The Official Shoot the Moon Thread

Inspeqtor wrote in post #18638650
Would the Nexstar 130 SLT hold a DSLR camera to be able to take images in space?

Also the $378 price (I see it is a sale price) is enticing, but then clicking on "What's In The Box" scrolling down I see "Accessories I need" adds up even more $$$

The "Fully computerized Altazimuth mount" is this the "tripod"?

Thank you also for your input!

If you are really interested in getting into high resolution astrophotography of lunar/solar/planets, pump the breaks, and really do research. It's not the same as terrestrial imaging at all. That said, you don't have to spend $3k~5k. There are budget approaches. But you have to adjust your expectations accordingly. You cannot expect top shelf results from something cheap and small. Aperture costs money. Aperture is heavy. And aperture is where you get the resolution from for this. So at the end of the day, you cannot skimp in some areas.

A tracking mount is pretty much necessary. You can get away with all kinds of inexpensive instruments to image with, and cheap cameras, but you cannot get away without getting a capable mount that will carry the load and track accurately enough to capture video.

An EQ mount is an equatorial mount, it aligns with Earth's axis and tracks by rotating in right ascension. It's just another way to do things. They're typically heavier duty and robust and heavy. An AltAz mount doesn't align to the pole, it's a traditional altitude and azimuth that you're used to with a free rotating ballhead on a tripod for example, but, mechanized. It aligns with a several star alignment to figure out where it is in relation to everything (plate solving); they're typically less heavy, less robust, lighter. They're just different approaches to the same thing.

There are lots of inexpensive mounts that you can put on a sturdy tripod and image with smaller instruments (like small refractors and small maks). The Nexstar systems are one of the better "cheap" approaches to a mount that is capable of imaging.

dSLR imaging and lunar/solar/planetary, it works, but I would avoid it if possible. We image via video at high speeds. dSLR do not do high speed video. Slow FPS will rob you of a lot of potential lucky images through the seeing.

Research point: Lucky Imaging. This is how we do it, it will help a ton to understand why we use video.

The NexStar SE mount ($399) is pretty good actually. It's an AltAz mount that tracks and it can handle a C6 and a camera no problem, it actually can handle a C8 (8 inch). Great for lunar/solar/planets:
LINK. You would need to add a telescope (like a C6, or a smaller instrument if cost is a problem, such as a small 70~90mm refractor or 90~127mm Mak).

The lesser NexStar SE with a 102mm Mak is also a great start ($399): LINK. That's the mount & scope. 4 inch aperture is great too.

The NexStar SLT mount is a lesser mount, but it will still work with some smaller 3~5" aperture instruments and hold a small camera fairly well, for lunar/planetary/solar.
90mm aperture Mak: LINK
127mm aperture Mak: LINK

These will work for this purpose. They won't do long still exposure very well due to periodic error, the bearings on the tracking and overall tracking precision. But, these mounts are totally fine for video imaging of the moon, sun and planets via lucky imaging. So keep that in mind.

If you really wanted a serious "do all" astrophotography mount, it starts around $1k~1600 minimum. But the above Nexstar systems can do quite a lot for less.

Inspeqtor wrote in post #18638722
Sounds like you are saying I may need to buy a new lighter weight camera body. What astro camera do you have? (link please!) I just found an astro camera at Adorama, but the price doubles the cost of getting the scope, plus the resolution is not that good at 1280 X 960

1280x960 is not low resolution. It's totally fine. This is another point that differs from terrestrial photography. All that matters here is sampling. We match up pixel size to focal-ratio for sampling purposes so that you're recording detail at the pixel level as best as can be done. Over and under sampling is based on basically spreading or compacting too much data over several pixels, or losing data by trying to put too much on less pixels. So for imaging like this, ignore the pixel count. Pay more attention to pixel size. This tells you what focal-ratio to image at. Take your pixel size, multiple it by 5, and that's your approximate focal-ratio (f-stop) you would ideally image at.

Some common inexpensive but good imaging cameras (USB CMOS):

ASI120MM-S ($199) (pixel size is 3.75um, so ideally you want to image around F18 +/- a little for ideal sampling). This is a mono camera, so it's more sensitive. But it's only B&W, no color.

ASI224MC ($250) (pixel size is also 3.75um, so again, F18 is ideal +/- for sampling). This is a color camera, and is the most popular for planets but it can also do great for lunar/solar too.

To get to F18 for sampling, you would basically use a barlow of some kind, or other equivalent. Take the focal-ratio of your scope, and see what it would take to get to the appropriate focal-ratio that would match the pixel size of your camera, and get a barlow that is appropriate to get you to that focal-ratio. That's how you select things. It's not arbitrary. Those Maks are F12~F13, so they're close enough to F18 for example that you'd be slightly undersampling, but you wouldn't need a barlow at all (cheaper!).

