Optics, mount, camera; priority order?

[ollypenrice]

Just an idle thought provoked by a thread on the beginners help section...

When asked to prioritize kit I tend to say mount-camera-optics. Of course, you have to include only 'reasonable' levels of kit, here, since if any one is pure junk then the discussion is meaningless.

My thinking; many imagers on this forum can beat, by a mile, the best plate photographs ever taken by three hundred tonne telescopes. This only applies when they have the focal length to compete so tiny planetaries and galaxies are out. They can do so because of the new CCD cameras available.

To upgrade from an ED80 to a Tak Baby Q would cost you about 2,500 pounds. To upgrade from a Canon 1000D to an Atik 4000 and filter set would cost you about the same.

Given that choice I would, without hesitation, take the ED80 and the Atik 4000. I'd say the same if the upgrade were the one I actually did, from Meade 127 to TEC140.

I wonder how others view this situation?

Olly

[Psychobilly]

I would definitely put the mount first...

As a decent mount will allow you by the use of longer exposures to go some way towards compensating for a slower scope or less sensitive camera...

For me second would come the optics... as recently I decided to invest in a couple of L series lenses for my widefield efforts instead of a CCD... with the added advantage of the lenses being useful for general photography as well... infact their purchase probably means the next major purchase will be another Canon DSLR body...

Peter...

[jgs001]

I agree, and in the context of your specific question Olly, I'd go for the camera upgrade, rather than the scope upgrade... now if only I could find a spare 2.5K...

[Psychobilly]

Olly as you said in another thread you get 300+ useable night a year... I guess I am lucky if i get the balance from the year 65-....

For a newbie... A decent mount will stay with you for a long time... scopes and cameras will come an go...

[jgs001]

And yes, the mount has to be the solid base upon which to build... without a solid base, it doesn't matter how good the stuff on top is, you will never be able to make use of it's full potential.

[ollypenrice]

Yes, I doubt that anyone is going to disagree with mount first.

If you put a tighter limit on the upgrade, eg 1000 pounds, then it all gets harder because CCD chips start getting small, which has to be balanced against the nice spacious chip of a DSLR.

But how would modding/cooling a DSLR compare in benefit with upgrading the optics? Again I'd say do the mods - I think, but I don't use DSLRs at night.

Olly

[Psychobilly]

With the newer cameras the filter removal if you DIY is a zero cost mod but if your using fracs may require the addition of UV/IR cut... and certainly makes the cameras better for emission nebulae...

Ian gets amazing results with his cooled DSLR... I havent felt the need to do it yet .. I have the bits there but havent got round to doing it and if i do it will probably be the filter removed 350D that gets done as its by far the noisiest of the Canon DSLR's that I use...

Peter...

[ashworthacca]

I was just going to post a question that is similar to this discussion. I've been considering buying a Atik 314L but was wondering if I would be better buying a faster scope than my ED80 with reducer (f6.8). I was seriously considering looking at the Ikharus 102mm F7 with reducer to take it down to F5.6.

I'm still not 100% sure which to go for but assume the Atik 314L would be the better upgrade?

[jgs001]

Now that all depends... on what you want to achieve by the upgrade.

If I've got this right, the Ikharus, being a bit faster, will mean you can spend shorter time on each exposure... but. there really isn't anything in it focal length wise, so the FOV with the same camera is going to be about the same... The Atik, with the smaller sensor will give you a narrower FOV on the same scope as the 1000d...

there's a lot more complication and other aspects involved, which I really don't fully understand... but...

[ashworthacca]

What I really want to achieve is more sensitivity to fainter dso's with better noise control.

I was thinking the Ikharus at f5.6 would give me more light grasp at same exposure lengths than my ED80 but the Atik would be less noisey due to the cooling.

[jgs001]

both would be good ....

I'll stop, I've no experience of the CCD's so can't really comment anyway... although I'd like the 314L+ too

[ashworthacca]

both would be good ....

