Hello everyone. I have been using the Celestron powerseeker 80eq model, my first telescope, for about 2.5 years. I haven't had a go-to telescope yet. I hope to buy a new telescope within the next year. In the first 1 or 2 years, I want to use it only for observation and be in the process of getting used to the telescope. In the future, I want to get into deep space photography. There are 3 combinations I want to make. Your experienced comments are very important to me. First combination: Celestron C11 EdgeHD + Sky Watcher AZEQ 6 GT. My second combination: Celestron C9.25 XLT + Sky Watcher EQ6R Pro. My third and final combination is: Celestron C8 EdgeHD + Celestron AVX (C8 is relatively lighter so it puts less pressure on my budget) or EQ6R Pro. I know that focal length limits the options a lot in DSO work. But I want to be a galaxy hunter, so to speak. In this context, the closer the better (in my opinion). I also like to observe. In this context, the first combination is the one I want the most. Because I will also make planetary observations. In addition, I also said that if I started astrophotography in the future, I would do galaxy hunting. Could you write me the negative and positive aspects of these 3 configurations? Thank you, take care of yourself
Which telescope and mount combination are good for to be a galaxy Hunter?
Respectful Engaging
Hello. To shoot galaxies with some detail you need medium/long focal lengths. Let's say 1000mm and up. The mount becomes critical in my opinion beyond the weight of the optical tube. A quality mount is an investment for the future. For the tube I would go toward an 8” RC to start with.
Bye
G
Bye
G
The EQ6R-pro is a great mount. It can carry that 11 and setup right, it will give you the guiding accuracy you need. I would avoid the AVX at all costs.
Long focal lengths are critical, especially if you want to go beyond the relatively few larger galaxies. I would go even longer for those - 2 meters and up. Of course that is more money for both the scope and even more so the mount. To be blunt, this is not a realm in which you can get by cheap and expect to get anything beyond very basic results.
The other important consideration is your site seeing and darkness. Seeing is King if you want decent detail and a bigger scope will not help if your seeing is poor or even average. Seeing under 2 arscec is mandatory for decent results and closer to 1.5 or even one is best. That rules out much of the Eastern US and the Midwest most of the time.
The other important consideration is your site seeing and darkness. Seeing is King if you want decent detail and a bigger scope will not help if your seeing is poor or even average. Seeing under 2 arscec is mandatory for decent results and closer to 1.5 or even one is best. That rules out much of the Eastern US and the Midwest most of the time.
Well Written Helpful Insightful Concise
A few points. I think the EQ6 with the C11 is a bridge too far IMO. Not that it can't be done, but it will be a challenge. For visual maybe ok, but for astrophotography, that's pushing it for someone getting started. The 9.25 Edge or especially the 8" RC would be far easier to work with, although collimating an RC can be a challenge. When you want to get into imaging, I'd seriously consider a short refractor to start with, it will be more forgiving and therefore more rewarding. An 80mm refractor would be ideal, and the EQ6 can handle it with ease. Trying to image with an 11" SCT for your first time will be challenging to say the least.
Well Written Helpful
I'll be the guy that throws a tangent here and say that focal length is NOT what you should be chasing. The numbers you need to be paying attention to are sampling and aperture size. Then you must factor in seeing conditions like Bill was saying.
The whole chase for focal length these days bothers me. Folks buy into equipment like your suggesting thinking they're going to get amazing photos of galaxies, only to be disappointed when they're outperformed by scopes a quarter of their focal length. The longest focal length I currently operate is around 750mm focal length. It's a 6" refractor reduced to F/ 5.4 Sampling around 0.96 arc second leaves me 100% seeing limited from my North Carolina backyard 95% of the time. On top of that, I haven't made the big purchase for an endgame EQ mount yet. I am pushing the limits of my EQ6 if I were to keep the native focal length of my scope at 1010mm. This is why I chose the reducer.
The next reason why focal length matters even less these days is due to the smaller pixel sizes of modern cameras. Almost every current generation CMOS camera runs 3.76um pixels. Years ago when SCTs were the cats meow, pixel sizes were almost 3 times that at 9um. This means you were sampling much differently for a given focal length. You could do 1500-2000mm and still produce the same results as a modern scope under 1000mm.
What does this all mean?
If you were to purchase a large SCT, slap it on your EQ6... you are going to be oversampled on an absurd scale. Probably somewhere around 0.3 arc seconds on average. A perfect EQ6 on its best day is going to struggle to guide inside that image scale, if seeing even allows it. On top of that, those kinda sky conditions are unheard of unless you're set up remote in Chile or a similar location. Realistically, I'd expect your average location to be anywhere between 2 and 4 arc seconds seeing. At 0.3 arc second image scale, you're essentially wasting pixels that you can't resolve. You will end up with a very soft, essentially blurry image because everythings working against you. That's all assuming you even get a setup like this performing properly. SCT's are known for mirror flop issues, they're a pain to collimate, and reflectors in general can (not always) be a general pain to the inexperienced user.