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #18638801
If you are really interested in getting into high resolution astrophotography of lunar/solar/planets, pump the breaks, and really do research. It's not the same as terrestrial imaging at all. That said, you don't have to spend $3k~5k. There are budget approaches. But you have to adjust your expectations accordingly. You cannot expect top shelf results from something cheap and small. Aperture costs money. Aperture is heavy. And aperture is where you get the resolution from for this. So at the end of the day, you cannot skimp in some areas.

A tracking mount is pretty much necessary. You can get away with all kinds of inexpensive instruments to image with, and cheap cameras, but you cannot get away without getting a capable mount that will carry the load and track accurately enough to capture video.

An EQ mount is an equatorial mount, it aligns with Earth's axis and tracks by rotating in right ascension. It's just another way to do things. They're typically heavier duty and robust and heavy. An AltAz mount doesn't align to the pole, it's a traditional altitude and azimuth that you're used to with a free rotating ballhead on a tripod for example, but, mechanized. It aligns with a several star alignment to figure out where it is in relation to everything (plate solving); they're typically less heavy, less robust, lighter. They're just different approaches to the same thing.

There are lots of inexpensive mounts that you can put on a sturdy tripod and image with smaller instruments (like small refractors and small maks). The Nexstar systems are one of the better "cheap" approaches to a mount that is capable of imaging.

dSLR imaging and lunar/solar/planetary, it works, but I would avoid it if possible. We image via video at high speeds. dSLR do not do high speed video. Slow FPS will rob you of a lot of potential lucky images through the seeing.

Research point: Lucky Imaging. This is how we do it, it will help a ton to understand why we use video.

The NexStar SE mount ($399) is pretty good actually. It's an AltAz mount that tracks and it can handle a C6 and a camera no problem, it actually can handle a C8 (8 inch). Great for lunar/solar/planets:
LINK. You would need to add a telescope (like a C6, or a smaller instrument if cost is a problem, such as a small 70~90mm refractor or 90~127mm Mak).

The lesser NexStar SE with a 102mm Mak is also a great start ($399): LINK. That's the mount & scope. 4 inch aperture is great too.

The NexStar SLT mount is a lesser mount, but it will still work with some smaller 3~5" aperture instruments and hold a small camera fairly well, for lunar/planetary/solar.
90mm aperture Mak: LINK
127mm aperture Mak: LINK

These will work for this purpose. They won't do long still exposure very well due to periodic error, the bearings on the tracking and overall tracking precision. But, these mounts are totally fine for video imaging of the moon, sun and planets via lucky imaging. So keep that in mind.

If you really wanted a serious "do all" astrophotography mount, it starts around $1k~1600 minimum. But the above Nexstar systems can do quite a lot for less.

1280x960 is not low resolution. It's totally fine. This is another point that differs from terrestrial photography. All that matters here is sampling. We match up pixel size to focal-ratio for sampling purposes so that you're recording detail at the pixel level as best as can be done. Over and under sampling is based on basically spreading or compacting too much data over several pixels, or losing data by trying to put too much on less pixels. So for imaging like this, ignore the pixel count. Pay more attention to pixel size. This tells you what focal-ratio to image at. Take your pixel size, multiple it by 5, and that's your approximate focal-ratio (f-stop) you would ideally image at.

Some common inexpensive but good imaging cameras (USB CMOS):

ASI120MM-S ($199) (pixel size is 3.75um, so ideally you want to image around F18 +/- a little for ideal sampling). This is a mono camera, so it's more sensitive. But it's only B&W, no color.

ASI224MC ($250) (pixel size is also 3.75um, so again, F18 is ideal +/- for sampling). This is a color camera, and is the most popular for planets but it can also do great for lunar/solar too.

To get to F18 for sampling, you would basically use a barlow of some kind, or other equivalent. Take the focal-ratio of your scope, and see what it would take to get to the appropriate focal-ratio that would match the pixel size of your camera, and get a barlow that is appropriate to get you to that focal-ratio. That's how you select things. It's not arbitrary. Those Maks are F12~F13, so they're close enough to F18 for example that you'd be slightly undersampling, but you wouldn't need a barlow at all (cheaper!).

Very best,

Thank you very much! So much to think about......

P.S. I copy/saved this into Microsoft Word

Inspeqtor wrote in post #18638720
Would you please give me a link to the surveyor tripod you use and the tracking mount? Maybe I could adapt the tracking mount to my iKan tripod....

Neither of my tripods weighs a ton, Manfrotto at 7lbs, iKan at 10lbs.

The tripod is this one. https://www.amazon.com …T=_SY300_QL70_&​dpSrc=srch

The tracking mount is one of the Celestron single arm mounts that I bought used.

I made an adapter out of wood to mount the tracking mount onto the tripod.

ZWO and QHY have small cameras for astro cooled and non cooled, to do all kind of astrohphtogoraphy, and they are in mono and color, i have one mono cooled for DSO only [can be used for planetary but it is slow fps] and one for planetary color non cooled but fast fps.

