newbie in Brisbane Australia

Hi I am very interested in getting my first real astro setup. I am looking for advice and examples for gear but I dont want to spend a fortune…I already do that with other things I do. I live just north of Brisbane even so its probably about Bortle 6 but I have a farm we are retiring to and it is Bortle 2 and great views literally to most horisons and we are about 450ft above sea level. It should make for a great place for astro viewing and astrophotography

Hello Mark!

To my opinion, the key hardware for your astrohobby is the mount. Skywatcher EQ6R Pro is the most popular one I think. But it is a heavy beast, designed to carry large scopes. So, you can also go lighter, if you do not intend to use very wide aperture optics. Anyway, to my personal taste, Skywatcher offers very nice quality/price combination. Celestron also makes excellent mounts.

Once you have the mount, then you may consider getting a newtonian telescope, preferably an astrograph. There are many models available at less than $1000. Newtonians are particularly good for deep sky object photography and visual observation, as they provide the wides field of view.

As for the camera, nothing can beat a dedicated cooled monochrome DSO camera with filter wheel. But these will cost as much as the mount and the telescope combined. You will still get stunning images with any DSLR, if you have good mount and telescope.

Clear skies.

D

Welcome! Have you thought about a light, portable and affordable setup with a star tracker, a small telescope and a DSLR camera? If you like it, you can always buy a bigger mount + telescope. Skywatcher and IOptron have good star trackers. Cheers and good luck!

Hi guys thanks for the info and comments

Yes I have been looking around for a EQ6 mount..trying to get one second hand..they are expensive here in OZ. I havent decided what sort of scope but as advice above I think maybe a astrograph newtonian might be the go first. There is a Celecstrom Nextgen 8SE avialbale here secondhand but hardly used for about 2k which is 1000 bucks cheaper than new but I wnt to use a ASI Air to do the tracking etc and from what I have read so far it doesnt do full auto guiding on the goto mount on that Celestron.

All my hobbies seem to be the expensive ones

…I build and fly my own aircraft and they are big enough to take a system out to the never never where it is total dark sites and being stol aircraft I can literally fly anywhere and land there. It would be so good to be able to get to the best site you can quickly and easily.

I have a lot to think about but yes I am concentrating on getting a good mount first

A fast newtonian (which normally is a f/4) set up as an astrograph requires some practice and knowledge of these optical systems to be used productively (and you need a good coma corrector too, set-up properly). And let's be frank they ain't easy to deal with especially if of so-so quality mechanically. If you decide to go down that route don't be tempted with larger aperture, stick to a 6" so any loss is reduced commensurably, should you decided you should have gone for a small refractor later on.

Mark Kyle:
Hi guys thanks for the info and comments

Yes I have been looking around for a EQ6 mount..trying to get one second hand..they are expensive here in OZ. I havent decided what sort of scope but as advice above I think maybe a astrograph newtonian might be the go first. There is a Celecstrom Nextgen 8SE avialbale here secondhand but hardly used for about 2k which is 1000 bucks cheaper than new but I wnt to use a ASI Air to do the tracking etc and from what I have read so far it doesnt do full auto guiding on the goto mount on that Celestron.

All my hobbies seem to be the expensive ones ...I build and fly my own aircraft and they are big enough to take a system out to the never never where it is total dark sites and being stol aircraft I can literally fly anywhere and land there. It would be so good to be able to get to the best site you can quickly and easily.

I have a lot to think about but yes I am concentrating on getting a good mount first

That is a hobby I wish I had too! Handbuilt STOL aircraft. Something tells me the cost/excitement ratio is much better than astropohotography

Now back to the scopes: one thing you do not want to do with a fast newtonian, a cassegrain or any reflector for that matter, is to move them around, unless absolutely necessary. They tend to go out the collimation, if shaken or vibrated strongly. If that happens, then you have to waste precious imaging time for collimating them back again. So, if you plan to fly your rig to the dark sites, then perhaps you should only consider purchasing a nice refractor, as Andrea suggest above.

Decisions decisions

.....It would be good to be able to afford one of each wouldnt it. Ok a nice light mount that can be tracked with say the skywatcher AZGTI mount and maybe a DLSR with a good lense???...but those modified DLSR's are expensive as well also the lenses..nothing is cheap in astro it seems. I just saw this video last night from Lukomatico https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGmHdrbYYSU This setup takes some pretty good pics.....but as you say dragging a bigger rig around on our trip around OZ could be problematic. My latest aircraft I am about to start building will be used to fly around all over Australia..instead of bumping around in a 4WD coughing on dust its much better to fly

Mark

I don't think, that spending money on a modified DSLR is a very good idea. If you are ready to committ that much money, then you will be much better off buyng a dedicated monochrome astrocamera with cooler etc, like ZWO ASI1600 or 294.