Now compare something like an 80 or 100mm refractor riding on the EQ6. In my case, I have a few Esprit 100s that I use as my 'swiss army knife' of astrophotography. They don't care as much about seeing because we're not heavily oversampled. They're not amazing for galaxy work, but they can still hang with the best in adequate conditions. They're light weight, the EQ6 can handle them well, and with modern 3.76um pixels, they sample at 1.4 arc second, with their theoretical best sharpness (based on experience) being around 2 arc second. That means I don't care about seeing as much! I can't chase smaller galaxies with it, but I can certainly get the big ones which my skies allow for. Going deep with integration time allows me to capture faint details as well.
At a focal length of 550mm with the Esprit 100, this FL is where you should really aim to be when you're still new to the hobby. Trying to push longer focal lengths really requires alot of money to accomplish properly, and the proper skies to run it under. Here's my M106 at 550mm under very poor seeing, above 3 arc seconds. Still tons of detail. This is one of my favorite images, yet it's one of the least sharp datasets in my entire gallery.
The whole chase for focal length these days bothers me. Folks buy into equipment like your suggesting thinking they're going to get amazing photos of galaxies, only to be disappointed when they're outperformed by scopes a quarter of their focal length. The longest focal length I currently operate is around 750mm focal length. It's a 6" refractor reduced to F/ 5.4 Sampling around 0.96 arc second leaves me 100% seeing limited from my North Carolina backyard 95% of the time. On top of that, I haven't made the big purchase for an endgame EQ mount yet. I am pushing the limits of my EQ6 if I were to keep the native focal length of my scope at 1010mm. This is why I chose the reducer.
The next reason why focal length matters even less these days is due to the smaller pixel sizes of modern cameras. Almost every current generation CMOS camera runs 3.76um pixels. Years ago when SCTs were the cats meow, pixel sizes were almost 3 times that at 9um. This means you were sampling much differently for a given focal length. You could do 1500-2000mm and still produce the same results as a modern scope under 1000mm.
What does this all mean?
If you were to purchase a large SCT, slap it on your EQ6... you are going to be oversampled on an absurd scale. Probably somewhere around 0.3 arc seconds on average. A perfect EQ6 on its best day is going to struggle to guide inside that image scale, if seeing even allows it. On top of that, those kinda sky conditions are unheard of unless you're set up remote in Chile or a similar location. Realistically, I'd expect your average location to be anywhere between 2 and 4 arc seconds seeing. At 0.3 arc second image scale, you're essentially wasting pixels that you can't resolve. You will end up with a very soft, essentially blurry image because everythings working against you. That's all assuming you even get a setup like this performing properly. SCT's are known for mirror flop issues, they're a pain to collimate, and reflectors in general can (not always) be a general pain to the inexperienced user.
Now compare something like an 80 or 100mm refractor riding on the EQ6. In my case, I have a few Esprit 100s that I use as my 'swiss army knife' of astrophotography. They don't care as much about seeing because we're not heavily oversampled. They're not amazing for galaxy work, but they can still hang with the best in adequate conditions. They're light weight, the EQ6 can handle them well, and with modern 3.76um pixels, they sample at 1.4 arc second, with their theoretical best sharpness (based on experience) being around 2 arc second. That means I don't care about seeing as much! I can't chase smaller galaxies with it, but I can certainly get the big ones which my skies allow for. Going deep with integration time allows me to capture faint details as well.
At a focal length of 550mm with the Esprit 100, this FL is where you should really aim to be when you're still new to the hobby. Trying to push longer focal lengths really requires alot of money to accomplish properly, and the proper skies to run it under. Here's my M106 at 550mm under very poor seeing, above 3 arc seconds. Still tons of detail. This is one of my favorite images, yet it's one of the least sharp datasets in my entire gallery.
Helpful Insightful Engaging
Brian Puhl:
Realistically, I'd expect your average location to be anywhere between 2 and 4 arc seconds seeing. At 0.3 arc second image scale, you're essentially wasting pixels that you can't resolve
Quite true. Moderate focal lengths are more appropriate for most of the seeing one has in most places. Something around 1 meter is about all you need to get all the detail you are going to get in those locations. One would be better off going faster as opposed to longer focal length in those situations. That way you get more signal in less time with the larger scope (which will help you) instead of more sampling (which will not).
Of course all the above assumes that one is not at a location with exceptional seeing. There are a few places in the CONUS that do have that sort of seeing, at least some of the time. Most are in California. I know Sierra Remote often has great seeing as does SAROs where my remote setup is. In fact, my sampling is exactly .3 arsec/pixel with my CDK 14 and is just about ideal for the occasional superb seeing (approaching 1 arcsec or slightly better) that we get at SAROs.
