Advice for beginner

[Tom33]

I put this in imaging but think it,s better here

Hello to everyone,

this is my first posting and to say I am a beginner is an understatement!

I have always had a basic interest in astronomy and photography and would like to combine the two.

I am finding my way round the sky with binoculars and have photographed the moon with my Canon 40D and 100-400 lens, but want to move on from that. I am willing to invest in a telescope and mount but need some advice.

The two questions are :-

1. Is decent imaging possible from my light polluted yorkshire garden?

2. I would like to obtain equipment which is portable enough to use both at home and take to my static caravan on the North Norfolk coast, boy is that sky dark!

[richbyers]

hi,

a dark site is needed to justify expensive astrophotography equipment,

do you know the night sky? perhaps get a scope that you can later upgrade, learn what is where, make sure you enjoy it, then you can spend £500-1000 getting your astrophotography equipment

personally ive never bothered with it as the cost is way too high

rich

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I use my Celestron C8, which is a very compact 8" aperture design both from my back garden in the city of Groningen in the Netherlands (so quite a bit of light polution), and outside the city whenever I really want to go "deep sky". It slings into the back of a car easily. I even took it with me on holidays in the back of our little Peugeot 106 to see the eclipse in 1999 from France. The car was full of camping gear, but the scope fitted in there without problems.

Imaging planets and the moon with such a "Schmidt-Cassegrain" or the similar Maksutov-Cassegrain designs is easy, even from the city. For deep sky imaging (which is harder from the city) you would need a focal reducer (or better still a fast refractor). Deep sky imaging is WAY harder than planetary in my experience.

There are also several fairly compact Newtonian reflectors which are also very decent "jacks of all trades". These are much cheaper than the above types, for a given aperture, but also considerably bulkier.

Hope this helps.

Cheers

Michael

[brantuk]

Welcome to the forum Tom

AP demands a rock steady and highly accurate tracking mount wich, by nature of that, means it will be heavy. You should look at the HEQ6 Pro and similar, and possibly pier mounts too.

Once you have a mount sorted out then you can attach a variety of OTA's to it (optical tube assemblies) depending on your photography requirements (Newtonians, SCT's, Maksutovs, Refractors, etc).

AP from anywhere that is light polluted becomes very limiting - mostly solar system objects. Hope that helps

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Welcome to the forum Tom

AP demands a rock steady and highly accurate tracking mount wich, by nature of that, means it will be heavy. You should look at the HEQ6 Pro and similar, and possibly pier mounts too.

Once you have a mount sorted out then you can attach a variety of OTA's to it (optical tube assemblies) depending on your photography requirements (Newtonians, SCT's, Maksutovs, Refractors, etc).

AP from anywhere that is light polluted becomes very limiting - mostly solar system objects. Hope that helps

For solar-system objects, my Great-Polaris mount is sufficient, and many similar mounts are available now (EQ5 is similar). An HEQ6 is better of course, but you can start out with considerably lighter mounts, if you want to take images of planets.

Deeps sky requires deep pockets

[The Warthog]

There is a lot of wonder to be had in viewing the sky visually, without encumbring yourself with thousands of pounds worth of equipment. If you want to look at photograps of things you can never see visually, you can Google them to your heart's content, buy a book or calendar of brilliant photographs, or come here and go through the excellent POWs.

As a lifelong photographer, I believe that the camera gets between you and the thing itself, and you lose appreciation for the photographed object while you are fussing about exposure times and aperture. And now, S2N ratios as well! You can visually observe all the visible galaxies in Virgo in less time than it would take to make one good image, and there is a directness to that observation that is worth all the waiting for the camera to gather photons.

You can have an 8" scope on an EQ5 mount for less than £400, and a computer upgrade for a total of just over £500, and spend night after night looking at the things themselves. How much more do you need, really?

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Good point. I had so much fun looking at all sorts of DSOs with binoculars last summer holidays. Later when I got back home, I also just sat in the garden, turning the scope this way and that, and hopping from one Messier object to the other (started finally doing systematic Messier hunting last summer), and just admiring the views.

With planets I always have a good look, just to enjoy the view, and to tease out the details visually. Only then do I hook out the webcam and computer (if I feel like it). Planetary imaging can be done so much quicker that it does not get in the way so much.

Still, looking at the planet through the scope feels more "real" than viewing even Neil Phillips' photographs on a computer screen. On the other hand, photographs you make yourself are a very good way of sharing your experiences.