Some ideas picking between these

[Cody (Cody)]

I posted months ago but still haven't pulled the trigger. I do though have extreme Lovejoy envy seeing all the "beginner" photos. I want to see and photograph Lovejoy, Horse Head Nebula, and pretty things of that nature. I have a good small and light APS-C DSLR already (NEX-5R).

Option 1) Skywatcher Telescopes
AZ-EQ6 Mount $2390
+ Esprit 120 $3375 (comes with a flattener as far as I can tell, I think)
or BD ED 120 $2100 + $319 flattener
or 254mm Newt $1559 + $249 coma corrector
= $5765 / $4809 / $4198

Option 2) Optics Central
Celestron CGEM mount 9.25" Edge HD SCT
= $5750

I'm really torn between the first three (quality, good quality, and "cheap" but cheerful and a pain in the butt to move around) and the last one which was my childhood style of dream scope. But apparently they're very difficult and expensive to get going for AP.

On top of this I'll need some adapter to attach my camera to prime focus, and down the track add a StarShoot Auto Guider (and finderscope as part of the kit, I read it's really troublesome to add to the SCT and I'm not sure about the others). No additional eyepieces to start with... I'd have no idea what I'd want.

I excluded some brands that were just too expensive or too complicated to put together or just not easily available; TAK, TeleVue, StellarVue, etc.

What do you think?

[Hoges (John)]

My 2c for what it's worth (approx 2c).

I like refractors. Perhaps it's just my own particular eyesight, but I've just never been 'wowed' by the images in fast newtonians. Sure, they give the biggest bang for the buck and for an imaging scope, the 8" f4 and coma corrector give a lot of imaging scope for the least amount of dollars. If imaging is your priority, I'd probably go that way on a HEQ5 pro or NEQ5 pro mount (whatever mount, make sure it has an autoguiding port for later down the track).

If you'd rather something with really nice pinpoint stars for visual, I'd go the 120ed refractor (on the either of the two mounts) and maybe the .8x reducer for photography. I have the 100mm ed and 80mm ed versions of the scope and the images are always very satisfying for me.

A T-ring adapter should be all you need for the camera and maybe an extension tube may be needed to reach focus without a diagonal....not sure on that one.

About the same price as the 120ed, there's a Maksutov-Newtonian 190mm (f6ish) that could be a very nice compromise between the two but I have no first hand experience with that sort of scope.

For a combination of visual and photography, the 120ed would win it for me.

edit: as far as moving it around on the EQ mount, with the refractor, you only have to rotate the diagonal (as the scope can end up in awkward spots) but with the Newt on an eq mount, you'll occasionally have to rotate the whole scope in it's rings to put the eyepiece in a comfy spot. I had an 8" f5 newt on the HEQ5 and found it a bit of a pain in the bum sometimes.

[Camelopardalis (Dunk)]

It's really important to think about the objects you're most interested in and determine what FOV you need to frame those objects and work from there.

Also, bigger is not always better maybe I'm old fashioned, but if you're just getting started I'd suggest getting an equatorial mount and start by mounting your camera and whatever lenses you have. Then maybe start with a small scope, and work your way through objects. The FOV is determined by the focal length of the lens/telescope you are using, as the size of your camera sensor is fixed.

If you go with a refractor, go for a triplet/quadruplet/quintuplet lens scope that corrects all the colours and flattens the field nicely. These don't have to be expensive...the WO Star 71 for example is about US$1000. I have no experience with newts, but an SCT wouldn't be my first choice for imaging because of the long focal lengths.

The main challenge with working with long exposure astrophotography is that you need to have a good polar alignment. All the gizmos in the world can't help you if you're polar alignment is too far off. A longer focal length telescope exacerbates the error/drift (hence the SCT comment above).

Good luck!

[astronobob (Bob)]

These are some pretty good Rigs to start up with Cody, and will need atleast some reasonble experience to figure out and get going well, on that note, it took me some 4-5yrs to get a desent Horse-head image, plenty of long exposures, good tracking & guiding, camera control and image processing skills ? Mind you - Im not that good at the whole shebang in reality, prob only on rung 2 or 3 of a 10 rung ladder in this game

So, in saying that, Im liking 'Johns' approach to you -
Quote :"but I've just never been 'wowed' by the images in fast newtonians. Sure, they give the biggest bang for the buck and for an imaging scope, the 8" f4 and coma corrector give a lot of imaging scope for the least amount of dollars. If imaging is your priority, I'd probably go that way on a HEQ5 pro or NEQ5 pro mount (whatever mount, make sure it has an autoguiding port for later down the track).

Good results with Out the added pressures of complicated details with fine tuning, accurate measures, Guiding tolerances Etc etc

But its ultimately Up To You & theres plenty of info around this IISpace forum from good folk with the experince to wonder through
All the best & Rgrds

[multiweb (Marc)]

Option 1 refractor. Easiest learning curve.