Advice for astrophotography

[pvaz]

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.

I don't agree with the easy part, you can do one of this 3:

1) Move the primary up the tube. If you can move it enough using only the collimation screws then it may be easy, if not it's a hard task that will invalidate warranty.

2) Use a barlow. This may allow you to reach focus but will make the FOV much narrow, adding magnification and making the tracking inaccuracies much more noticeable.

3) Replace the focuser for a low profile one, probably the best sollution but this can cost a few hundred £, maybe even more then the scope itself.

I hope I don't come across as trying to pick a fight with you. I very much enjoy your posts and your views, but I'm somewhat in the same position as Andy, having a background in regular photography and wanting to merge the 2 hobbies. I been doing my fare share of research and even did experiment with widefield photography taking 20s subs on a regular tripod and then experimenting with Deep Sky Stacker. I also read a few books and tutorials on the subject and most of them suggest that starting with an EQ mount and the camera without a scope makes a much better and less demanding start to the hobby, regardless if you have the money to get a top quality gear or not.

[arad85]

I'd agree wth pvaz - start with a decent mount (HEQ5 at a minimum) and then worry about the 'scope. Whilst you can buy a 'scope/mount combo for £400, I think you'd get seriously hacked off trying to use it to get decent dso images with a 40D....

[LukeSkywatcher]

3) Replace the focuser for a low profile one, probably the best sollution but this can cost a few hundred £, maybe even more then the scope itself.

That's the option i was thinking of. I had no idea that it was so expensive.

I completely agree with you that mounting a camera on a mount is much better and less demaning way to start.

I really was just pointing out that Andy specifically asked about telescopes (so i gathered that he really wants one)............irrespective of whether it is really needed to get started or not.

I myself even suggested an astrotrac,fixed tripod widefield photography, which are good ways to get into imaging without a scope.

No hurt feelings on my part.

As i said Andy asked about scopes and we all took off offering ideas that didnt include a scope.

I personally am a visual kind of guy but i LOVE the fact that i can mount a DSLR on a tripod and get what i consider to be good widefield images of the night sky. The fact that i can take multiple images and stack them to get a much better image is fantastic. Its a cheap(ish) and easy way of doing things. I really have not started doing that yet.....but i will. I KNOW my images will NOT be of the same quality as images taken using guided systems, but for me it doesnt matter as astroimaging is not my main area of interest. All i want is some images of the Moon,constellations,meteors etc. I'm very happy to start there. Obviously as time goes by my interest in imaging will increase and i WILL some day attach a camera to either a scope or (as you and others have suggested) , mount my DSLR camera to a guided/tracking EQ mount. Me and EQ mounts dont really get along so well, so i may actually invest in an astrotrac (same idea as a guided EQ mount but lighter).

I hope my comments here are not coming across as arrogant. I really do NOT know enough about much (astronomy related) to have a very valid opinion. Most of the stuff i know has been learned from from others who actually know what they are talking about.

I am here to learn. Its good that i can retain info and pass it on (but if i am wrong i should be corrected).

What was the question again?

LOL.

[Astro_Baby]

Low profile focuser that can haul a camera and any kit is always going to be pricey. A Moonlite is about £280 and that assumes that from day one your competent to take the scope to bits to fit it.

On a big Dob it would be no problem - on the relatively narrow tube of something like a 200mm you will end up removing the secondary mirror and the spiders.

It didn't faze me BUT I wasn't a beginner when I did it. Getting a secondary mirror sorted on a Newt is ALWAYS a pain - even for me. Thats just one of the hurdles I was alluding to. ie just getting a DSLR connected can be a challenge.

As an ex-pro photographer I did come back to the hobby assuming I would do astrophotography but like Arad says - when your used to turning out pro quality images ( I did some stuff for Speedo once y'know ) getting a faint pink blob on a film was never going to cut it. When I realised what the real cost would be to do it seriously - and more crucially the learning curve. I just accepted I'd stick to visual.

Astroimaging has very little in common with commercial photography and certainly not much to do with live models which is where I made my living. By the way I was never a great technical photographer - my skill was getting the best from models.

Having been back in the hobby around 2 years and seen more of the issues I am seriously glad I never geared up for imaging. The weather has been atrocious and the chances I woulkd ever have had time to gather the raw data for processing are just about zero.

The cost doesnt scare me so much as the massive time commitment but also the fact that I have to be portable. Lugging two scopes an EQ6, cameras, a PC, power packs etc would be a logistical nightmare.

[apkent]

Wow, lots of material to cover here...........thanks all. I don't mind the differences of opinion either, better than everyone screaming "DON'T DO IT"!

I'll try to answer a few questions if I can remember them....

