Skywatcher 200P / EQ5 for astrophotography?

[Brainstorm]

I'm really interested in astrophotography and I'm considering a Skywatcher 200p on a EQ5 mount with motor drive. Is this the best scope in this price bracket for the job, or are there better suited scopes out there for the money?

I have around £500 to spend.

[Jannis]

I'd rather recommend the 200 PDS, it's better for this use. More correctly, it's a specially designed versjon of the 200P for astrophotograph.

It's also said to be easier to achive focuse with almost any DSLR connected to it, unlike the 200P, and also have a dual speed focuser, wich helps to get exact focuse faster while using a focusing mask.

price isn't much different.

Other then that, yes, the 200P and PDS are both very good for astrophotograph, but after using it for a while, i have to say 2 things i regret a lot:

1. not buying the collimation lazer, i still don't have one, and can clearly see that i need it.

2. not buying a coma corrector as only starts/object in teh very center of the pics are in focuse.

So add that into you're calculation also, don't do the same mistale as me thinking "oh, it can't be That important...?".

[lukebl]

I'll say it before anyone else does. If you're considering imaging, get a good solid mount as a prority. Say, an HEQ5 or NEQ6. I don't think that the EQ5 plus the OTA + Guidescope (which you'll need) + Camera, will be up to it.

The Skywatcher 200P is a really great scope, though! Might be worth shopping around for a second-hand one, so that you have more funds for the mount. If you're serious about imaging, though, be prepared to spend much cash and many frustrating hours.

[Brainstorm]

Thanks for your replies, these are all things to consider..

be prepared to spend much cash and many frustrating hours.

If I've bought the stuff I need (scope, coma corrector and collimator), where would I be spending 'much cash', and why do you consider this 'frustrating'? I would have thought it would have been a rather relaxing and rewarding pastime.

[lukebl]

....I would have thought it would have been a rather relaxing and rewarding pastime.

Just wait and see!

It is a very rewarding pastime, but not always relaxing.

When I say 'many frustrating hours', I mean that imaging takes a lot of hard work and practice to get it right. So many things can, and do, go wrong. That's what makes it fun and never boring.

As for the cash. Well, like any pastime, particularly one requiring fairly sophisticated technology, you never have quite enough. You always need that gizmo which will make it just a bit better. And 'proper' imaging CCDs costing thousands.

[ollypenrice]

Thanks for your replies, these are all things to consider..

If I've bought the stuff I need (scope, coma corrector and collimator), where would I be spending 'much cash', and why do you consider this 'frustrating'? I would have thought it would have been a rather relaxing and rewarding pastime.

It is very rewarding but the reward comes for putting up with all the frustration!!!

You are trying to do the near impossible: make a mount follow a moving object with an average error of less than a tenth of a pixel. You are trying to photograph something so faint that even in a telescope you can't see it. You depend on computers and USB leads and these never hesitate to stop working spontaneously. You need clear skies. You do all this when you are tired and prone to making mistakes...

But when you get a good one it is bliss!

Olly

[Brainstorm]

I'll say it before anyone else does. If you're considering imaging, get a good solid mount as a prority. Say, an HEQ5 or NEQ6. I don't think that the EQ5 plus the OTA + Guidescope (which you'll need) + Camera, will be up to it.

Another question; what is an OTA + Guidescope? I've seen OTA mentioned around the forums quite a few times, but still trying to work out what it is.

Also, are the other mounts you mention any heavier or more expensive? I'm thinking portability here, as well as sticking within my price bracket, which is a stretch on my budget as it is.

[lukebl]

OTA = Optical Tube Assembly, i.e. the telescope tube. The guidescope is a smaller telescope (The Skywatcher ST80 is a popular one) fixed to the main scope, and is used with a webcam or other CCD to make minor guiding adjustments during the exposure to ensure that the subject remains central. The mount won't always track precisely due to a number of factors, and the guidescope corrects this. They all add weight to the setup. The EQ5 is probably fine for plain visual observing, but can't cope with the extra weight of imaging equipment.

