Min Cost Scope for Photographing Galaxies?

redman

What do you recommend as a good scope to take pictures of galaxies and planets?

Want to take the next step from what I have now ....with minimal € ?

Thanks in advance

Redman

Redshift

I recomend you read the thread below this one started by knm who recently got started on a tight buget. Meade ETX-80AT-TC or Celestron C6-N

How tight is your buget in any case?

redman

Thanks, I saw that but I am not looking for my first scope but to move to one that will specifically allow me to image galaxies and planets well.

Currently, I have a 10" Dob and a 130GT.

Tea drinker

Hi Redman, your 10" is plenty for what you are talking about.
I still think you were on the right track with getting a mount for the 10" tube. Obviously it would be an equatorial, as it would be even more expensive to get one of those dob conversion mounts.
Anything with a good drive and gears, and sturdy enough to carry a 10" is what you need.
EDIT: also PEC or periodic error correction is good for the really faint stuff.... but have no practical experience of it.
If you are really wanting to get a new scope, nexstar9.25 is nice for imaging, and quite portable / affordable-ish, if you sold the other stuff.

You could get a nice little webcam to get you started on imaging. Philips toucam pro is popular. Search for qcuiag, they are mad into webcam modification. But don't go too mad on this otherwise just better off buying a decent camera to start with.
Most of these (free) stacking programs allow you to stack a drifting object... so , you have a webcam don't ya? you can image now!
Ok not galaxies.:(

slade_x

redman wrote:

What do you recommend as a good scope to take pictures of galaxies and planets?

Want to take the next step from what I have now ....with minimal € ?

Thanks in advance

Redman

Are you planning on piggybacking or shooting through the scope with a CCD or existing camera?

EDIT:
Oh and if you plan to piggyback then you need not read the below post. i took the liberty to look up an adequate explanation and benefits to save me time, here
/EDIT

Anyway honestly redman, you will have to sacrifice one for the other unless you want two different rigs, or want to go with the catadioptric route

A refractor is much better at imaging planets and obviously a larger reflector for the same cost is better at imaging deep sky objects such as galaxies. A reflector is quiet adequate at imaging planets however so its not a complete sacrifice.

If you seriously want to do this and want better than average images then your budget should be at least anywhere from €2000/2500 to the price of maybe your dream car, seriously the inbetween will guarantee you absolutely stunning images, but since your asking for advice im sure you want to keep the price down. astrophotography however is not a cheap hobby

Another thing of note, if you know the right people they will pay generously for stunning professionally enlarged astrophotographs and even more if professionally framed etc. Those that do it professionally may have easily had budgets in the upper 4/ 5 figures sum.

Now as important as the optics are the Mount stability and drive accuracy are absolutely paramount for long exposures, the earth wont stop spinning long enough for you to take a photo. Currently there is no perfect system for tracking so it would also help to get a guide scope to mount or a better financial move would be a illuminated crosshair/reticle eyepiece

The last piece of advice i can offer is go for a relatively fast scope maybe (f/4 - f/8) If you do however go for something like a Schmidt Cassegrain which usually are very slow then a focal reducer would help to reduce the focal ratio if you wanted

You will also want to invest in software for processing your stacks of images etc,

Cassegrains are extremely capable of producing exceptional images as they give you the best strengths of refractors and reflectors also they are more portable than their equivalents and already come with Drives included in the price, for example

LX200 (10" to 16"):








LX90:



Images Source

redman

Teadrinker - Thanks for those comments and SladeX, what can I say other than thank you for taking the time to write all that.

I had thought of the trying to use what I had and I might just do the piggyback on my 130 for the moment. One question is it possible to use a digital SLR in this scenario instead of the traditional film route?

Otherwise you have helped set me on the right road to getting the next step.
As I presume if I was to spend enough to get a proper mount and motor for the 10" dob (€1-1.5k?) then I am not too far off €2-2.5k for the proper starter gear(new scope with motorised mount) and would be better to go that route>

Cheers!!:)

slade_x

redman wrote:

I had thought of the trying to use what I had and I might just do the piggyback on my 130 for the moment. One question is it possible to use a digital SLR in this scenario instead of the traditional film route?


Cheers!!:)

Yes there will be no difference other than the convenience of a digital camera, i think Canon EOS' and MK' range are the favourite DSLR's to use, i usually see most using them.

And since im not into astrophotography myself i cant recommend any image processing software but Im sure by the time you get into prime-focus astrophotography you will already have used enough demo's to know which one you prefer using

Grayarea

Hi Redman,

Not wishing to depress you but;

If you really want to image galaxies I assume you mean the vast majority which are quite small in size (not Andromeda).

In which case you are going to need the following;

A good quality mount (say Celestron CGE or Losmand GM-8).
A fairly long focal length photo optimised telescope, 1200mm at least.
A auto-guiding setup (modified webcam or small ccd + computer).
Medium sized astro ccd imager.
Software to control and process images.

This is going to set you back a few thousand at least.

The reason for this is galaxies are small, which means you need long focal length, and long focal length means a decent mount (much higher quality than for visual use) and auto-guiding to remove periodic error.

Galaxies are also quite dim which really rules out DSLR cameras.

The other approach is to go for an excellent mount in the €10000+ arena, and then you may not need to auto-guide.

You can buy this type of equipment second hand to reduce your initial investment.

If you buy a cheap mount you will have nothing but problems.

You can visit www.webtreatz.com to see what type of gear is required to take decent galaxy images.

Later,

Grayarea.

redman

Thanks for all the comments, as it turns out I hope to have a Celestron 11GPS in the next week, so hopefully that will bring me into astro photography at a good level!:)

Regards

Redman

Grayarea

redman wrote:

Thanks for all the comments, as it turns out I hope to have a Celestron 11GPS in the next week, so hopefully that will bring me into astro photography at a good level!:)

Regards

Redman

Unfortunately fork mounted scopes are not really suited to astrophotography. You would need an equatorial wedge to make decent length images frames possible. The imageing equipment also tends to get caught up in the form mount so it can be difficult.

I strongly recommend a german equatorial mount as a starting point.

Later,

Tea drinker

Well Redman, now that you have the scope, are ya goin to prove him wrong???????
You might need a space suit to go out in the cold at the moment tho!
Best of luck with the new scope, they are really nice.

redman

Cheers Teadrinker, must have you over some night.

Got out for the first time with it last night and in-between the clouds and bearing the cold I got my best view ever of the Orion Nebula.

I will take up the challenge and see what results I can get from my humble homemade astro-webcam and will be keeping an eye out for a 2nd hand wedge for it of course!