Short version is to get some reliable seeing numbers for whatever site you plan to use most. That will inform your decision and allow you to optimize your choices.
Bottom line is my "2 meter plus" recommendation was based upon superb seeing, which is probably not realistic for most folks, but remains true if you are lucky enough to have such a location available.
Helpful Insightful Respectful Engaging
Brian Puhl:
I'll be the guy that throws a tangent here and say that focal length is NOT what you should be chasing. The numbers you need to be paying attention to are sampling and aperture size. Then you must factor in seeing conditions like Bill was saying.
The whole chase for focal length these days bothers me. Folks buy into equipment like your suggesting thinking they're going to get amazing photos of galaxies, only to be disappointed when they're outperformed by scopes a quarter of their focal length. The longest focal length I currently operate is around 750mm focal length. It's a 6" refractor reduced to F/ 5.4 Sampling around 0.96 arc second leaves me 100% seeing limited from my North Carolina backyard 95% of the time. On top of that, I haven't made the big purchase for an endgame EQ mount yet. I am pushing the limits of my EQ6 if I were to keep the native focal length of my scope at 1010mm. This is why I chose the reducer.
The next reason why focal length matters even less these days is due to the smaller pixel sizes of modern cameras. Almost every current generation CMOS camera runs 3.76um pixels. Years ago when SCTs were the cats meow, pixel sizes were almost 3 times that at 9um. This means you were sampling much differently for a given focal length. You could do 1500-2000mm and still produce the same results as a modern scope under 1000mm.
What does this all mean?
If you were to purchase a large SCT, slap it on your EQ6... you are going to be oversampled on an absurd scale. Probably somewhere around 0.3 arc seconds on average. A perfect EQ6 on its best day is going to struggle to guide inside that image scale, if seeing even allows it. On top of that, those kinda sky conditions are unheard of unless you're set up remote in Chile or a similar location. Realistically, I'd expect your average location to be anywhere between 2 and 4 arc seconds seeing. At 0.3 arc second image scale, you're essentially wasting pixels that you can't resolve. You will end up with a very soft, essentially blurry image because everythings working against you. That's all assuming you even get a setup like this performing properly. SCT's are known for mirror flop issues, they're a pain to collimate, and reflectors in general can (not always) be a general pain to the inexperienced user.
Now compare something like an 80 or 100mm refractor riding on the EQ6. In my case, I have a few Esprit 100s that I use as my 'swiss army knife' of astrophotography. They don't care as much about seeing because we're not heavily oversampled. They're not amazing for galaxy work, but they can still hang with the best in adequate conditions. They're light weight, the EQ6 can handle them well, and with modern 3.76um pixels, they sample at 1.4 arc second, with their theoretical best sharpness (based on experience) being around 2 arc second. That means I don't care about seeing as much! I can't chase smaller galaxies with it, but I can certainly get the big ones which my skies allow for. Going deep with integration time allows me to capture faint details as well.
At a focal length of 550mm with the Esprit 100, this FL is where you should really aim to be when you're still new to the hobby. Trying to push longer focal lengths really requires alot of money to accomplish properly, and the proper skies to run it under. Here's my M106 at 550mm under very poor seeing, above 3 arc seconds. Still tons of detail. This is one of my favorite images, yet it's one of the least sharp datasets in my entire gallery.
Very true, and btw, your image is beautiful. Long focal lengths are a nightmare starting out. I suppose you could bin your camera to reduce the oversampling, but with CMOS the advantage of binning isn't that great. A 4" refractor is a wonderful instrument to use, not the best for tiny stuff, but you get a plethora of great subjects to image for minimal hassle.
Helpful Respectful Concise Supportive
avoid AVX mount when using long focal lengths
Hello everyone. I have been using the Celestron powerseeker 80eq model, my first telescope, for about 2.5 years. I haven't had a go-to telescope yet. I hope to buy a new telescope within the next year. In the first 1 or 2 years, I want to use it only for observation and be in the process of getting used to the telescope. In the future, I want to get into deep space photography. There are 3 combinations I want to make. Your experienced comments are very important to me. First combination: Celestron C11 EdgeHD + Sky Watcher AZEQ 6 GT. My second combination: Celestron C9.25 XLT + Sky Watcher EQ6R Pro. My third and final combination is: Celestron C8 EdgeHD + Celestron AVX (C8 is relatively lighter so it puts less pressure on my budget) or EQ6R Pro. I know that focal length limits the options a lot in DSO work. But I want to be a galaxy hunter, so to speak. In this context, the closer the better (in my opinion). I also like to observe. In this context, the first combination is the one I want the most. Because I will also make planetary observations. In addition, I also said that if I started astrophotography in the future, I would do galaxy hunting. Could you write me the negative and positive aspects of these 3 configurations? Thank you, take care of yourself
Few critiques, albeit all the given options are very good.
