CAN'T MAKE UP MY MIND.

[eddie3000]

Hi there. I've been looking at scopes for astrophotography for quite some time, I've been reading about pros and cons of different types and all that. I am mainly interested in astrophotography.

I have a Nikon D80 (not the best for astrophotography, but not at all bad either), and a HEQ5 mount with goto. The maximum weight for the mount is about 15Kg.

I quite like the Newt-Maksutov astrograph type telescopes. A bit pricey (1000-1200euros), also on the weight limit for my mount. From 700mm-1200mm, and from f4-f6.

I have also seen various RC designs (1000euros the cheapest to whatever you like). From 1000mm-over2000mm, and generaly f7 or higher. Orion and Gso, I think.

Newtonians are the most abundant species, starting at about 300euros and up. Widest range of focal length, sizes, aperture and colours!

If any of you guys have a little time to spare, I would like to have experienced people's opinions on which might be the most practical telescope and why. The price difference is very big.

Is a RC worth it? It's "darker", and narrower field, but lighter in weight. Maybe the best in image quality, but I don't know about the cheap ones.

Is the comma on normal newts that bad? Is it best to have two different newts (wide angle and narrow angle) for half the price of a RC?

I've seen a make called Bresser I never heard of. Is it any good?

I know it is a bit of a personal taste problem, but I have no experience with telescopes. Any info and opinions would be of great help. Thank you.

[brantuk]

A good place to start would be to make a firm decision on budget first. Then see what's available within that price range. Figure in the likely cost of accessories like power supply, eye peices, collimator, dew control, camera cnnections, etc.

Once your budget is set then you can start to consider what type of scope. General rule is to go for largest aperture within budget - Newtonians give the best bang for buck in that respect.

However Schmits and Maks are usually sharper on solar system objects and will give pleasing pics. Newts tend to have shorter focal lengths and not as good when shooting planets. Both styles can be used for looking at anything though.

The mount is of prime importance for AP. To snap dos's you'll want a very accurate tracking equatorial mount. Again alt/az mounts can be used but not as good because they track in two planes (EQ's can track in RA only once polar aligned accurately).

Talk of RC scopes makes me think you're loaded - you can allways get one of each if choosing is still difficult lol

Hope I've helped a bit

[eddie3000]

Hope I was loaded!!!! Unfortunately I haven't got heaps of cash. And because of that I do not want to get a cheap scope to end up having to buy another one later after realizing the first isn't what I wanted.

The RCs I'm talking about are like these:

Telescopes - Type of build Telescopes: Ritchey-Chretien

As you can see, they aren't as expensive as they used to be. And that makes me doubt whether they are any good and worth it. Maybe a good 300-600€ newt is better than a cheap 1000€ RC.

I have the feeling that a 200mm newt about 700-1000mm, and getting good eyepieces is a good start.

What would you think of these?:

Telescopes - Type Telescopes: Reflector - Type of build Telescopes: Newton - Mounting type Telescopes: no mount - Aperture Telescopes: 200 - 254 mm

Or these:?

Telescopes - Type Telescopes: Reflector - Type of build Telescopes: Maksutov-Newton - Mounting type Telescopes: no mount

My budget depends on my wife and how convincing I can be.

I guess a 1500euro budget may be feasible. The less I spend, the happier my wife will be. Going up to 2000euro isn't impossible, but I doubt I will get permission for that.

Thanks for you answer Branktuk.

[eddie3000]

Bresser Telescope N 203/1000 Messier OTA

This is the scope that might make my wife very happy. It's just on the size and weight limit for my heq5 goto mount. It comes with three eyepieces already, a finder scope, all you need to get going really. I could separately get better eyepieces, they even have an offer for some meade for 149€ (don't know if they are any good though).

Given the price of this scope, will it be good for amateurish astrophotography? Will I need a coma corrector and/or field flattener? How much do they cost if needed? Is the quality difference between the RCs and this newt really worth the price difference? And what about the mak-newts?

What would you get?

:confused::confused:

[Deneb]

im just wondering, if your going down the reflector route, then maybe you want to look at buying a Mak Newt for dso imaging..

Nadeem.

[brantuk]

I have to admit I don't know the Bresser or Intes scopes at all - but I haven't heard anything bad about them. You're right about RC scopes - they seem to be a fair bit cheaper than they were. The descriptions I've read is that they give very flat and coma free fields, so flatteners or coma correctors shouldn't be needed.

I'm sure someone who owns one will comment - but I like the look of the Orion models. And if it were me - dead keen on photography - I'd probably go for an Orion 6" or 8" RC.