A standard DSLR will do a very good job too. Also, photo lenses are not really intended to shoot the stars. There are, of course very good ones, like Samyang 135 etc., but still they are photolenses. For the same money you could get a RedCat 51 or some Askar widefields. These can be mounted on a color DSLR and you will have a nice lightweight and compact system, which does not need a heavyweight mount. You could go as light as SkyWatcher EQ5 or even EQ3 perhaps.

If you already have one and decided to modify it or get it modified that's seems a smart move to me. Yes, dedicated astrocameras are better but the outlay of money way more impressive, even more so if you chose the monochrome route. Photolens can be as good as anything out there and, if you do your homework, way cheaper than nano-refractors such as a Redcat/Askar, which are an utter waste of money if you ask me.

Yes…. I see those ZWO cameras are pretty out there in cost for the better ones The 1600 here with 5 filters and the electronic filter holder is about $2600
The 6200 colour one is $6200 !!!! then again thats real pro gear too. I also have decided that you really need 2 setups..one for wide field and one for plantary..I suppose it depends what flaots your boat and interests you more. But even a "cheap" mount for tracking an average one is about 2k and then a better one is 3.5K and if you have really deep pockets they are 7k….by the time you get a pretty reasonable setup it can run away with easily 20 to 30k.

I maybe will just get something second hand and simple and try it at my farm and see how it goes. I am pretty sure it will be a fantastic site for photography.. maybe even put a propper mount in the gound and think about a fibreglass observatory housing…I have 125 acres so can put it anywhere I like and it wont be in the way…have to check it for snakes though before you go in though..lots of deadly snakes where we are..cranky brown snakes are the worst..the red belly black snakes they usually run off when they hear you coming.

I have always loved looking at astro photos it just amazes me what is up there. I find myself watching so many videos lately and all of you guys have so many different setups I would shudder to think how much was spent. but then if you love the hobby then I suppose its money well spent and you cant take it with you when you kick the bucket.

Being heavily involved in electronics in my day job most of my life…I am over 60…I like the electronics side of it all as well. The ASIAIR really floats my boat with the tracking and plate solving etc also the tracking. I have done ham radio for 45 years and had some big satellite tracking arrays to talk to MIR and the shuttle and ISS so that side of it is all easy for me and I love doing it… I find the more I read and watch videos the more up in the air I am…just so many opinions and choices to pick from. I think I will just bite the bullet and buy a secondhand setup and give it a try..life is too short to keep mucking around trying to decide

Mark

andrea tasselli:
If you already have one and decided to modify it or get it modified that's seems a smart move to me. Yes, dedicated astrocameras are better but the outlay of money way more impressive, even more so if you chose the monochrome route. Photolens can be as good as anything out there and, if you do your homework, way cheaper than nano-refractors such as a Redcat/Askar, which are an utter waste of money if you ask me.

Hi Andrea,

I've never come across a photo-lense with 200-ish focal length, using FPL53 or 51 glass, with focal ratio of 5 or faster at a price, which would not require me to sell my kidney

My main scope is Takahashi Epsilon 160 ED - probably an industry standard for quality and performance. But I absolutely love my Red Cat and find myself using it as frequently as the Tak. It is compact and light, meant to be taken to remote dark sites in a backpack. It comes with the integrated flattener and gives image circle wider than a full frame DSLR sensor. And costs just $800. If there are better options than this, I would be very happy to know about them. I really mean it.

Me too

One of the guys I watch on Youtube uses the Redcat 51..just priced it here they are about $1500 also means I could use a lighter mount.. think I will ahve a look around and see what things most of the users photograph with it…I have a Nikon DLSR but its old and would be pretty useless ….what about a ASI camera on the back? could get out of that sort of setup at a reasonable price maybe too

Mark Kyle:
Me too One of the guys I watch on Youtube uses the Redcat 51..just priced it here they are about $1500 also means I could use a lighter mount.. think I will ahve a look around and see what things most of the users photograph with it...I have a Nikon DLSR but its old and would be pretty useless ....what about a ASI camera on the back? could get out of that sort of setup at a reasonable price maybe too

My very first set-up was a Red Cat with ZWO ASI 183 MC Pro (color camera) on a Skywatcher Star Adventurer (this is a cheapo tracker. Not a proper mount). This is the image I got in just one hour:

https://www.astrobin.com/3r9brn/C/?nc=collection&nce=4769

It is very important to match a sensor pixel size with your main telescope's focal length, which is not always so easy for DSLR and a small refractor (https://astronomy.tools/calculators/ccd_suitability).