Everything you listed has a learning curve that will last at least a year if you are not careful. If you do everything right, you'll be able to produce very good images within about 1-4 months of use.
I didn't have much time to use my equipment when I got it thanks to school, so it's taken me about 3 years just to scratch the surface of the full capabilities of my setup.
AVX is a very old mount, and is not really good to use with an Edge HD. EQ6R or a harmonic are the choices.
I use an EdgeHD 8 with a 6R, and it is a miracle maker, extremely sharp.
Personally, I would go for that C11HD and AZEQ6, It's essentially a souped up version of my rig's base. For planetary, I'd definitely go 11.
On the note of doing AP in the future, for a camera, if you want to start out color only, I'd chose between the ASI2600MC APS-C crop sensor, extremely good all-round, and the ASI2400MC, a Full-Frame, with insane capabilities. I use one of these, it's got a 1:1 sampling with resolving limit of each of the EdgeHD series, so given the seeing is good you can get extremely sharp data that is typically close to diffraction limited.
To be honest, my least favorite thing about this camera is that the 2400 doesn't come in mono. I will be modifying my camera to get rid of the Color Filter Array on the sensor about this time next year, so unless you want to stay color with the best color camera out there right now, or side/downgradeish from the sensor to go mono, or risk the non-zero chance for irreversible damage to the sensor to convert it to mono, I'd just go for the 2600 and then trade it for a mono 2600MM or a 6200MM. Or just start with one of those and get it over with.
Helpful
+1 for OklahomAstro. I really think that given your goals, you'll be happier with the EdgeHD-11. Sure it will be overkill in terms of resolution in average seeing but on those good nights when the seeing is decent, you'll be glad you went that way. Yes, a small refractor will be easier to handle but it will also guarantee that your images will never rise above what 1.14 arc/sec of resolution and a short focal length can deliver.
Well Written Concise
Hello everyone. I have been using the Celestron powerseeker 80eq model, my first telescope, for about 2.5 years.
In the future, I want to get into deep space photography.
First combination: Celestron C11 EdgeHD + Sky Watcher AZEQ 6 GT.
My second combination: Celestron C9.25 XLT + Sky Watcher EQ6R Pro.
My third and final combination is: Celestron C8 EdgeHD + Celestron AVX
Could you write me the negative and positive aspects of these 3 configurations?
Ok. this ones easy.
none of those combinations are good for LEARNING AstroPhotography.
they are all far more suited to experienced imagers.
for LEARNING AP you should look at small refractors with focal lengths less than 500mm. thats a good place to start. easy to get good results.
we keep saying this, and beginners often ignore the advice, and then the nightmare begins.
I have been imaging rather successfully for a few years, and have only recently made the jump to 1484mm focal length, and its still been hard.
also Reflectors are more complex than Refractors in many ways, hence the Refractor suggestion.
Helpful Concise
David Russell:Hello everyone. I have been using the Celestron powerseeker 80eq model, my first telescope, for about 2.5 years.
In the future, I want to get into deep space photography.
First combination: Celestron C11 EdgeHD + Sky Watcher AZEQ 6 GT.
My second combination: Celestron C9.25 XLT + Sky Watcher EQ6R Pro.
My third and final combination is: Celestron C8 EdgeHD + Celestron AVX
Could you write me the negative and positive aspects of these 3 configurations?
Ok. this ones easy.
none of those combinations are good for LEARNING AstroPhotography.
they are all far more suited to experienced imagers.
for LEARNING AP you should look at small refractors with focal lengths less than 500mm. thats a good place to start. easy to get good results.
we keep saying this, and beginners often ignore the advice, and then the nightmare begins.
I have been imaging rather successfully for a few years, and have only recently made the jump to 1484mm focal length, and its still been hard.
also Reflectors are more complex than Refractors in many ways, hence the Refractor suggestion.
So, as you said(and most people), I may have really difficult moments in the future because I am inexperienced in this field. But as I said, I will not take any astrophotography for at least 1 year(Maybe 2-3 or more) because my budget will not be enough. I can't do astrophotography naturally without equipment either. Also, the planet, and maybe most of you may find it ridiculous, but I want to observe galaxies with telescope observation even if they are dim( in one of my configurations that are possible within the budget ) and stars even if they are as small as dots. Therefore, my first goal is to make observations and get to know the sky better. i don't want a <1000mm refractor right now. Because it may disappoint me in terms of observation(planets etc.). But why not in the future processes! Also, the cost of the configuration, which is c9,25, seems to be better from my point of view. What do you think according to what I have written?