My current range of lenses is mostly based around primes. I've got the 24-70 mentioned, a 300mm L F4, a 50mm (hardly used) and a 105mm. I guess the 300mm L could be useful, but being as its neither wide, nor of an exceptional focal length I've sort of discarded using that one.

To the quality of images, I'm convinced by the argument of not needing a scope I reckon. The comments here regarding image quality persuaded me. I use my kit on a semi-pro basis and am used to getting high quality results. Going by my experience of regular photography I know that spending a little only leads you to spending a hell of a lot more (or wanting to!).

Theres little point in running out and max-ing my budget only to find I'm still getting a spot of fuzz. I guess I'm doing the newbie thing of expecting to get Hubble images, only a little smaller. Not going to happen is it.

I could do with a tripod upgrade anyway, I shall look into some sort of guiding/tracking set up. Better to get a great base kit, rather than a mid-range full set up right?

Shame its much cloudier here tonight though, I was looking forward to getting out with the camera again

[Astro_Baby]

Good point there about quality but theres a bigger difference between scopes than cameras I reckon.......

Look at it this way - when I learnt photography I had a Zenith B. No metering on the box, manual stop down, manual focus (naturally), no auto wind (obviously) and a flat out top speed shutter at 1/500th ( might have actually been 1/250th).

When I packed it up I had a Nikon capable of auto everything, power grip with winder, speeds to 1/3200th and it could do everything except book the models

In between the two I shot with just about every camera invented for pros between 1982 and 2005 when I packed up that included Olympus OM1,2, and 4, Nikons by the boatload (my fave was the F301 though) Bronica ETRs, Leica, Pentax and almost every Canon between the AE-1 (first auto camera) and the D30 their first serious digital SLR (by the way I was only semipro for most of it - turned fully pro around '99 - doing it as a full time job just killed it for me)

The fact is I could take just as good pics with the Zenith or indeed if pushed a box brownie

At the end of the day all those cameras worked in fundamentally the same way. You wind on, focus, sort out your f and shutter, depth of field etc. The difference in quality between a £50 Zenith and a £1500 Nikon was almost unoticeable to most people and the drawbacks to a basic camera could be overcome with practice and a being smart plus knowing that you have to open a stop and half or close down by a half stop for various situations etc etc

I just dont believe that to be true with astro imaging from what I have seen as an onlooker (call me in interested spectator). Theres no way no matter how ingenious you are to get the quality without spending some serious wonga and even if you did you might find the quality elusive.

I think wide field would give you a good start with what you have and a decent mount or alternately buy something small and secondhand to get used to the issues with just manipulating a scope and using an EQ mount.

The imaging folk seem a bit absent from this thread - it would be worth asking them how they got started I reckon. Also the advice to get Steves book 'Every Photon Counts' is as good as any. I had a flip through it and it looked very sound and pretty well geared for anyone looking to get into imaging.

[LukeSkywatcher]

Low profile focuser that can haul a camera and any kit is always going to be pricey. A Moonlite is about £280 and that assumes that from day one your competent to take the scope to bits to fit it.

WOW!!!! Pvaz was not wrong (not that i doubted him for a second). That is about as much,.....if not more then the scope you may put it on costs. I seriously had NO idea it cost THAT much.

On a big Dob it would be no problem - on the relatively narrow tube of something like a 200mm you will end up removing the secondary mirror and the spiders.

The less parts you have to remove on a scope to make an upgrade the better......unless you absolutely know what you are doing. Collimation was scarey to me before i did it once but taking my scope (any scope apart) is out of the question.

Astroimaging has very little in common with commercial photography and certainly not much to do with live models

This is TRUE. I think anyone who has ever taken a photo of ANYTHING during the day and an astro image will agree. They are simply 2 completely different things.

[Tim]

A little while ago we chose as our "Picture of the week" a shot that was taken through a lens, rather than a telescope.

When you look at the astro pictures, what would you really like to be able to do? You mention the planets, are they of more interest than say, galaxies, or nebulae? The approach to lunar/planetary work is very different to galaxies and nebulae, and your D40 is suited to the galaxy/nebula (DSO) type of image.

To capture these DSO, you typically need a long exposure, something around 5 mins is usual. In that time, the object you are photographing will move quite a way around the sky, and so the camera has to follow it in order not to have trails all over the image. There are systems that allow you to do this, the easiest being a device called an astrotrac (see FLO).

I dont know whereabouts in the UK you are based, if you are anywhere near the midlands you are welcome to drop by my little observatory (shed) and have a look at the kind of setups that we tend to go for these days. I'm in Coventry if you are interested, just PM me.

As mentioned above, there are technical challenges, but that only heightens the feeling of reward with a good result. Half of the battle with deep sky images is processing the data, which is the only way to get the best out of your camera, so being happy with image manipulation in photoshop etc would be something to consider. As you learn about how the sky works though, it all slots into place and becomes much much easier.

