A Q on Telescope for astro shooting

Well seems not the right site but didn't find anything closer to this and then don't want to ask this question from astro nuts that are way in deep dark sky and can't follow their wordings and suggestions.

Question: I am interested in photographing planets and also deep sky so need a next step telescope glass. Something easy to work with, within the limitations portable as I leave in LA with every possible way poluted sky, not limiting to light pollution. I lean to wards the Meade that seems the way to go but not a definite choice. I like something with good magnification to see the moons Jupiter or clear view of Saturn's rings. I am wondering between LX200 8 to 10 inch or LX90 ACF 8 to 12 or Dobsonian type Lightbridge 8-12 inch. The last one being the cheapest and lightest seems to be my first choice especially the bigger 12" but really any help with ideas and opinions would be appreciate as these things are big, expensive and disappointment won't feel good.

Any takers?

Any one?

Samsen: I have an older EX-90 that I have been doing some experimenting with for astrophotography...unf​ortunately the weather and/or my vacation schedule has not been cooperative.

My take on this is as follows: BEFORE attempting any astrophotography I would first learn to use the telescope by itself. There is a learning curve for getting the scope to accurately track, and adding a camera right away could lead to dissapointing results. A Dobsonian (at least ones that are not quite expensive) are not self guiding...ie no motorized tracking so that would make long exposure deep sky photography very difficult. Other Meade telescopes (and other brands..but I am only familiar with Meade) have motors that enable the scope to follow the motion of the object you are viewing.

I have found the following site extremely useful:

http://www.weasner.com​/etx/menu.html

Hope this helps...Steve

Steve;

Thanks very much for your help and link. I will look carefully into it and am one hundred percent agree with you that the knowledge for telescope must come first, before messing up or getting frustrated about the whole thing.

Yes I am aware of that missing that needed tacking with Dobs but the amount of light gathering, considering the price, makes it very attractive. I wonder if Dobs can actually give you a better image than Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescopes by virtue of more light gathering and ultimately that fixed larger faster F stop.
BTW I saw this ad on ebay that I am not sure if it is a joke or something that can really work.

LINK

Not too sure about that Dob platform...and it does say for SHORT exposures. Some of the newer scopes have easier (read shorter) set up to get them aligned. Remember, before you can get good photos you have to have accurate tracking. If you can't leave the scope set up in the same location between photo sessions, you will have to repeat the alignment procedure every time. Maybe you can find a local astronomy club and that way you can get an idea of what is involved in just observing, let alone photography.

Steve

Steve M wrote in post #6089901
Maybe you can find a local astronomy club and that way you can get an idea of what is involved in just observing, let alone photography.

Steve

Good suggestion.
I am more trilled to start than scare.
I think I am going with a XL-200 Meade series that has AutoStar for the convenience of localization and as you say tracking. Most likely the choice would be an older model without GPS (Non-R versions) than comes much cheaper as I have hand held GPS and can enter the longitude, latitude easily there (Unless I am under estimating the set up process). What scares me is the collimation that everyone complianes about especially with the Dobs and hopefully should not be a major issue with Schmidt-Cassegrain design. Not sure if all of them are Coma free or how important this feature is. Also wonder if older version tracking devices and their software is any different (True functional difference and no facelift) with the newer versions.
Once I get my hand on the telescope, will try the plants that are well bright and need no tracking and hopefully should upload some images soon here.
Please let me know if I am in right tract or need to consider anything more seriously at this time.

I've just started working on the astrophotography bug myself with our older Meade 105 Maksutov-Cassegrain. TTBOMK, the Cassegrain designs don't require collimation adjustments with near the frequency that more conventional reflectors require.

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Cassegrain_refl​ector

Ours came from the factory straight, and hasn't required a tweak in years now, in spite of travelling with it quite a bit. I have a feeling that a careful manufacturing process results in a sufficiently straight sealed assembly.

Our concern now is whether an alt/az mount will track with the accuracy of an equatorial mount.

I was searching for "astro" and found this thread. I've been considering astrophotography for some time now (other than short exposures on a run of the mill tripod). I've found this site that I think gives alot of insight and info, equipment, prices, etc... for anyone considering doing this:

http://www.astropix.co​m/HTML/I_ASTROP/TOC_AP​.HTM

It goes from short exposures with average equipment to deep space tracked exposures using equipment that cost tens of thousands of dollars, and most everything in between.

Enjoy,

donaldj;
That wikipedia link is very good in explaining the different options. Seems by all means Ritchey-Chrétien is the best way to go and I think Meade does make them on their LX400 series. But these babies come at a hefty price range and seems they are not produced any more as I don't see them on current line of Meade productions
LINK
And if you check that link, you see my other concern that is DSI cameras(Deep Sky Imager) that seems to be the right way to take sky picture. I always thought a DSLR is more superior due to larger, more refine sensor and controls but seems these tiny CMOS sensors are the way to picture sky. Again price looks to be at sky level as expected and I am just wondering what makes these DSI s different from a normal usb web cam?! Honestly when looking at image of Canon 20D and 20Da I feel I can make that difference easily in PS but who am I to tell that to Astro gurus.
The other problem I see and really expected to be nice is the "Outlet" site of Meade
LINK
Unfortunately, every time I check it, says come back later. Wonder if this site is constructed at all or yet to be build up. With Irvin, the manufacturing site of Meade being in some 1 hour or so driving distance to me, may be it worths to get to facility and find out if they have any trash that I may cash...

renderwerks:
Just checked the first page of your link and LOVED IT. How easy and nice, great suggestions are arranged. I need to get extensively into this one. Looks like a lot in the way that I like to fine, simple and efficient.

Guys thanks for wonderful links.
Keep them coming.

Astrophotography introduces a whole new set of challenges over terrestrial photography. You want good optics, and as someone pointed out already, the Ritchey-Chretien scopes provide some of the best flat-field, coma-free images across the frame. But if you're planning on doing any longer exposure astrophotography, the mount is where you need to focus your efforts, and good ones (for photography) might cost more than the scope itself. The higher-end mounts track with enough accuracy to get away with unguided photos, but for most long exposures, you need to learn about guiding options, and autoguiders can also run you a few bucks. Getting pinpoint focus can also be a challenge. If you're using a CCD camera designed for astrophotography and some of the advanced software programs, these can help you achieve sharp focus by analyzing pixels from the sensor. If you're planning to hook your DSLR to the telescope with a T-adapter and focus manually, it can be tricky to get it right. Liveview at 10x can help with that. Even the logistics of fumbling around in the dark to just get everything setup is a challenge. I'd suggest starting with short exposures on bright objects and gradually introduce longer exposures.

Head over to www.cloudynights.com 's excellent forum to look for more answers on this topic. Probably more than you want to know, lol. Their forum do included a couple beginner sections to start in.

Direct link to the main forum page

Thanks for the link RAWuser.
Looks like a place to spend good amount of time and I won't tell my wife you showed me the place

samsen wrote in post #6128170
Thanks for the link RAWuser.
Looks like a place to spend good amount of time and I won't tell my wife you showed me the place

Lol, no problem. Hide your wallet, too.