David Russell:Hello everyone. I have been using the Celestron powerseeker 80eq model, my first telescope, for about 2.5 years.
In the future, I want to get into deep space photography.
First combination: Celestron C11 EdgeHD + Sky Watcher AZEQ 6 GT.
My second combination: Celestron C9.25 XLT + Sky Watcher EQ6R Pro.
My third and final combination is: Celestron C8 EdgeHD + Celestron AVX
Could you write me the negative and positive aspects of these 3 configurations?
Ok. this ones easy.
none of those combinations are good for LEARNING AstroPhotography.
they are all far more suited to experienced imagers.
for LEARNING AP you should look at small refractors with focal lengths less than 500mm. thats a good place to start. easy to get good results.
we keep saying this, and beginners often ignore the advice, and then the nightmare begins.
I have been imaging rather successfully for a few years, and have only recently made the jump to 1484mm focal length, and its still been hard.
also Reflectors are more complex than Refractors in many ways, hence the Refractor suggestion.
So, as you said(and most people), I may have really difficult moments in the future because I am inexperienced in this field. But as I said, I will not take any astrophotography for at least 1 year(Maybe 2-3 or more) because my budget will not be enough. I can't do astrophotography naturally without equipment either. Also, the planet, and maybe most of you may find it ridiculous, but I want to observe galaxies with telescope observation even if they are dim( in one of my configurations that are possible within the budget ) and stars even if they are as small as dots. Therefore, my first goal is to make observations and get to know the sky better. i don't want a <1000mm refractor right now. Because it may disappoint me in terms of observation(planets etc.). But why not in the future processes! Also, the cost of the configuration, which is c9,25, seems to be better from my point of view. What do you think according to what I have written?
Hello everyone. I have been using the Celestron powerseeker 80eq model, my first telescope, for about 2.5 years. I haven't had a go-to telescope yet. I hope to buy a new telescope within the next year. In the first 1 or 2 years, I want to use it only for observation and be in the process of getting used to the telescope. In the future, I want to get into deep space photography. There are 3 combinations I want to make. Your experienced comments are very important to me. First combination: Celestron C11 EdgeHD + Sky Watcher AZEQ 6 GT. My second combination: Celestron C9.25 XLT + Sky Watcher EQ6R Pro. My third and final combination is: Celestron C8 EdgeHD + Celestron AVX (C8 is relatively lighter so it puts less pressure on my budget) or EQ6R Pro. I know that focal length limits the options a lot in DSO work. But I want to be a galaxy hunter, so to speak. In this context, the closer the better (in my opinion). I also like to observe. In this context, the first combination is the one I want the most. Because I will also make planetary observations. In addition, I also said that if I started astrophotography in the future, I would do galaxy hunting. Could you write me the negative and positive aspects of these 3 configurations? Thank you, take care of yourself
Few critiques, albeit all the given options are very good.
Everything you listed has a learning curve that will last at least a year if you are not careful. If you do everything right, you'll be able to produce very good images within about 1-4 months of use.
I didn't have much time to use my equipment when I got it thanks to school, so it's taken me about 3 years just to scratch the surface of the full capabilities of my setup.
AVX is a very old mount, and is not really good to use with an Edge HD. EQ6R or a harmonic are the choices.
I use an EdgeHD 8 with a 6R, and it is a miracle maker, extremely sharp.
Personally, I would go for that C11HD and AZEQ6, It's essentially a souped up version of my rig's base. For planetary, I'd definitely go 11.
On the note of doing AP in the future, for a camera, if you want to start out color only, I'd chose between the ASI2600MC APS-C crop sensor, extremely good all-round, and the ASI2400MC, a Full-Frame, with insane capabilities. I use one of these, it's got a 1:1 sampling with resolving limit of each of the EdgeHD series, so given the seeing is good you can get extremely sharp data that is typically close to diffraction limited.
To be honest, my least favorite thing about this camera is that the 2400 doesn't come in mono. I will be modifying my camera to get rid of the Color Filter Array on the sensor about this time next year, so unless you want to stay color with the best color camera out there right now, or side/downgradeish from the sensor to go mono, or risk the non-zero chance for irreversible damage to the sensor to convert it to mono, I'd just go for the 2600 and then trade it for a mono 2600MM or a 6200MM. Or just start with one of those and get it over with.
So how healthy do you think deep space photography(Mainly galaxies) would be with the c11+AZEQ6 duo? Because around the first 2 years, I will only do observations. After that, I want to get into a galaxy-based astrophotography.
