tripod. It's all good experience, at both operating the camera in this mode, focusing and processing, each is a new technical challenge, that needs work. If you fancy having a view around whilst your camera is doing it's stuff... then a pair of 10x50 binoculars will get you started nicely.

[greenkat]

Well, I had a quick go. Disaster!

Took near on 60 shots, and anything above 28mm was out of focus. I set the lens to infinity (although according to the scale, I actually set it to beyond the infinity marker slightly).

Never mind, have another go tomorrow if the sky is still clear......

Hi Andy,

Glad you went out and had a go.

Regarding the focus marker on the camera lenses, as far as i'm aware, infinity is actualy at just 'before' the infinity mark. Sounds like you went past it. Try it again with focus just inside the mark and see what happens.

Lol , dont be put off by the handbags at dawn that go on here from time to time, we're all freinds realy

[pvaz]

With a 400£ budget you could search the 2nd hand forums for a HEQ5 Syntrek mount. They cost 600£ new but I seen them at 400 or less used.

That way if you decide it's not your thing you can resell it 2nd hand without loosing money.

Then atach a tripod ball head and the camera on the mount and start with widefield. Then, when you feel comfortable add the scope to the rig. The HEQ5 is a capable mount so that investment will stay with you for a while even if you add/change scopes.

[LukeSkywatcher]

I'm as guilty as anyone else for not answering Andy's question regarding what scope he could buy for his budget. His question still remains unanswered. Not many scopes being reccomended to him.

Sorry i am just trying to help a bit.

[resonator77]

great starting scope

Reflectors - Skywatcher Explorer 130M

once you manage to squeeze all it can offer you can move up to bigger and more expensive

[Whippy]

A major part of the problem for someone new to Astronomy and wants to jump in with imaging is the lack of understanding how the mount and scope need to be correctly set up and how they work. Equatorial mounts "behave" strangely to a newbie and basic things on polar alignment, tracking, meridian flip, balancing etc need to be understood first. Once the setup and operation is OK all you are really doing is replacing the eye with a camera albeit with another set of things to learn.

I recommend Steves book "making every photon count" as the first thing to buy, IMO it is the best book for the budding astro-imager that I have read, a good investment, a real help and could save you a lot of money by not getting the wrong equipment.

This is the best bit of advice here. Fact is that esoteric equipment like equatorial mounts aren't the most intiutive pieces of kit and it's probably more important to learn how a setup works, cameras and scopes are secondary IMO. I was stargazing for a couple of years before I even thought about attaching a camera, it's worth taking some time to think about what it is you actually want to do before you go wading in, spending money like it's water and finding out it's way too much hassle and it all gets mothballed.

My advice would be is to buy a scope, get used to it and enjoy the night sky and not even think about imaging. Once you feel comfortable with what you're doing then take it from there.

Tony..

[LukeSkywatcher]

I would have also said the Explorer 130. It seems a popular choice.

[pvaz]

I'm as guilty as anyone else for not answering Andy's question regarding what scope he could buy for his budget. His question still remains unanswered. Not many scopes being reccomended to him.

Sorry i am just trying to help a bit.

That question as been answered: With 400£ you can't buy a scope and mount that will allow good quality on astrophotography.

Staying on budget, the alternative is to buy the mount only, one capable of having a scope attached to it later and achieve decent results in astrophotography. With only the mount (and the powerpacks, camera and a tripod head and maybe a plate where he can attach the head to) he can start right away with wide field. That will leave hard things like reaching focus with the camera attached to a scope for a later time. If he already haves a couple of lenses from regular photography he can experiment a lot. It will also give him time to learn and perfect the processing part of the hobby which can be demanding and haves a steep learning curve.

Once he is confortable with all this he can add an 80mm APO refractor. As to the 130M the mount is told to be too inaccurate for imaging and I seen most people complain the focuser doesn't have enough inward travel to reach focus with a DSLR.

[LukeSkywatcher]

I'm looking at the FLO website and there are plenty of scopes for under £400 that will allow for good astrophotography. Take the SW range of reflectors for example. Plenty of people use those scopes and take astro images (ok maybe not of planets). I agree that to the serious astrophotgrapher that £400 is a very small budget to have. I guess its all a matter of just how serious and commited one wants to get with astroimaging.

Anyways that is neither here nor there. I suppose the moral of the story is that you dont need a scope to start imaging and for £400 you may get better gear that will allow you to just mount SLR directly and get good images. The scope can be added later if desired then.

I just thought that seen as Andy asked about scopes that he deserved some to be recommended to him.......even though there is an alternative method of imaging.

P.S.~~~you are right about the 130M focuser. Now i think of it, that does seem to be a common complaint amongst owners. Easily sorted but why have to fix it if you can do better.