Be wary of buying e/p kits - not allways what they're cracked up to be. I'd get accustomed to the ones supplied first then make an informed decision.

Bear in mind that you'll need a bottomless pit of money for photography - but if you just wanted an instrument to observe and learn the hobby with - you can't beat the Newt for value and aperture.

I started with a 6" newt and then moved up to an 8" schmit cass

[ollypenrice]

Let's clarify a few key fundamentals for imaging. A long focal length will tax the guiding accuracy of your mount and the quality of your seeing. The more you 'magnify' the more you magnify the errors in the system, whether they come from errors in the accuracy of tracking or from atmospherically induced effects. If you have a budget mount (ie less than about £4K) then you need to be very careful when going beyond about a metre of focal length. I am not saying it's impossible, just that it might require a lot of input to sort out the guiding.

Now focal ratio. A slow focal ratio means longer exposures. Longer exposures require better tracking. If you combine long focal length with slow focal ratio (as in SCT and Ritchey Chretien) you can say goodbye to budget mounts and start thinking Takahashi, Astro Physics, and so on. I would not be interested, personally, in trying to run a slow (f8) RC with a long (1.8 metre) focal length on an EQ5 or EQ6. Again, I don't say it can't be done, just that I won't be in there trying to do so.

If you are new to imaging and have an EQ mount (they are great but they are not premium mounts. I have two) then I would urge you to keep to a short focal length (say 700mm or less) and a fast focal ratio (less than about f6.5). Then

If you look at the deep sky imaging section of the forum you'll see what gives what as regards results. To see what can be done at focal lengths between 328 and 980mm on an EQmount here's what we did last year;

Les Granges favourites from 2009.. - ollypenrice's Photos

In a nutshell , fast and short. Imaging is hard. Give yourself a break!!!

Olly

[sgazer]

It's difficult to beat a Newt with a coma corrector for fast focal ratio, range of focal lengths, optical performance, light weight (for the aperture) and very low cost. I liked the look of the f4 Newt Olly mentioned in his recent post.

[eddie3000]

Thank you guys for your opinions. Believe it or not you have helped clear up some of my doubts.

A RC scope is unarguably the best scope. But the long focal length and f8 are going to give me trouble with my heq5 mount. I know because I have a 1600mm lens (2200mm equivalent on the Nikon d80), and tracking is veeeeeery tricky.

So I should try to keep to max 1000mm focal length and as fast as possible. The bresser I pointed out in a previous post is probably the best option (1000/200=f5). It comes with all I need to get going, I can always buy a coma corrector further on, and other eye pieces too. It will keep my wife happy as well:hello2:

The Mak-newt is probably better due to it's built in coma corrector plate, but the price difference is considerable. A coma corrector for the Newt ought to be much cheaper than the difference in price. And then again, coma is really a problem far from the center of the image, so cropping can partially and temporarily get me past that problem.

I believe Orion and Gso share the same optics. I've been told that Bresser is made by the same people that make Meade scopes. Skywatcher have some reputation too. Although I asume that they all are pretty similar within the same price range.

Hopefully, with your help, I will make a decision this week, and maybe, if all goes well, I'll post my first astrophoto attempt some time later this month. So thanks again guys! Do you have any suggestions in makes/brands or a particular model?

I appreciate your answers very much. Thanks:headbang:

[ollypenrice]

This business of brands is a nightmare. What seems to be happening is that the big manufacturers will make special runs for shops or brands who have a say in the specification provided they can take sufficient numbers, so you have to be careful in assuming that one is the same as another. The imaging Newt I have coming down for a test run is not the same as the apparently similar instruments found elsewhere.

With a Newt you will have to be careful to collimate it well and get the chip distance exactly right when using a coma corrector. The big plus is the fast f ratio. As for RCs, if you lived in Arizona you would have enough time to image faint nebulae at f8. In the UK I wouldn't recommend it!

Olly

[eddie3000]

This first option gets me going straight out the box, but what is a gear rack focuser??

Bresser Telescope N 203/1000 Messier OTA

I think the focuser on this one looks better, but I don't really know. Is the crayford focuser on this much better than the gear rack?

GSO Telescope N 200/1000 OTA

If I get the GSO, I will have to get eyepieces. For what I've read on other posts, I guess a range of 8-15-25-32mm be ok? Should I get them all plosls to start with? Any suggestions?

Would you get the 800mm or 1000mm telescope?

Would you get the Bresser 200-800 instead of the GSO? Is the small difference in resolving capacity between them important or neglectable?

I noticed that the mak-newts have worse resolving capacity and more expensive. How is that? Who would want a more expensive beast with less resolving power?

I hope I'm not asking too many questions.