Hello everyone. I have been using the Celestron powerseeker 80eq model, my first telescope, for about 2.5 years. I haven't had a go-to telescope yet. I hope to buy a new telescope within the next year. In the first 1 or 2 years, I want to use it only for observation and be in the process of getting used to the telescope. In the future, I want to get into deep space photography. There are 3 combinations I want to make. Your experienced comments are very important to me. First combination: Celestron C11 EdgeHD + Sky Watcher AZEQ 6 GT. My second combination: Celestron C9.25 XLT + Sky Watcher EQ6R Pro. My third and final combination is: Celestron C8 EdgeHD + Celestron AVX (C8 is relatively lighter so it puts less pressure on my budget) or EQ6R Pro. I know that focal length limits the options a lot in DSO work. But I want to be a galaxy hunter, so to speak. In this context, the closer the better (in my opinion). I also like to observe. In this context, the first combination is the one I want the most. Because I will also make planetary observations. In addition, I also said that if I started astrophotography in the future, I would do galaxy hunting. Could you write me the negative and positive aspects of these 3 configurations? Thank you, take care of yourself
hey I wouldnt go with any of those tbh the best option here would probably be the c8, you need to take into account the sharpness of your scope, the pixel scale with standard pixel sizes (in astro thats around 3.8um) and the guiding performance of your mount, with the eq6r I wouldnt recommend going above 8" and 1500mm, the optimal setup for you would then be an 8"rc, the problem with those is that afaik all of them have a design that combines the focuser and primary into one part which makes collimation hell, my recomendation is to go with a f4/5 8" newtonian and then use a barlow.
clear skies!
Insightful
So correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you just ask for advice on getting a Go-To mount with a budget of $100 or less??? Now your looking at setups that are a few thousand?
So how healthy do you think deep space photography(Mainly galaxies) would be with the c11+AZEQ6 duo? Because around the first 2 years, I will only do observations. After that, I want to get into a galaxy-based astrophotography.
Others may disagree, but an 11" SCT on an EQ6 is too much telescope. The mount capacity is 44 pounds, the scope weighs in close to 30 and by the time you put a finderscope on it, the weight of cameras and such, it's well over 30 pounds. While it will be within the "capacity" of the mount, in my experience, going to 75% of the capacity of a relatively inexpensive mount is a step too far. Experienced imagers can get away with it, maybe, but I think you'll be in for a world of pain and frustration without a beefier mount. An 8" RC will get you to 1600+mm and it is far lighter and better suited for an eq6.
Well Written Helpful Insightful Concise
Thomas:
So correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you just ask for advice on getting a Go-To mount with a budget of $100 or less??? Now your looking at setups that are a few thousand?
**No i don't ask for it. I want to buy a new mount and optical tube. My priority here in the short to medium term will be only observation not astrophoto. Planetary observation, deep space objects, etc. However, I am aiming to get to know the sky better during this process. In the long run, I want to become a so-called "Galaxy Hunter" and photograph and process galaxies. But this is what I said in the long run. So it is very difficult for me to buy astrophotography equipment, at least in the short term(1-2 years). Also, I can't get a second optical tube anytime soon, so I need to get an optical tube and a mount that will meet these wishes in the long run. So it will be useful for both observation(the focal length should be long) and it will be useful for galaxy photography in the future. Maybe in the future I can get a william optics-like tube with a much lower focal length, but probably not in the near future
All of your desired choices will work great.
But Brian really nailed it on the topic of modern refractor scope/camera combinations.
That being said, I have a Celestron EDGE-HD 9.25 on a iOptron CEM 40 mount that works wonderfully. As Brian stated, its resolution is .335 and the mount averages .45 guiding (in a .20 to .9 peak to peak range over time). Point 45 is still close enough to show added detail on galaxies compared to bigger pixels (or BIN2 downscaling).
Examples of galaxies:
https://www.astrobin.com/qgal35/?nc=&nce=
https://www.astrobin.com/31d8mm/?nc=&nce=
https://www.astrobin.com/bxgq94/?nc=&nce=
But it is true that my best images come from exceptional nights, which happens 25% of the time I'm out.
BTW, collimation on EDGE scopes is easy and I only have to check it about once a year. The 925 is about as easy to maintain and operate as a refractor.
ALL THAT BEING SAID, I do get weary of moving the big one out onto the driveway and it certainly isn't portable. A 90-105mm, or so, refractor might be as satisfying. I'm currently thinking long term about a 106mm with extender, which would be 850mm. Swap the extender for a reducer, and now it's 350mm. Very versatile.
I do have a pier at Starfront, in Texas. I've thought about installing the 925 there and continuing to use my wide field here at home. But that is an expense that most of us would like to avoid. I'm lucky after a number of years to finally have a little extra income and a forgiving spouse. Still cheaper than a boat!
But Brian really nailed it on the topic of modern refractor scope/camera combinations.