The other mounts are more expensive. But it's better to bite the bullet now, rather than realise later than you needed something bigger. Just a thought! Having said all that, you should be able to get some good results on the planets and moon using a webcam, and you can fix a DSLR to it to get some good results without using a guidescope. It's just that when I bought my kit I got it with an HEQ5, and when I subsequently got into imaging I realised how lucky I was to have the HEQ5 rather than anything smaller.

[Jannis]

OTA = Optical Tube Assembly. Or in short, the telescope itself.

Edit, i see someone already answerd. Forgot to update before posting quick reply...

[FairviewSteve]

I've bought an EQ5 to go with my OOUK 200mm newt which I would like to use for imaging, but probably more low tech to start with, probably using a webcam.

[Brainstorm]

Is the guidescope different to Goto? If so, would I need a Goto setup for it to work, or would a standard tracker work?

[malc-c]

Is the guidescope different to Goto? If so, would I need a Goto setup for it to work, or would a standard tracker work?

The goto is not a requirement for astro-photography - this system simply allows the user to select an object and the computer slews the telescope to it's position (obviously you have to go through an alignment process first so it knows where things are). The minimum for basic astro-photography is a driven RA axis to counteract the rotation of the earth, however I would suggest the dual axis drive at around £90 would be a better investment should you start using a guide scope for long exposure work.

I'm not best to comment, but there are two ends of the scale. You can use a basic webcam for luna and planetary work, or if you have a digital camera, dslr or even compact, can get some reasonable images that you would be pleased with. At the other end of the scale are those who use a main scope with a guide scope attached, an expensive CCD or modified dslr camera to capture the images and a smaller CCD camera on the guidescope with the whole lot computer controlled. Obviously the latter requires a substantial mount to keep the whole set up rock solid.

Hope this has helped...

[Brainstorm]

As I said in my first post, I only have £500 to play with. I just checked the price of the mounts I'd need for astrophotography, and the cost is astronomical in comparison (excuse the pun). But this is somewhat putting me off making this investment, and just sticking to the gear I have now (in my signature), and forgetting the whole astrophotography thing altogether (no point if I'm not going to get a decent image out of it).

A bit disappointed, but at least I didn't waste £500 on a load of useless gear.

[malc-c]

define decent image.

spend a few hours browsing through this forum and you'll find images taken with very basic equipment that far exceed those taken on "professional" equipment a few year ago. Heck, there's images of the moon taken with nothing more than a £40 digital instamatic camera held to the eyepiece that are of excellent quality and detail. Don't have a camera, then use a £20 webcam - works just as well on the Moon or planets.

[Brainstorm]

One minute people are saying the equipment I'm looking to buy won't be up to any decent standard, and I need to spend thousands, next you're saying I can do it on a £20 webcam. Now I'm confused.

I take it my signature is not showing up.. this is my current kit:

Canon 7D

Canon 450D

SW 130M + Clock Drive

Celestron bins (15x70)

[roebuck]

I have an eq5 .. Thought it would be fine then bought a 200pds mounted with The sw 80 DS and camera, Soon found out I need a heavier mount as wobbles to much for sharp images... should have listened to my gut feeling and spent the extra money on the mount.

But all that aside you will get some satisfying results and plenty of dissapointing ones which only make you try harder to achieve the result you want.

Happy imaging.

[malc-c]

One minute people are saying the equipment I'm looking to buy won't be up to any decent standard, and I need to spend thousands, next you're saying I can do it on a £20 webcam. Now I'm confused.

I take it my signature is not showing up.. this is my current kit:

Canon 7D

Canon 450D

SW 130M + Clock Drive

Celestron bins (15x70)

Like I said in my original post

.... there are two ends of the scale. You can use a basic webcam for luna and planetary work, or if you have a digital camera, dslr or even compact, can get some reasonable images that you would be pleased with. At the other end of the scale are those who use a main scope with a guide scope attached, an expensive CCD or modified dslr camera to capture the images and a smaller CCD camera on the guidescope with the whole lot computer controlled. Obviously the latter requires a substantial mount to keep the whole set up rock solid.

It all depends on exactly what level of astro-photography you intend to do, and under what conditions, and I guess how much money you have. The drawback is that the HEQ5 and EQ6 mounts, whilst very solid are expensive, and if you are aiming at the serious end of the hobby then expect to pay serious money...