I'll stop, I've no experience of the CCD's so can't really comment anyway... although I'd like the 314L+ too

Both would definitely be good.

[mcrossley]

But what about the second hand market, you can pick up a QHY8 for well under a grand, which gives you the dSLR APS sized sensor, together with proper CCD cooling and low noise.

[ollypenrice]

Mark, I'm not sure 'proper' the QHY8 cooling is. The camera does have issues with regard to build quality and software, according to owners. It promises a free lunch, which life tells me to doubt!

If, in upgrading, Martin were to ignore the chip size of the 314L then in my view it would be an absolute no brainer. Keep the ED80 and go for the CCD. The little Sony chip is pure gold in having high sensitivity and low noise. Build quality and software are excellent. But it is small. How you weight that in the equation is up to you and your choice of targets.

An image from the Ikharus on here looked good but I think it was at native FL.

So this is a case which, for me, confirms my original proposition that upgrading the camera beats upgrading the optics. I would go for the 314L and the ED80 which, as far as I can see, can't be beaten in its aperture class till you get to Borg or Takahashi - and that would buy you and almighty CCD camera...

Olly

[FraserClarke]

This comes down to have a good balance between all the parts and getting a sensible *system* doesn't it?

No real point dropping 10k on a Paramount if you're going to run a 200mm camera lens on it. Equally, no point putting your Tak on an EQ3...

Another way you could look at it;

Camera -- your 2.5k will probably be obsolete in 2 years

Mounts -- your 2.5k will probably be obsolete in 10 years

Optics -- your 2.5k will probably never be obsolete

I suspect the reason that no-one has said optics so far, is that you're hard pushed to buy *bad* optics these days (at least at >£200). They are basically all 100% efficient, seeing limited, and well suited to the current fashion for wide-field astrophotography...

[jgs001]

I would do the same Olly... the only reason I actually got a different scope instead of the 314 earlier in the year, was the price of the scope, especially compared to the cost of the 314... but that scope is totally different to the ED80 and fulfills one of the requirements of the focal length/sensor size I wanted to specifically address, along with an increase in resolution for the moon. If I'd had the budget available I'd have gone for the 314...

[ollypenrice]

This comes down to have a good balance between all the parts and getting a sensible *system* doesn't it?

No real point dropping 10k on a Paramount if you're going to run a 200mm camera lens on it. Equally, no point putting your Tak on an EQ3...

Another way you could look at it;

Camera -- your 2.5k will probably be obsolete in 2 years

Mounts -- your 2.5k will probably be obsolete in 10 years

Optics -- your 2.5k will probably never be obsolete

I suspect the reason that no-one has said optics so far, is that you're hard pushed to buy *bad* optics these days (at least at >£200). They are basically all 100% efficient, seeing limited, and well suited to the current fashion for wide-field astrophotography...

I agree about budget optics and, indeed, about premium ones. But I think your assessment is a bit hard on the cameras. I can't see that much has really changed in CCD cameras over the last four years, or maybe more. The Atik 16HR got a new box and set point cooling. No big deal, I'd say. You are right though, in terms of your investment.

Olly

[ashworthacca]

Thanks Olly, CCD it is then

[johnrt]

I wouldn't swap my Atik 314l for a better scope.

I'm agreeing - mount, camera then optics.

[Ad Astra]

This comes down to have a good balance between all the parts and getting a sensible *system* doesn't it?

No real point dropping 10k on a Paramount if you're going to run a 200mm camera lens on it. Equally, no point putting your Tak on an EQ3...

Another way you could look at it;

Camera -- your 2.5k will probably be obsolete in 2 years

Mounts -- your 2.5k will probably be obsolete in 10 years

Optics -- your 2.5k will probably never be obsolete

I suspect the reason that no-one has said optics so far, is that you're hard pushed to buy *bad* optics these days (at least at >£200). They are basically all 100% efficient, seeing limited, and well suited to the current fashion for wide-field astrophotography...