That's why Red Cat worked so well with the ASI183. Now everybody is talking about ASI533 MC Pro as the new enrty level camera to ZWO model range and it looks like it is indeed a good one.

David Nozadze:
I've never come across a photo-lense with 200-ish focal length, using FPL53 or 51 glass, with focal ratio of 5 or faster at a price, which would not require me to sell my kidney

Happy to oblige in this one: Nikkor 180 ED-IF f/2.8, Nikkor 80-200 ED-IF f/2.8, Nikkor 300mm ED-AF f/4, Olympus Zuiko Auto-T 300mm f/4.5. These are the ones I've tested but more might be out there from the likes of Canon, Fujifilm, Zeiss and so forth.

andrea tasselli:
David Nozadze:
I've never come across a photo-lense with 200-ish focal length, using FPL53 or 51 glass, with focal ratio of 5 or faster at a price, which would not require me to sell my kidney

Happy to oblige in this one: Nikkor 180 ED-IF f/2.8, Nikkor 80-200 ED-IF f/2.8, Nikkor 300mm ED-AF f/4, Olympus Zuiko Auto-T 300mm f/4.5. These are the ones I've tested but more might be out there from the likes of Canon, Fujifilm, Zeiss and so forth.

Thank you! These really do look interesting. Though none of them shows whether fluorite glass is used for the elements. I tried Zuiko before and the stars did not look all that impressive, to be honest. My benchmark is this image I took with RC51. Even in my unexperienced hands, the stars came out rather nice and tight even on the egdes, I think.

https://www.astrobin.com/rt0jpn/?nc=collection&nce=4767

That new ASI533 is about $1400 here… 9 mpixel and 14 bit ADC thats pretty good
I just looked through your pictures David ..those galaxies were pretty fantastic with that Takahasi 160 but the Redcat did a great job too and its only a 51mm lense ….I think I might go down that road now..I am impressed also I see you are using the ASI Air too which is what I would like to use to automate the hard bits but the main thing I will look out for is a secondhand EQ6R-Pro ..that seems to be the best bang for the buck mount from what I have read about $2500 here also most have no stock by the look of it….I really like those pics of yours

Mark

Mark Kyle:
That new ASI533 is about $1400 here... 9 mpixel and 14 bit ADC thats pretty good
I just looked through your pictures David ..those galaxies were pretty fantastic with that Takahasi 160 but the Redcat did a great job too and its only a 51mm lense ....I think I might go down that road now..I am impressed also I see you are using the ASI Air too which is what I would like to use to automate the hard bits but the main thing I will look out for is a secondhand EQ6R-Pro ..that seems to be the best bang for the buck mount from what I have read about $2500 here also most have no stock by the look of it....I really like those pics of yours

Mark

Thank you Mark! Glad that you liked the images. Indeed some of them are not all that bad

ASI Air - definitely recommend! It makes the whole process very simple and, therefore, enjoyable. As for the Red Cat, I am happy I could give you a useful advise, but please do consider other William Optics or Askar models . Red Cat has one unique feature which I like, but this may not be the case for everyone: it has a helical focuser, just like a normal lense. This makes it very light and compact. But if you will ever want to fit an autofocuser to it, you will need to buy a custom-made focuser mount, which will cost you another $100-150 (but, it is definitely worth it). I use one made by Deep Sky Dad.

I am already following you on AstroBin and looking forward to seeing your images!

Clear Skies

D

David Nozadze:
Thank you! These really do look interesting. Though none of them shows whether fluorite glass is used for the elements. I tried Zuiko before and the stars did not look all that impressive, to be honest. My benchmark is this image I took with RC51. Even in my unexperienced hands, the stars came out rather nice and tight even on the egdes, I think.

https://www.astrobin.com/rt0jpn/?nc=collection&nce=4767

Don't think many are using fluorite these days at all. I belive some of the old SSD lens from Canon used them but that was it. Nikon always used ED glasses to good effect, such as you can see in their lenses. The stars look tight in that picture because is a NB image. That is no benchmark. You'd want a broadband image to judge the quaity of lens.

andrea tasselli:
David Nozadze:
Thank you! These really do look interesting. Though none of them shows whether fluorite glass is used for the elements. I tried Zuiko before and the stars did not look all that impressive, to be honest. My benchmark is this image I took with RC51. Even in my unexperienced hands, the stars came out rather nice and tight even on the egdes, I think.

https://www.astrobin.com/rt0jpn/?nc=collection&nce=4767

Don't think many are using fluorite these days at all. I belive some of the old SSD lens from Canon used them but that was it. Nikon always used ED glasses to good effect, such as you can see in their lenses. The stars look tight in that picture because is a NB image. That is no benchmark. You'd want a broadband image to judge the quaity of lens.