[lukebl]

It crosses my mind that, as you already have a telescope, why not just keep it and mount it on a second-hand HEQ5? What matters with deep-sky imaging is focal ratio and not necessarily aperture. I believe that your current scope is at f/5, which is fine for deep-sky imaging and you should be able to get some good results with it if it's on a sturdy mount.

EDIT. Sorry, I think yours is a f/6.9 scope. But it should still be capable of some imaging with your Canon.

[zcapp96]

It crosses my mind that, as you already have a telescope, why not just keep it and mount it on a second-hand HEQ5? What matters with deep-sky imaging is focal ratio and not necessarily aperture. I believe that your current scope is at f/5, which is fine for deep-sky imaging and you should be able to get some good results with it if it's on a sturdy mount.

EDIT. Sorry, I think yours is a f/6.9 scope. But it should still be capable of some imaging with your Canon.

I would agree. And remember that a HEQ5 will hold it's value. I bought a second hand HEQ5 Pro about 3 years ago for around £450, sold it last year (for financial reasons) for around £500 and amd in the process of buying another for around £500 again.

My biggest regret last year was selling the Heq5 and keeping a C100ED, the mount should be the core of any setup and, as I now believe, by far the most important piece of equpment you will own.

[gary1968]

My 2p worth, why dont you use your £500 and pick up a 2nd hand HEQ5 Pro and then use your 130p on it.

The 130p is a crcking scope and with your 7d you will be able to produce great images......

gary

*edit - just noticed this has alredy been discussed, that'll teach me to come up with an idea then jump to the end of the thread to post it, lol.

[brantuk]

I got a CG-5 s/h (equiv to EQ5) for just over £100 and fitted new motors to it for £93. Then a WO Megrez72 (superb little scope) s/h for £300 (inc a few extras) and a polar scope (£25 s/h). Little more than £500 for a good starter imaging rig.

I guess the point I'm making is that it can be done for your budget, but you need to match the scope (which is solid but small) to the mount (which is big and beefy compared to the scope). There are other combos this is just an example

[Brainstorm]

If it's the weight that makes the difference to the stability, then I may as well get an EQ5 and stick a sandbag on the tray.

[gary1968]

If it's the weight that makes the difference to the stability, then I may as well get an EQ5 and stick a sandbag on the tray.

Its not just the weight, and you could hand a sand bag of a eq5 and improve it. But, the HEQ5 and EQ6 are much better made, they have superior more acurately made gearing, the EQ5 uses cheaper servo motors, the HEQ5 and EQ6 use stepper motors, they are simply better mounts in all respects.

You get what you pay for as far as mounts go I'm affraid. I tried the EQ5 route, well CG5GT, and ended up with a HEQ5 because the CG5GT just would not do what I wanted it to. It ended up costing me more as a result.

Gary

[malc-c]

Gary,

I'll think you'll find that the Celestron CG5 mount uses DC servo motors, where as the EQ5, HEQ5 and EQ6 all use high precision stepper motors. The main difference between the EQ5 and the HEQ5 EQ6 is that on he HEQ5 and EQ6 they are fitted internally and the mounts are engineered to take the additional weight of a large scope or a scope with additional equipment added.

The quoted payload of the Celestron is 35 pounds, the EQ5 is 9K (approx 20 pounds) However its not the weight that they can carry, its how solidly they support it that matters. I think that most scopes would vibrate if you ping the tube (newtonians) due to the length of unsupported tube... bring that tube length in by fitting a SCT or Mak and the stability will improve.

Personally, I like my 200P on a EQ5. I've just managed to grab my 1st ever image of Saturn using a basic web cam. I have got some good results taking pictures of the moon with my Olympus dSLR ... I'm currently modding a SPC880 for long exposure and amp off so that I can try and get some of the brighter DSO when I get to a decent dark site... it suits me... for now at least. If I lived in the middle of nowhere and had really good skies, then maybe I would of gone for the HEQ5 so that I had the option of doing more serious astro-photography... or I might upgrade the mount at a later date if I got that serious about the hobby.

[gary1968]

Gary,

I'll think you'll find that the Celestron CG5 mount uses DC servo motors, where as the EQ5, HEQ5 and EQ6 all use high precision stepper motors.

I stand corrected.......