As a start, if you can point your camera at the north star, Polaris, and leave the shutter open for 5 minutes (low iso), you will be able to see graphically how fast and how far the night sky moves around us, the further away from the north star you get, the faster the stars move.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the night sky, but there is a great little program for free here:

Stellarium

It lets you see exactly what is what in the sky around you, and where all the funky bits are hiding

You never know, one day we might be choosing one of your pics for our "Pic of the Week" slot

If you need any further help, just yell, it's what we do

Tim

[skye at night]

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......

Use a tripod....

use self timer or remote shutter release...

autofocus on bright star or planet... then switch to manual, don't bump the focus ring...

use mirror lock up...

20-25 secs at 18mm should avoid trails... 8 secs or so at 50mm, longer is better...

use iso 800...

stop aperture down a bit to avoid coma....

Steve

[LukeSkywatcher]

Welcome back to your own thread Andy. The fact you said you were already heavily into photography kinda stated that you take imaging (of any kind) very seriously). Also the fact you say you are used to getting semi-pro quality shots backs that up..........so really you have no interest in messing about with cheap(ish) quality scopes.

Knowing this...............i bow out of this thread and will leave it to those who know better how to set you up.

[LukeSkywatcher]

Here is an image of Jupiter i took a few months back by simply mounting my 450D on a camera/binocular tripod:

The focus is off but i was AMAZED with the results. I had my 75-300mm lens fully extended. The dark spot is not the great red spot on Jupiter. I think it is a speck of dust on the lens. The banding is quite obvious. It goes to show that even with the most simple of set-up that you can and DO get results.

use mirror lock up...

Thats something i have not tried.

[superjody]

anyone gonna post pics from their camera and tripods to show some of the results we can expect and aim towards??

could be another good way to help people so they can compare pics

[superjody]

ah..good start lukeskywatcher, i didnt realise there were 2 pages of replies so i missed your post

[Tim]

Last summer we held a competition for photos taken with basic kit, ie, no telescopes and undriven mounts.

Here are some of the entries, might be of interest.

SGL Summer Competition - Stargazers Lounge

Please see the imaging section of the forum, especially the widefield bit for more pics, rather than reposting a load of them here. Thanks.

[LukeSkywatcher]

ah..good start lukeskywatcher, i didnt realise there were 2 pages of replies so i missed your post

No worries.

With the same setup (using an 18-55mm lens) i have taken 8s exposures of Orion, and M42 is well pronounced. I can only imagine the result if i took maybe a few dozen frames and stacked them.

IMHO....there is no such thing as a BAD image. There are only images that can be improved upon with the advice of experienced photographers.

We all have to start somewhere.

P.S~~~I'd LOVE to see Pete Lawrences first ever astro image. Pete if you read this.........PLEASE step up to the plate and really show us what it is like to go from a newbie to PRO.

[skye at night]

I just 'popped' outside to do this one....

Should have stuck to 8-15 secs, but couldnt resist 20 secs....

Just to show what you can do..

This is a single shot..

Tripod

Mirror lock

Timer remote

autofocus on Mars, then to manual.

ISO 1600 (20 Da is very noise free at this setting)

50mm f1.8 lens stopped to f2.5

20 secs (a touch long)

Single frame, no processing or tweaking of ANY kind...

slight coma, could ve stopped a tad more to cut this, slight trailing due to exposure length.

But.... shows Orion Neb clearly and a bit of a hint of Horsey and Flame too.

Take a load of these and stack them and you are well on the way!

Steve

same settings , but 8 secs to compare, less trailing, but less detail, which is why log exposure tracked and guided shots make all the difference.

[LukeSkywatcher]

Well done Skye. That really shows what can be done with a simple setup.

Should have stuck to 8-15 secs, but couldnt resist 20 secs....

Thats my problem too. I know what works from my location but i push the boat out more often then not. You obviously have darker skies then i do cuz i simply cant get that kind of result with a 20s exposure.

P.S.~~~You even captured the region of the HH/flame nebula.

RESPECT.

[LukeSkywatcher]

Very nice example of what can be done with a simple setup Skye. You even managed to capture the region of the HH/flame nebula.

ERhhhhhhhhhhh sorry for the double post. Damn internet connection is messing with my head tonight.

[SteveP]

Hi Andy

If i could add my 2p's worth ...

In your position as someone who is already used to producing good quality images, I suspect you are going to feel disappointed with your results if you spend £400 on a scope, mount and all the other adapters, cables, guiding arrangments that will be required. I doubt very much that you will get a decent set-up for £400 which will meet your expecations.

