Discussion in 'Photography, Art & Design' started by lcdguy, 17 Oct 2010.
Excellent seeing tonight!... no turbulence at all.
Cripes Pook, that's great.
That moon picture is amazing
I can see my house!
Which mount did you get the EQ-3 or EQ-5. Mine's the EQ-3 and those are the leg's it came with. Congrats on the pics. It's still way to cold here .
Mine's the EQ3-2 mount.
from what i can tell it looks like skywatcher may have changed the tripod leg's the newer version looks like has the lighter weight aluminum ones while mine the older one has the heavier steel ones. I think both are more than suffcient for the scopes as they don't weight much so i would count yourself lucky as my mount weighs around 35KG without a scope.
I'm really happy with it. The mount is very sturdy. This will only be an interim scope anyway I think. I will probably upgrade next year to get some serious imaging done.
If you want to do some "Serious Imaging" then you need to look at something like an APO Chromatic Refractor scope, A motor drive with GOTO technology, and a cooled CCD camera. Probably only cost you around 7-13K
Nah.. don't need GOTO.. just need a driven mount with a ST4 guide port. GOTO is just for finding stuff. Something like a EQ6 should do the job.
Refractors huh? I don't hold with that argument, and nor do many others. It's all about resolving as much detail as possible, and gathering as much light as possible to make your subs as short as possible. The most realistic max size you'll get a amateur refractor in is probably 6" or so, and a decent APO 6" will be at least a 5 figure sum! As the whole point of a APO is reduced chromatic aberration, then why not use a scope that doesn't suffer from it... a reflector. As reflectors suffer from coma however, the best scope in my mind is a Mak-Newt (Maksutov-Newtonian). It has a true flat field (no coma) and no chromatic problems.
TBH though.... the scope is probably the least important part of a imaging set up
Refractors are often quite slow too, so don't offer a very wide field of view.
I disagree with the webcam argument too. For planetary imaging, a web cam is a must because of the smaller sensor/field of view, but deep sky objects are probably better done with a decent dSLR with the IR filter removed. A web cam for DSO work will offer way too narrow a field of view.
Refractors are beautiful pieces of equipment though! Can't afford one anyway, so it's pretty academic
What else have you done with your 150P seen anything interesting?
perhaps. how ever when i was referring to a cooled CCD i didn't mean webcam. They make specifically designed ccd's for astrophotography. The ccd module is cooled (it helps for some reason.) But i would agree that for most people reflectors a better choice. While you may not need goto you would need a tracker with a motor drive if you want to do a long exposure.
Unfortunately due to time constraints and the time of year that i bought it i only had the chance to take it out once so far. I am hoping in the spring to take it out and also go out of the city a bit to a darker place.
Don't forget to post up any shots you take
I would like to get out to a texas star party. And i have already added it to my list of things to do before im thirty. Take some pictures with a half-decent camera/telescope from Mauna Kea, Hawaii.
There are also some splendid, true dark sky sites here in the UK, but they're almost all in NW Scotland. Still.. may rent a cottage and haul some gear up there
It's the weather thats the problem that far North. Has Scotland thawed out from the Good ol' British Winter yet?
Awesome telescope dude!
That picture of the moon is incredibly beautiful. I would love to get into astro-photography, unfortunately I lack both funds and weather conditions...
You may have already mentioned this, and apologies if you have, but have you considered taking long exposure shots? Granted that would take extra work/equipment to track the area of interest properly, but the results would be awesome.
Yes... I'm looking into it now actually. The thing is, to be done properly, would require a £1500 investment. The scope is actually perfectly fine for deep sky imaging... it's the mount and tracking that costs.
And even that most of the cost is the tracking system. The actual motor drives for the eq3 series mounts are rather affordable around 100-250 bucks CDN but it's the tracking part that really sink's into the pockets.
Separate names with a comma.