3 ms·

I just tried this software out a bit and it looks great. In relation, does anyone have good telescope/camera recommendations? I've been looking for something r

by tyfon 8y ago

I just tried this software out a bit and it looks great. In relation, does anyone have good telescope/camera recommendations? I've been looking for something relatively cheap, that is less than €5000, that can take good photos and be used with the naked eye? I am looking at celestrons and sky-watchers but I'm a complete noob here when it comes to judging optic qualities.

jobigoud 8y ago
I'm not an expert myself, never graduated past my small refractor telescope but I think an important question is to know if you are more interested in the Solar System or the Deep Sky.
- Fwirt 8y ago
  True. Mostly has to do with focal ratio. Big f-ratio scopes are better for planetary observations, where small f-ratio scopes are better for wide-angle views. Generally, Cassegrains fall into the first camp and Newtonians into the second. Refractors are somewhere in the middle. Regardless, more aperture is always better. :)
sol8 8y ago
Dobsonian telescopes are great for general observation. You get a lot of aperture for your money. But they are bad for astrophotography. Schmidt Cassegrain and Newtonian style scopes offer a good middle of the road for functionality. Having said that if you want to get serious about photography then its a money pit. You need a quality mount and a good CCD. Some of the best photo setups I've seen use use refractors with a quality CCD. Search for Atik 414EX. The example photos on their sight tell you what hardware was used. Might give you some idea.
Fwirt 8y ago
Astrophotography and visual astronomy don't necessarily go together. A used DSLR with a short focal length lens can take nice wide angle short exposures with just a tripod. That'll run you about $150. You can build a barn door tracker from hardware store parts that'll allow you to lengthen your exposures. You can get a nice telescope for visual use brand new for under $500. Lots of places sell Dobsonians that are pretty much ready to go out of the box. If you want to go for a more traditional mount + OTA (optical tube assembly), that gets more expensive. Used equipment is nice because amateurs tend to take care of their optics and after the initial depreciation, optics tend to hold their value. Check the Cloudy Nights classifieds section. (Actually, just check Cloudy Nights in general, lots of friendly, knowledgeable people there.) I put together my visual setup (127mm SkyWatcher Mak-Cass, heavy duty photo tripod, and a Stellarvue M-2 mount) for around $700 excluding the cost of eyepieces. The sky is the limit on eyepieces, but most EPs between $40 and $100 work just fine. I shopped used and watched for sales. What many people don't realize (including myself when I was starting out) is that you want to invest as much, or more than the cost of the OTA into your mounting solution if you want to get any enjoyment out of the hobby. Even if you're just doing visual work. Skimp on your foundation, and the whole setup will wobble all over the place, making it hard to see anything, and that's not fun or relaxing. It's putting visual and photography together that gets expensive. When you want to take long exposures at high magnification, you want a really solid equatorial mount with high-resolution encoders. Those start at $1000 on the low end. You'll probably want a better CCD to image with (a few hundred bucks). Then you can get into tracking scopes (even the expensive mounts accumulate error after a while). It's not really the main scope that's expensive, it's all the stuff you need to support it. Anyway, actually looking at your question, as long as you stay away from the low end stuff, Celestron and SkyWatcher both make fine OTAs. My recommendation is do not get an all-in-one package, especially under $400 unless it's a Dobsonian. The mount will be garbage. You can take short exposures with a DSLR + just about any OTA and EQ mount that will support the weight. (You won't probably won't get a flat field though). I'm pretty sure people also image with Celestron C8s or C10s which are relatively inexpensive. A lot of this is armchair observations, as I've managed to convince myself to stay solely on the visual side of amateur astronomy because it's easier and cheaper. There are enough amateurs with $20k rigs that you can enjoy their nice images of all the popular DSOs without putting in the blood, sweat, and tears.
watersb 8y ago
You can get ok photos just holding your cell phone up to the eyepiece. Which sounds stupid, but phone cameras tend to do well with short focal-length, and the large "viewfinder" of your phone's screen helps a lot. Although the last time we tested this in detail was 2009. The Image-Sensor Processor (ISP) in current cell-phones changes the game. Sounds like a waste of time, but my favorite onserving sessions are "sidewalk astronomy" -- sharing simple direct observation with people who have never used a telescope. I encourage direct, hands-on experimentation with a minimum of equipment. Beyond that, of course you pretty much need super-cooled CCD and the best telescope mount you can afford. Often the mount is the key, more $$$ than the telescope itself. Deep-sky observation, faint nebulae are smudges of light to visible eye even through a big scope. You want a big light-bucket, like a Dobsonian, which emphasize mirror size rather than expensive mounts or optical clarity. For your first telescope, buy a good set of auto-stabilizing binoculars. Large field of view means you can get used to finding things on the sky. You can take them anywhere. Big scope is like desktop computer. Binoculars like the cell-phone in your pocket.
KnightOfWords 8y ago
I'd recommend talking to people on an astronomy forum, such as https://stargazerslounge.com/ https://stargazerslounge.com/ or https://www.cloudynights.com/ https://www.cloudynights.com/, lots of knowledgeable and helpful people on there. To give you some idea of what is possible, here's a few images I took the other night with less than $1000 of equipment. https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/332758-a-quick-tour-of-orion-and-monoceros-in-ha/ https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/332758-a-quick-tour-of-or...

by tyfon 8y ago

jobigoud 8y ago

I'm not an expert myself, never graduated past my small refractor telescope but I think an important question is to know if you are more interested in the Solar System or the Deep Sky.