My advice to you for someone who already has a high quality DSLR and some good lenses is to start initially using your DSLR and a long focal length lense, say 300mm in conjunction with a good/medium quality mount. It's ultimately the mounts ability to track accurately with the lowest periodic error which will have the biggest impact on the quality of the image given you have a 40D already. I'd recommend looking for a 2nd hand Skywatcher HEQ5 mount (you might get one for your budget plus a little bit more) and mount your camera/lens directly to it. Also spend some time learning about how to polar align the mount and you'll be off to a good start. An HEQ5 will form the basis of a good set-up going forward and so long as you stick to widefield and lightish scopes, the HEQ5 will serve you well. I would have recommended its bigger brother the EQ6 Pro, but even 2nd hand, that definitely will bust your budget

HTH

Steve

[apkent]

Again, thanks all. I totally agree that the limiting factor is probably two-fold at the moment:

1. lack of experience (will come)

2. lack of tracking ability (will come with money!)

As repeated a few times, quite rightly, I'm definately going to be disappointed with something budget, and going after an Astrotrac or similar would be much better course of action.

Having scoured the internet for photos I'm beginning to think widefield produces a much prettier picture anyway, certainly for the cost involved. Images of the planets would be nice, but I was probably thinking I'd get much more than a fuzzy blob - optimistic, I know.

For completeness (although getting off topic), the images I took the other day were as follows:

ISO 1000

30s

F2.8 lens stopped to F4

Tripod, shutter release, mirror lock etc.

Lens set beyond infinity!

As I say, I'll wait for another clear night and have another go - as with anything, practise makes perfect.

Thanks again all, I'm extremely impressed by the helpfulness of everyone who have taken the time to point me in the right directions, plus their reasoning. What a forum!

Cheers,

Andy

[jgs001]

Andy, I think, with that lens combination, you've got some ideal kit for some lovely widefields... 50mm on a decent tracking mount will do some cracking jobs of constellations. I did an Orion a couple of weeks ago. Primes are actually probably better, you then don't have to worry about zoom creep, especially tracking in EQ. I've seen some beautiful widefields at 135mm.

To get decent focus, use liveview, zoom in all the way on a bright star with maxed out settings, and tweak gently until it's the smallest dot possible. I did tape the focus ring on my Nifty Fifty to stop it moving whilst the mount swung it around.

For the basic widefield on a tripod, I didn't stop down the lens at all, and that's on the 450d 18-55 kit lens, I'd suggest trying it wide open and just see what it looks like, it'll make a big difference to the amount you can capture.

It sounds like you're in the right ballpark with your settings though. Good luck, and post the results. Take at least 10, then cap the lens and take 5 more at exactly the same settings. Put the images into DeepSkyStacker, the 10 images as lights, and the 5 capped as darks, click select all, then register checked, sit back and wait.

[apkent]

Ah, so thats what I was doing wrong with DSS!

I got as far as downloading and installing, and running through 10 of my images, but only had them set as 'light' - I didn't know what 'dark' meant. I'll have another go at the first opportunity.

Unfortunately my 40D doesn't have liveview, so a bit scuppered on that point. I'll have to just experiment and see what I can do. No real rush I guess!

Thanks.

[Scott Tilley]

How about the route I've gone. Skywatcher 200p on EQ5 mount with motors. About £450 I think. You can attach your camera direct to the scope. With good alignment it should track for up to a minute before you get star trails.

However to agree with everyone elses points! Bought this last October, since when I have added a Ian King 70mm refractor piggybacked, an illuminated eyepiece for manual guiding, Baadar Hyperion Zoom (can attach my digital SLR to this), Red dot finder, Filters, (planetary and light pollution)

Planning to convert garage to have a dome installed and EQ6 on pier this year:D

Currently getting to grips with imaging mars using liveview as video on my laptop.

http://stargazerslounge.com/imaging-planetary/96153-mars-attempt-29th-jan-09-a.html

Good Luck!

Scott

[jgs001]

You're welcome Andy... You might want to check the docs... according to Canon, the 40d has liveview...

Canon EOS 40D Digital SLR Camera - Canon UK

3.0" LCD with Live View mode

The bright 3.0" LCD provides pin-sharp definition for checking focus and composition, with 10x magnification for finer details. When shooting from awkward positions, Live View mode gives you the option of framing your image from the LCD.

[Tim]

Did we mention, astrophotography is addictive..........and an expensive habit to feed

As for the focus, most lenses seem to go beyond infinity these days, which puts them a little past focus. Auto focus seems to struggle unless you can find a really bright point. I find that focussing past infinity, then winding back a tad, then taking a test exposure works well, and then I tape the focus ring into that position.

You may have noticed already, dew starts to build up on lenses very quickly. We use electrically heated straps to help keep them clear, or some kind of shroud can be useful.

Welcome to the dark side :D