That being said, I have a Celestron EDGE-HD 9.25 on a iOptron CEM 40 mount that works wonderfully. As Brian stated, its resolution is .335 and the mount averages .45 guiding (in a .20 to .9 peak to peak range over time). Point 45 is still close enough to show added detail on galaxies compared to bigger pixels (or BIN2 downscaling).
Examples of galaxies:
https://www.astrobin.com/qgal35/?nc=&nce=
https://www.astrobin.com/31d8mm/?nc=&nce=
https://www.astrobin.com/bxgq94/?nc=&nce=
But it is true that my best images come from exceptional nights, which happens 25% of the time I'm out.
BTW, collimation on EDGE scopes is easy and I only have to check it about once a year. The 925 is about as easy to maintain and operate as a refractor.
ALL THAT BEING SAID, I do get weary of moving the big one out onto the driveway and it certainly isn't portable. A 90-105mm, or so, refractor might be as satisfying. I'm currently thinking long term about a 106mm with extender, which would be 850mm. Swap the extender for a reducer, and now it's 350mm. Very versatile.
I do have a pier at Starfront, in Texas. I've thought about installing the 925 there and continuing to use my wide field here at home. But that is an expense that most of us would like to avoid. I'm lucky after a number of years to finally have a little extra income and a forgiving spouse. Still cheaper than a boat!
Helpful Insightful Respectful Engaging Supportive
Dave Rust:
All of your desired choices will work great.
But Brian really nailed it on the topic of modern refractor scope/camera combinations.
That being said, I have a Celestron EDGE-HD 9.25 on a iOptron CEM 40 mount that works wonderfully. As Brian stated, its resolution is .335 and the mount averages .45 guiding (in a .20 to .9 peak to peak range over time). Point 45 is still close enough to show added detail on galaxies compared to bigger pixels (or BIN2 downscaling).
Examples of galaxies:
https://www.astrobin.com/qgal35/?nc=&nce=
https://www.astrobin.com/31d8mm/?nc=&nce=
https://www.astrobin.com/bxgq94/?nc=&nce=
But it is true that my best images come from exceptional nights, which happens 25% of the time I'm out.
BTW, collimation on EDGE scopes is easy and I only have to check it about once a year. The 925 is about as easy to maintain and operate as a refractor.
ALL THAT BEING SAID, I do get weary of moving the big one out onto the driveway and it certainly isn't portable. A 90-105mm, or so, refractor might be as satisfying. I'm currently thinking long term about a 106mm with extender, which would be 850mm. Swap the extender for a reducer, and now it's 350mm. Very versatile.
I do have a pier at Starfront, in Texas. I've thought about installing the 925 there and continuing to use my wide field here at home. But that is an expense that most of us would like to avoid. I'm lucky after a number of years to finally have a little extra income and a forgiving spouse. Still cheaper than a boat!
*İncredible photos! And i understood, thanks. Finally, while I have caught a ready iOptron mount user, I would like to ask a question, I would be very glad if you answer
I have read/watched that many people have a backlash problem on the CEM70G mount. To be honest, I don't understand much about mechanics, I'm average. Do you think this mount is worth the price? Does it often cause problems, and can it also navigate a C11 EdgeHD in a way that gives a satisfactory result for astrophotography? Because most people say that their problems have not been solved or are recurring. Obviously, I had thought about the C11 EdgeHD with the CEM70G before, but when I researched it, I saw the backlash issue and that pushed me away from it. What is your opinion?
So, as you said(and most people), I may have really difficult moments in the future because I am inexperienced in this field. But as I said, I will not take any astrophotography for at least 1 year(Maybe 2-3 or more) because my budget will not be enough. I can't do astrophotography naturally without equipment either. Also, the planet, and maybe most of you may find it ridiculous, but I want to observe galaxies with telescope observation even if they are dim( in one of my configurations that are possible within the budget ) and stars even if they are as small as dots. Therefore, my first goal is to make observations and get to know the sky better. i don't want a <1000mm refractor right now. Because it may disappoint me in terms of observation(planets etc.). But why not in the future processes! Also, the cost of the configuration, which is c9,25, seems to be better from my point of view. What do you think according to what I have written?
OK. if you want to do Visual then the scopes you mentioned are good options. the C9.25 would be good for visual observation, of the Moon and Planets, and also the larger Galaxy targets. for visual observation Large aperture is the MOST important thing, so the choices are correct.
Deep Sky AstroPhotography is not the same as Visual. we generally take long time exposures of our targets, and even small refractors, with focal lengths around 500mm, can take great images of Larger Targets, such as Nebulas and Larger Galaxies. (Andromeda)
for imaging SMALLER targets such as most Galaxies, we also do time exposures, but because the targets are small we use Long Focal length telescopes. to do this successfully requires a great deal of skill, and just about no one starts imaging at very long focal length. we learn on small refractors.