[ollypenrice]

Personally, of the Newts, I'd go for the GSO for the sake of the potentially better mirror. The faster (f=800) version is aimed to perform better photographically. I believe this is the scope I'll be testing. If so it has a larger secondary, lower down the tube, to give more back focus for photography. This will marginally reduce contrast visually but the scope is intended to deliver both visually and photographically. If you want to take pictures get the f4.

I would take manufacturers' resolving power numbers with a pinch of salt. The Mak Newt has a smaller aperture so does not theoretically resolve to the limit of a slightly larger scope. People will buy it because it a lot of advantages, especially for imaging. Above all it offers a large, well illuminated flat field at a fast f ratio. It doesn't need either a coma corrector or field flattener and so you have none of the hassle of setting the chip distance precisely by trial and error and you will get clean stars across a large chip. You won't have vignetting to worry about either. At the price it is a bargain. Another way to get a large flat field at around f5 is to buy a Takahashi FSQ astrographic refractor. They will set you back over four thousand pounds so the Mak Newt is a bargain! It is, for imaging, a much more sophisticated animal than a straight Newtonian but it has more optical surfaces to prepare and so costs more.

Steve Loughran has posted some fine images with one of these.

Olly

[eddie3000]

Finally, after a fair bit of negotiating, I think I may go after a Mak-newt after all.

I have read that the Skywatcher Mn190/1000 in other threads is very good but a bit heavy. I've been looking around but I can't find the exact tube weight, not even on the manufacturer's web. Does anybody know how heavy it is? My heq5 should manage 13Kg according to the manual(I think).

This is the skywatcher:

Skywatcher Maksutov-Newton telescope MN 190/1000 Explorer BD Photo OTA

There is this Orion scope I quite fancy too:

Orion Maksutov-Newton telescope MN 190/1000 Astrograph OTA

The tube on the Skywatcher is steel and brings a finder scope, and the Orion is aluminium and it clearly says it weighs just under 10Kg, but no finder scope.

Does anybody know how heavy the Skywatcher is??

THANKS!

[eddie3000]

I have finally settled for the Orion Mak-newt and and Orion finderscope, and now I am wondering what eyepieces to get. I am thinking that maybe a eyepiece set might be a possibility to get me going for a year or two (maybe four or five plossls with filters and barlow), but I am not sure that's a good idea. An example is this:

Celestron eyepiece and filter set 1.25"

I've also seen zoom eyepieces from known manufactures, that may be convenient from a practical point of view, but I don't know if they'd be as sharp as non-zoom ones. Examples:

Eyepieces < Telescope accessories - Special features Telescope accessories: Zoom eyepiece

If I get seperate eyepieces, the cost would almost certainly be two or three times more than a set.

With an approximately 200 euro budget for eyepieces, what would you guys get?

Sorry for being such a pain!

[brantuk]

If you were decided on getting a set I would go for the Revelation one which has some nice photographic components in it as well as decent e/p's.

I have the Celestron set and the higher power e/p's are disappointing - so is the barlow - the 32mm is reasonably ok.

I also have the Badder Zoom which gives very crisp views at all clickstops - though the fov does reduce slightly as you zoom in. But I love it despite the mixed reviews.

With hindsight I would've got some s/h e/p's from the for sale section instead. You'll probably get a couple of half decent e/p's with the scope - typically a 10mm and 20mm or 25mm. Pad out the range with say a 40mm, 30mm, and a 15mm (or there abouts), and/or a good barlow.

[polaris_jerry]

I recently bought an MN190 and I have it mounted on an EQ6 Pro. It's fantastic! I also have an 80mm Williams Optics mounted next to the MN190 as a guidescope and the mount seems to cope no problem with the payload (which also includes a Canon 300D).

Some of my images are here:

Stargazers Lounge - polaris_jerry's Album: Jerry's Astro-pics

Jerry

[eddie3000]

Thanks guys for you answers. I have finally MADE UP MY MIND.

I have placed the order and now all I can do is wait. I finally got the Skywatcher MN190/1000 because I found it for 999euros+P&P, and I've been told it ways just over 10Kg, so my mount should handle it alright. I don't know if it's better than the Orion or not, but it's a slight bit cheaper.Hopefully

What's taking me most effort is to decide what EPs to get. So far, I am looking at an APM UWA 4mm (59euros), a APM UWA 32mm (69euros) and a 8-24 Meade zoom (145euros). Is this a good selection to start with? Should I replace the zoom EP for two or three fixed EPs? Should I get an EP >40mm?

By the way, nice pics Polaris Jerry. Hopefully, I'll be making some of those shortly!!!