Since you asked, here are the broadband examples

https://www.astrobin.com/9rae3c/?nc=collection&nce=4768
https://www.astrobin.com/3y66ki/B/?nc=collection&nce=4766

Refractors like RedCat are designed to be at their maximum sharpness at full apperture, which very seldom is a case for the telephoto lenses. Whatever lenses I used so far, needed to be closed down at least one full stop to produce more or less uniformly sharp image. That woul dinevitably result in diffraction patterns from aperture blades..

Also, a Red Cat and others alike have an integrated field rotator, which helps frame the subject as desired. With photo lense, you can't rotate the camera.
Focusing: Red Cat and other refractors have tension rings or bolts to fix the focuser, once the focus is achieved and it will not budge durint the whole session. For a photolense, best you can do is to apply a duct tape to the focuser and just hope it is tight enough.

So, honestly, I do not think that these small refractors are a waste of money. Compared to the prices of the lenses you suggested, they are much better value.

David Nozadze:
Since you asked, here are the broadband examples

https://www.astrobin.com/9rae3c/?nc=collection&nce=4768
https://www.astrobin.com/3y66ki/B/?nc=collection&nce=4766

Refractors like RedCat are designed to be at their maximum sharpness at full apperture, which very seldom is a case for the telephoto lenses. Whatever lenses I used so far, needed to be closed down at least one full stop to produce more or less uniformly sharp image. That woul dinevitably result in diffraction patterns from aperture blades..

Also, a Red Cat and others alike have an integrated field rotator, which helps frame the subject as desired. With photo lense, you can't rotate the camera.
Focusing: Red Cat and other refractors have tension rings or bolts to fix the focuser, once the focus is achieved and it will not budge durint the whole session. For a photolense, best you can do is to apply a duct tape to the focuser and just hope it is tight enough.

So, honestly, I do not think that these small refractors are a waste of money. Compared to the prices of the lenses you suggested, they are much better value.

Well, one is a Moon shot and the other is a kind of LRGB so ample chance to correct whatever little gremlins are there. But I'll give you that in terms of field correction they may stand their ground on a 4/3" field. But they are puny lens at an horrendous price for their aperture. 800 quid for a finder! C'mon...

I have been shooting with lens since ages ago and NEVER had an issue with the focus ring moving, like ever. Maybe is a problem with the Redcat but sure it isn't with a rather large number of lens I have. In terms of correction I always use them at full aperture if possible, besides I think sun-stars are cute and add to the visual impact so if in need to step-down I don't find this to be an issue.

The image below is one showing the correction of the humble Olympus OM 135mm f/2.8 at full aperture. Just a stack up of 7 shots totalling 21s of integration. As you can see there is hardly any variation between center and sides/corners. This lens will command the grand price of 50 quid in the used markets, for a good sample. I can produce others as well.

Look, I don't want to be impolite and leave your message unanswered, but I propose that we end this discussion here.

I do not say that photolenses are bad. You are saying that the small refractors are no good

I only tried to share my opinion, why I and many other hobbyists like me perhaps are not that ignorant to overpay for those scopes for nothing, as you may have implied (I apologize in advance, if I misunderstood you).

Yes, currently my largest sensor is just Micro 4/3, but by the end of the year I will be getting my APS-C camera. I will definitely post some new images here, so I will be glad if you check them out as well, just for comparison. RC51 has an image circle of 44 milimeters, so I think it will do just fine.

I do own an old Olympus 135. Came with my OM II film camera. Did use it for wide-field shots a few times. So I kind of know first hand what is the difference with the Red Cat. And I chose to continue using the Cat. This is purely a matter of personal preference

Clear skies!

D

P.S. This is one of my first test shots of Betelgeuse with the Olympus 135, mounted on Fujifilm X-T3.

I appreciate your comments….I have been doing a lot of searching around and learning a lot on lenses etc.

I think I am going to get a EZ-EQ6 pro mount and seriuosly looking at a Founder optics F106 triplet
A big investment for a beginner at about 7k then of course you have all the other gear like cameras and finders. I looked at the williams and really like it and I see they have a Redcat 81 now but not released yet. I was looking at a GT81 but I stumbled across the Founder Optics refractors and they have a 86 and a 106. The founder and the Williams are both the same price about $2500 each the 106 Founder is $3700 but the founders come with a field flattener as standard.

Doubt where I will get a second hand scope but I am looking around for a secondhand mount..it would be nice to find one.

Looks like it is a very good scope! ASI533 pixel size should be a perfect match with that focal lenght. And you can't go wrong with Skywatcher mounts. They are excellent machines.

Clear skies!

Related discussions