I would agree with that up to a point.... obsolete (there is something newer on the market) doesn't necessisarily mean that it is better for your purpose - but your point is well taken.

I did it all backwards, I had a great scope (I stumbled into a real bargain I couldn't resist), then got the camera (Canon 5D), and finally - after several years - finally upgraded the mount. I consider all three to be "lifetime" purchases, and I don't expect that any of them will really become totally disfunctional in the next 10 to 20 years. If I had to bet - I would say that the weak point is the cameras data storage format. The original 5D uses compact flash cards that are already a bit bulky compared to microSD and other things like that. But as long as I can hook the CF card to a computer, I don't think any of these will fail to do what I want of them in the forseeable future.

Of course - none of us are totally immune to the advertizers; and our friends are all to eager to say something like: "Yeah, that's nice and all, but I hear that they have something NEW coming out next year!" The ones who chant this the loudest are the ones who only wish they could upgrade their own equipment!

Dan

[FraserClarke]

obsolete (there is something newer on the market) doesn't necessisarily mean that it is better for your purpose

No, you and Olly are quite right -- 'obsolete' is probably the wrong term. I still have uses for an ST7 camera which is at least 12 years old -- but equally we have a 8300 chipped camera we spent $6000 on three years ago; now I could get one for $2000... (caveats about electronics quality apart).

[JCJC]

I agree, mount-camera-optics. Although with camera-optics it really does depend on the specific camera, scope and needs involved

However when I see DSLR images like these deepsky it certainly makes me have second thoughts... a super fast astrograph definitely works!

Jordan

[NickK]

You know what - back to basics for me.. all about the fine detail.

Assuming ideal zero aberrations. I see it simply as:

1. Arc resolution - the major player is weather, mount then scope resolution to bring out finer detail. Lastly the camera resolution to observe the detail.

2. Wide dynamic range - ensuring the image depth is so large that you can see small nuances in the signal and that noise is dwarfed by them. Low noise camera helps.

Personally the priority for me is:

1. Mount - without this you will not see the subject long enough to see the detail

2. Optics - without this you will never have the opportunity to see the detail

3. Camera - without this you will never observe the detail.

It's entirely possible to have fine detail on both short focal length widefield and long focal length - it's down to how well you can resolve arc resolution..

[NickK]

What I forgot to say is - you will never know if you have the detail without the camera; but without scope you'll be ignorant to it.

Are budget optics able to provide *quality* detail resolution? I have thought it is harder to keep a field flat and optically corrected at a higher arc resolution. This is where your money goes for optics.

It's a bit like taking a picture on the computer and zooming in. A budget scope will start pixelating or blurring those pixels earlier than a Takahashi for example.

Another way to look at it - an ED80 is probably made to a budget where it's design performance is influenced by the knowledge that the buyer will use a certain price range components that will not expose the lower performance compared to a better scope (usually more expensive).

A lot of scope reviews are surjective and do not have hard empirical data to back up any claims.. closest I've seen is that german site that performs scope testing. After all - for the astrography you want the data captured as clearly as possible without any aberrations that accidentally help contrast when visually observing.

[ollypenrice]

I agree, mount-camera-optics. Although with camera-optics it really does depend on the specific camera, scope and needs involved

However when I see DSLR images like these deepsky it certainly makes me have second thoughts... a super fast astrograph definitely works!

Jordan

The best DSLR images I've ever seen, but the exception is not the way to build up the general rule! Clearly this guy knows something most of us don't know...

There seems no doubt that with an uncooled camera (though maybe his is cooled?) having a super fast f ratio is not just the luxury that it is on a cooled CCD: it enables the signal to rise far higher above the noise in the limited exposure time that is possible before the noise rises with temperature. Last year I had a guest using a cooled DSLR with a Tak Epsilon and his results were very impressive, too.

So... maybe with a DSLR I would put optics second!

Nick, I adore my Tak FSQ but I have seen some awful good pictures from ED80s taken here. Time for a careful back-to-back, eh?

Olly