Fwirt 8y ago
True. Mostly has to do with focal ratio. Big f-ratio scopes are better for planetary observations, where small f-ratio scopes are better for wide-angle views. Generally, Cassegrains fall into the first camp and Newtonians into the second. Refractors are somewhere in the middle. Regardless, more aperture is always better. :)

sol8 8y ago

Dobsonian telescopes are great for general observation. You get a lot of aperture for your money. But they are bad for astrophotography. Schmidt Cassegrain and Newtonian style scopes offer a good middle of the road for functionality. Having said that if you want to get serious about photography then its a money pit. You need a quality mount and a good CCD. Some of the best photo setups I've seen use use refractors with a quality CCD. Search for Atik 414EX. The example photos on their sight tell you what hardware was used. Might give you some idea.

Fwirt 8y ago

Astrophotography and visual astronomy don't necessarily go together. A used DSLR with a short focal length lens can take nice wide angle short exposures with just a tripod. That'll run you about $150. You can build a barn door tracker from hardware store parts that'll allow you to lengthen your exposures. You can get a nice telescope for visual use brand new for under $500. Lots of places sell Dobsonians that are pretty much ready to go out of the box. If you want to go for a more traditional mount + OTA (optical tube assembly), that gets more expensive. Used equipment is nice because amateurs tend to take care of their optics and after the initial depreciation, optics tend to hold their value. Check the Cloudy Nights classifieds section. (Actually, just check Cloudy Nights in general, lots of friendly, knowledgeable people there.) I put together my visual setup (127mm SkyWatcher Mak-Cass, heavy duty photo tripod, and a Stellarvue M-2 mount) for around $700 excluding the cost of eyepieces. The sky is the limit on eyepieces, but most EPs between $40 and $100 work just fine. I shopped used and watched for sales. What many people don't realize (including myself when I was starting out) is that you want to invest as much, or more than the cost of the OTA into your mounting solution if you want to get any enjoyment out of the hobby. Even if you're just doing visual work. Skimp on your foundation, and the whole setup will wobble all over the place, making it hard to see anything, and that's not fun or relaxing. It's putting visual and photography together that gets expensive. When you want to take long exposures at high magnification, you want a really solid equatorial mount with high-resolution encoders. Those start at $1000 on the low end. You'll probably want a better CCD to image with (a few hundred bucks). Then you can get into tracking scopes (even the expensive mounts accumulate error after a while). It's not really the main scope that's expensive, it's all the stuff you need to support it. Anyway, actually looking at your question, as long as you stay away from the low end stuff, Celestron and SkyWatcher both make fine OTAs. My recommendation is do not get an all-in-one package, especially under $400 unless it's a Dobsonian. The mount will be garbage. You can take short exposures with a DSLR + just about any OTA and EQ mount that will support the weight. (You won't probably won't get a flat field though). I'm pretty sure people also image with Celestron C8s or C10s which are relatively inexpensive. A lot of this is armchair observations, as I've managed to convince myself to stay solely on the visual side of amateur astronomy because it's easier and cheaper. There are enough amateurs with $20k rigs that you can enjoy their nice images of all the popular DSOs without putting in the blood, sweat, and tears.

watersb 8y ago

You can get ok photos just holding your cell phone up to the eyepiece. Which sounds stupid, but phone cameras tend to do well with short focal-length, and the large "viewfinder" of your phone's screen helps a lot. Although the last time we tested this in detail was 2009. The Image-Sensor Processor (ISP) in current cell-phones changes the game. Sounds like a waste of time, but my favorite onserving sessions are "sidewalk astronomy" -- sharing simple direct observation with people who have never used a telescope. I encourage direct, hands-on experimentation with a minimum of equipment. Beyond that, of course you pretty much need super-cooled CCD and the best telescope mount you can afford. Often the mount is the key, more $$$ than the telescope itself. Deep-sky observation, faint nebulae are smudges of light to visible eye even through a big scope. You want a big light-bucket, like a Dobsonian, which emphasize mirror size rather than expensive mounts or optical clarity. For your first telescope, buy a good set of auto-stabilizing binoculars. Large field of view means you can get used to finding things on the sky. You can take them anywhere. Big scope is like desktop computer. Binoculars like the cell-phone in your pocket.

KnightOfWords 8y ago

I'd recommend talking to people on an astronomy forum, such as https://stargazerslounge.com/ https://stargazerslounge.com/ or https://www.cloudynights.com/ https://www.cloudynights.com/, lots of knowledgeable and helpful people on there. To give you some idea of what is possible, here's a few images I took the other night with less than $1000 of equipment. https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/332758-a-quick-tour-of-orion-and-monoceros-in-ha/ https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/332758-a-quick-tour-of-or...