Deep Sky imaging at Long focal length (Galaxies) requires expensive mounts, as we need to keep the target centred perfectly over long time exposures. some people shoot time exposures of 300 seconds or more, which is why the mount and guiding becomes so important.
I shoot galaxies now, and use a 1484mm focal length RC scope, which I chose specifically for Galaxy Imaging. its a 250mm aperture RC-10.
I have it mounted on an iOptron CEM-120 mount and the combination is working well for me.
Your C9.25 would be a great Visual scope and also a good imaging scope if it was mounted on a large high quality mount, but as a learning TOOL for imaging its a poor choice.
there is one other option. Get the C9.25 to use as a visual scope, and when you start doing AP use the 9.25 for Planetary imaging. the Planetary imaging guys shoot very short exposures, sometimes 60 per second, and then they process the video files to get final images.
because the Planetary imaging acquisition techniques are nothing like Deep Sky you could get away with a less expensive mount.
so the C9.25 could be used as a Visual Scope, and a Planetary imaging telescope, with a cheaper mount.
Hope this helps.
Helpful
What about this combination:
OTA: Askar 71F APODSO Cooled Camera: ZWO ASI 585MC Pro
Mount: ZWO AM 3
Aperture 71.01mm /2.80 inches
Resolving Limit (Dawes): :1.6335" arcseconds
Resolving Limit (Rayleigh): :1.9433" arcseconds
Visual Magnitude Limit: : mag 12
Native Focal Length / F: 490mm / F6.9
Resolution 1.2208" arcseconds per pixel
Camera Chip FOV 1.30° x 0.73°
With 2.9u pixels, and a tiny sensor, paired with a slowish small refractor, it is a budget choice.
OTA: Askar 71F APODSO Cooled Camera: ZWO ASI 585MC Pro
Mount: ZWO AM 3
Aperture 71.01mm /2.80 inches
Resolving Limit (Dawes): :1.6335" arcseconds
Resolving Limit (Rayleigh): :1.9433" arcseconds
Visual Magnitude Limit: : mag 12
Native Focal Length / F: 490mm / F6.9
Resolution 1.2208" arcseconds per pixel
Camera Chip FOV 1.30° x 0.73°
With 2.9u pixels, and a tiny sensor, paired with a slowish small refractor, it is a budget choice.
I agree with @Brian Puhl . It is not really large focal length you want for small DSOs, it is large aperture. But as the aperture grows so does the focal length. This is more a problem than it is a good thing and the main reason catadioptrics are so popular at 6 inches and above. But galaxy hunting is not advisable for beginners because imaging tiny faint stuff with sufficient detail is inherently difficult for hundreds of reasons, even with the best equipment. It’s like learning to become a pilot by endeavoring to fly a fighter jet over the open sea to land on an aircraft carrier, except of course in astrophotography the worst than can happen is lousy pics and a lot of wasted time and money
Cheers,
Dimitris
Cheers,
Dimitris
Helpful Insightful Respectful Engaging
AstroÅmazer:
What about this combination:
OTA: Askar 71F APODSO Cooled Camera: ZWO ASI 585MC Pro
Mount: ZWO AM 3
Aperture 71.01mm /2.80 inches
Resolving Limit (Dawes): :1.6335" arcseconds
Resolving Limit (Rayleigh): :1.9433" arcseconds
Visual Magnitude Limit: : mag 12
Native Focal Length / F: 490mm / F6.9
Resolution 1.2208" arcseconds per pixel
Camera Chip FOV 1.30° x 0.73°
With 2.9u pixels, and a tiny sensor, paired with a slowish small refractor, it is a budget choice.
It would be a usable deep sky astrophotography rig but with that tiny aperture, you can forget about the planets. I can vouch for the 585 through, I have the cooled and uncooled version and both have worked very well for me.
Reply to question about ioptron mounts:
I have two ioptron’s, the CEM40 and the HAE29EC. Both work great. I’ve not noticed and significant backlash on the 40…and the 29 has none, but it’s also a strain wave mount. Both mounts perform about the same…between 0.35 and 0.70 on a good night.
if the 70 is built to similar spec as the 40, I think you’ll really like it. I bought the 40 soon after it was introduced because I was seeking something less bulky and heavy as the EQ6.
If weight is not an issue, the EQ6 seems to also be a reliable performer.
I have two ioptron’s, the CEM40 and the HAE29EC. Both work great. I’ve not noticed and significant backlash on the 40…and the 29 has none, but it’s also a strain wave mount. Both mounts perform about the same…between 0.35 and 0.70 on a good night.
if the 70 is built to similar spec as the 40, I think you’ll really like it. I bought the 40 soon after it was introduced because I was seeking something less bulky and heavy as the EQ6.
If weight is not an issue, the EQ6 seems to also be a reliable performer.
Helpful Concise