Telescope Recommendation
-
Others have already replied with some good suggestions. You may want to check out the Cloudy Nights forums as well. Lots of helpful folks who can give suggestions for just about anything you're looking to do.
James
Good to see you back:)
-
"If you want to take pictures of deep sky objects, be prepared to spend at least $1000." Sorry, I have to disagree on that. I've been doing deep sky imaging with a fairly cheap telescope and a modified web cam for a few years now. If you want something a bit better than web cam quality, there's also the Meade Deep Sky Imager for a few hundred dollars (I'm saving for one myself). "Mounts that can track accurately enough to let you do long exposures are very expensive." By using shorter exposures and stacking multiple images you can get round the problem of drive errors. At times I've used over a hundred frames to get a final image, and even with the web cam the quality is surprisingly good. (For long exposures you do need to either modify a web cam yourself, or buy one of the commercial versions, which are quite cheap.) As with many things, there are tricks which can make the task easier and cheaper, so it isn't necessary to spend a lot of money to do astrophotography. As a final thought, don't spend a fortune on your first telescope. I've known a lot of people who've splashed out on really expensive kit then been disappointed because they didn't get the results they expected. molesworth
There are three kinds of people in the world - those who can count and those who can't...
-
All my attempts at deep sky with a cheaper mount have not turned out well. Even with a ST-80 refractor I could not get more than about 10 seconds exposure.
The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. - John Adams
With a webcam you're taking a mess of sub second images and stacking them. The last I looked at doing this (a few years ago) it was only viable for imaging the planets and a handful of the highest surface brightness DSOs.
-- You have to explain to them [VB coders] what you mean by "typed". their first response is likely to be something like, "Of course my code is typed. Do you think i magically project it onto the screen with the power of my mind?" --- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
-
With a webcam you're taking a mess of sub second images and stacking them. The last I looked at doing this (a few years ago) it was only viable for imaging the planets and a handful of the highest surface brightness DSOs.
-- You have to explain to them [VB coders] what you mean by "typed". their first response is likely to be something like, "Of course my code is typed. Do you think i magically project it onto the screen with the power of my mind?" --- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
I would not expect to see many deep sky objects with a webcam unless it is modified. I have a ToUCam that I use for planetary imaging, and if you are lucky, you might be able to see the very core of M42 on a F/5 system. I could not even get nebulosity on the Lagoon nebula. Of course others may have had better luck at it. I would post a link to my gallery, but it contains alot of personal information.
The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. - John Adams
-
All my attempts at deep sky with a cheaper mount have not turned out well. Even with a ST-80 refractor I could not get more than about 10 seconds exposure.
The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. - John Adams
10 seconds should be enough for most of the brighter deep sky objects, unless you have really bad light pollutuon in your observing area. A couple of dozen 10s images should be enough for some of the easier Messier objects for example. Good stacking software like Registax or K3CCD will help a lot as well. It's possible your mount might need a check-over and maybe some adjustments will improve your tracking, so you can get longer exposures. There may be web sites or online groups for your telescope and/or mount that can give you advice on that sort of thing. molesworth
There are three kinds of people in the world - those who can count and those who can't...
-
I would not expect to see many deep sky objects with a webcam unless it is modified. I have a ToUCam that I use for planetary imaging, and if you are lucky, you might be able to see the very core of M42 on a F/5 system. I could not even get nebulosity on the Lagoon nebula. Of course others may have had better luck at it. I would post a link to my gallery, but it contains alot of personal information.
The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. - John Adams
Indeed, an unmodified webcam won't get you the long exposures you need for fainter objects like nebulae, clusters and galaxies. It took me a while to get it done and working, but the results are worth it. There are a few commercial versions around now, based on the original ideas from the folks at QCUIAG, and they're a good cheaper alternative to the Meade imagers. molesworth
There are three kinds of people in the world - those who can count and those who can't...
-
10 seconds should be enough for most of the brighter deep sky objects, unless you have really bad light pollutuon in your observing area. A couple of dozen 10s images should be enough for some of the easier Messier objects for example. Good stacking software like Registax or K3CCD will help a lot as well. It's possible your mount might need a check-over and maybe some adjustments will improve your tracking, so you can get longer exposures. There may be web sites or online groups for your telescope and/or mount that can give you advice on that sort of thing. molesworth
There are three kinds of people in the world - those who can count and those who can't...
I have an accurate mount that I use for imaging. The mount I was referring to was an orion EQ-3 mount. The periodic error and backlash in it are atrocious. What kind of telescope do you use for imaging?
The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. - John Adams
-
I have an accurate mount that I use for imaging. The mount I was referring to was an orion EQ-3 mount. The periodic error and backlash in it are atrocious. What kind of telescope do you use for imaging?
The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. - John Adams
I have an Orion 150 (6") f5 - that's the UK Orion Optics rather than the US one - on a GEM 1 mount. When I started imaging I found the drive was quite bad, but found a few sites and user groups with explanations on how to strip it and tighten up the whole drive chain. It's not perfect but it keeps reasonably good tracking for doing up to 20 second exposures. I'm considering modifying it to add autoguiding (e.g. Peter Katreniak's excellent method[^]) and it would be a good summer evenings project :) Have a hunt around and you can perhaps find some info on improving your mount as well. I came across this page[^] which has a section near the bottom which might be relevant, and I'm sure there are more out there. I'm always amazed how many computer folks are into astronomy - it seems to be quite a popular pursuit. We've only got about 25 people in our company, with 3 serious astronomers, and a few others with a strong interest. The only other groups which seem to have such a high percentage are medics and the clergy. I'm sure there's a reason for it, but I can't think what... :)
There are three kinds of people in the world - those who can count and those who can't...
-
I have an Orion 150 (6") f5 - that's the UK Orion Optics rather than the US one - on a GEM 1 mount. When I started imaging I found the drive was quite bad, but found a few sites and user groups with explanations on how to strip it and tighten up the whole drive chain. It's not perfect but it keeps reasonably good tracking for doing up to 20 second exposures. I'm considering modifying it to add autoguiding (e.g. Peter Katreniak's excellent method[^]) and it would be a good summer evenings project :) Have a hunt around and you can perhaps find some info on improving your mount as well. I came across this page[^] which has a section near the bottom which might be relevant, and I'm sure there are more out there. I'm always amazed how many computer folks are into astronomy - it seems to be quite a popular pursuit. We've only got about 25 people in our company, with 3 serious astronomers, and a few others with a strong interest. The only other groups which seem to have such a high percentage are medics and the clergy. I'm sure there's a reason for it, but I can't think what... :)
There are three kinds of people in the world - those who can count and those who can't...
For Astrophotography I have a 8" Classical Cassegrain on a G11 mount. That looks interesting modifying your mount to add autoguiding. I am sure that would significantly increase the time you could do exposures. And I know what you mean about astronomers and computer programmers. A good percentage of people in the astronomy club I go to are computer programmers.
The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. - John Adams
-
Good to see you back:)
Thanks :) I've been lurking for a while, just not hitting the site nearly as much as I used to.
James