What equipment for gazing and a bit of photography

[smeech]

Hi

I'm a noob (see the post count)!

I have been interested in getting a telescope for a few years now. I am mainly interested in the planets and their moons. However I would like to also do some deep space viewing including nebulae (think that's the plural). I am also looking to buy a dslr camera and so as an added enhancement would like to be able to photograph what I can see in the sky.

I have looked and numerous telescopes and buying guides and come to the conclusion that I should be looking at a Maksutov Cassegrains.

The camera I am thinking about getting is a Canon 550d although that is totally irrelevant!

Would really appreciate some help even if it narrows the choice slightly. I'm looking to spend less than £400 - new to this so tell me if I need to spend significantly more.

Thanks

[blinky]

Hello and welcome to SGL:)

So, you are looking to get started eh? I would say that Mak's are very good planetary scopes but not so good at deep sky (although they will work!) Also, bear in mind that the mount that you get is also just about as important as the scope - no use having a great scope if every time you breath near it the scope wobbles all over the place!

Anyway... A good first scope/mount would be one of the skywatcher newtonian reflectors, 8" is a very good size and something with an EQ5 or HEQ5 would be ideal. I would also say that astrophotgraphy is not as easy as it looks! If this is your first scope I would say there is plenty of time to get into photography (and the canon camera you mention would be ideal) but really, get a scope, learn the hobby, then move to astrophotography. That side of things very quickly gets expensive! If you want to image the planets then a cheap webcam does an excellent job - better than a DSLR actually but as I say, get the scope and mount and some eyepieces and learn the sky first.

[JamesM]

The requirements for observing can be met easily and cheaply. Different scopes are designed to perform in different ways which align themselves to observing different objects in the sky. That's not to say that they are exclusive to one type of object but the laws of physics dictate, that to optimise your viewing experience you may wish to specialise in one type over another. You then mention the desire to do a little astrophotography, which adds a further layer of consideration and therefore cost. Is it possible to stick a camera in the eyepiece and take a picture - well yes, it just depends on what quality of picture you are interested in. This is when the extra costs start to appear. If you want to illustrate to someone else the objects you were looking at, its cheaper and simpler to buy a book. If you want to share the whole visual experience of what you saw the previous evening, then you'll need to process that picture by using many other elements that were captured at the same time.

Its not for me to put you off imaging - there's a lot of fun to be had, but I would advise you to get some advice over on the imaging section as to what is the minimum that you will need to achieve the kind of pictures that you want before buying any gear.

Clear skies

James

[smeech]

Ah I see. Well how about just the viewing for now on a telescope that I could later use for photography?

[smeech]

Ok. Let's say I'll hold off on the photography. Is there a scope that will fit my needs and allow me to upgrade for photographs later?

[JamesM]

So far, the advice has been with regard to scopes, which will be either a refractor (lens) best for double stars, planets and moon - objects that are very bright or a reflector (mirror) best for nebulae, galaxies - objects that are generally faint. For the budget you have quoted, you will get better observing performance/value by purchasing a reflector. Observing through any scope will improve with aperture - be it at a price. Mirrors are generally cheaper to make than lenses.

Now if you want to future proof your initial investment with an eye toward astrophotography at a later date, then I would direct your attention towards the mount itself, which both carries and directs your scope across the night sky. They divide into two types. The first is the Altazimuth design such as the dobsonian mount (a revolving box which supports the bottom of a reflector). It is the cheapest option though not suitable for photography as they rely on you to push the scope to track the stars, or a different version, the fork/single arm mount which will have motors for tracking objects but this movement is performed by generating tiny little steps (like a staircase) which will show up on your images. The alternative choice is the German Equatorial mount (GEM) which swivels on a tilted axis so that it can track chosen objects by speed alone. If you want to video planets (quick exposure times) then all but the dob will be fine. However, if you intend on performing longer exposures say for deep sky objects (galaxies, nebulae) then it will have to be a GEM with motors. Having said that, the Fork/single arm Altazimuths mounts can also be tilted like the GEM's by using a wedge (tilted platform) which will help reduce tracking to just the horizontal plane (no steps). This will be an additional cost to factor in if your chosen mount supports this facility.

I don't know what your budget will go to but I would suggest that you take a look on First Light Optics, just to see what these mounts look like, how much they can carry and how much they will cost so as to help you put together a package that will include either a reflecting or refracting scope. In addition I would recommend that you consider the second hand market because that will yield you the best deal on kit.

Anyhow take a look and then come back with some ideas.

Clear skies

James

[darkly]

Skywatcher 200P, I love mine to bits, can view planets and DSO's

Have a look at the DIY astronomy section - lifecam mod, it's easy to do and uses the 25mm eyepice that comes with the scope, you can then have a go at astrophonography for just £40

[smeech]

Ok thanks all.

I'm a little confused now. I had read on a telescope resource page that Maksutov would be my best solution, hence suggesting it above. Are you saying that for the budget I have these would be no good? Or that the refractor / reflector are simply better?

Space is a little bit of an issue and also night sky - I live in North London!

I did have a look at second hand bits yesterday but just don't yet have a clue what I am looking for.

Help is much appreciated.

[blinky]

Mak's are very good for observing the planets - they are compact and have high magnification. Newtonian reflectors are good all round instruments but will be bigger than a Mak. If your light pollution is very bad, then you may wish to 'specialise' in planetry/lunar observing, in which case a Mak would be ideal.

[smeech]

Thanks blinky. Will do a little more research. Will a 400 pound mak be as good quality as the same price reflector?

[dmahon]

What is best for viewing planets is not bet for viewing DSOs. What is best for viewing is not best for photography. Decide which is most important to you and buy the appropriate scope.

I knew all along that I wanted to photograph DSOs, so I got a small, fast refractor on a sturdy equatorial mount.

PS: You will be able to photograph far more than you can actually see. Don't expect to see stunning colour images of nebulae like those published in magazines (or on this web site) even if you buy large reflector - they're more like grey smudges. Google for sketches of various objects (eg M31) and then google for photographs of the same.