The one i use for the moon is from ZWO, the model is ASI385MC, MC stands for color, if MM then mono, with mono you need to buy a filter wheel and filters to make colors, many do that, i will do that later for planetary with another camera i will buy, i do have filters but they are dedicated for DSO and already locked with DSO mono camera, so i will buy another filters only LRGB for planets, you can also get that whole package of mono with filters and filter wheel at good prices as offer, but it is all up to your budget, i bought my ZWO camera for about $300 or $350, ZWO has discount code every year i think on December and Christmas time, i will wait and buy another camera that time.

Canonuser123 wrote in post #18638869
The tripod is this one. https://www.amazon.com …T=_SY300_QL70_&​dpSrc=srch

The tracking mount is one of the Celestron single arm mounts that I bought used.

I made an adapter out of wood to mount the tracking mount onto the tripod.

Tareq wrote in post #18638941
ZWO and QHY have small cameras for astro cooled and non cooled, to do all kind of astrohphtogoraphy, and they are in mono and color, i have one mono cooled for DSO only [can be used for planetary but it is slow fps] and one for planetary color non cooled but fast fps.

The one i use for the moon is from ZWO, the model is ASI385MC, MC stands for color, if MM then mono, with mono you need to buy a filter wheel and filters to make colors, many do that, i will do that later for planetary with another camera i will buy, i do have filters but they are dedicated for DSO and already locked with DSO mono camera, so i will buy another filters only LRGB for planets, you can also get that whole package of mono with filters and filter wheel at good prices as offer, but it is all up to your budget, i bought my ZWO camera for about $300 or $350, ZWO has discount code every year i think on December and Christmas time, i will wait and buy another camera that time.

I thank you both!

That is really a nice shot. So clear and I love the clouds around the moon. Good Job!

MalVeauX wrote in post #18638801
An EQ mount is an equatorial mount, it aligns with Earth's axis and tracks by rotating in right ascension. It's just another way to do things. They're typically heavier duty and robust and heavy. An AltAz mount doesn't align to the pole, it's a traditional altitude and azimuth that you're used to with a free rotating ballhead on a tripod for example, but, mechanized. It aligns with a several star alignment to figure out where it is in relation to everything (plate solving); they're typically less heavy, less robust, lighter. They're just different approaches to the same thing.

There are lots of inexpensive mounts that you can put on a sturdy tripod and image with smaller instruments (like small refractors and small maks). The Nexstar systems are one of the better "cheap" approaches to a mount that is capable of imaging.

dSLR imaging and lunar/solar/planetary, it works, but I would avoid it if possible. We image via video at high speeds. dSLR do not do high speed video. Slow FPS will rob you of a lot of potential lucky images through the seeing.

MalVeauX and Tareq obviously know a TON, a lot more than I do... I am always in awe of their insight, help, and willingness to help and explain things.

My son (10) just did a project on some of this stuff, starting to explain the differences in telescope types and optics. Just wanted to clear up a couple of things that we learned from our research.

There are mechanized and non-mechanized versions of both types of mounts. The mechanized versions simply move the scope at a rate automatically. IF the alignment of the scope and the rate the mechanism that updates the position is matched to the rate that the object you are looking at moves across the sky, then you do not have to manually move anything once you find it.

Alignment is KEY for any mount, mechanized or not. Sometimes the target you are going for can alleviate poor alignment. For example, the moon or the sun (with a filter!!!!!) is the big bright object in the sky...... You can eyeball getting close just through manual movements. Finding dim small objects in the sky? Significantly more difficult if the alignment is bad.

With the mounts, the home position when properly aligned is different.
Alt-AZ is easy to think about because we often use it (without knowing it). You understand what level is and where north is. That is the home position for Alt-Az mounts (At least for the northern hemisphere). Altitude and Azimuth measurements are based from this position. In azimuth, north is 0 degrees, east is 90, south is 180, west is 270. In altitude, 0 is level to the earth, 90 is straight up.

With equatorial mounts, the home position is different. It's home position is aligned with the axis of the earth, as MalVeauX pointed out. Still deals with 2 angular measurements from the home position, they are just twisting about the earths axis (right ascension) and angular distance from the axis of rotation (declination).

From what I understand, if you are dealing with a computerized mount (either type), they will use several stars in the alignment process. In my experience, this isn't really "aligning" the scope per-say, but is really figuring out the correction necessary to the initial alignment. For example, you set up the mount/scope in a particular way, then you tell the scope it is in the home position. Then it goes to star #1 and asks "is star XYZ centered?"... if not, then you manually center the star. Then you repeat for a number of stars. What this does is it figures out how "off" the home position was. If home was DEAD perfect, then there is zero correction necessary to the initial alignment... and when you tell the scope to go to something, it does. The more stars that are used, the better the correction factor will be (there are multiple sources of error). The reason I bring this up is because the initial home position step is very important. It can't be randomly pointed and the computer magically fixes it. There is a limit to the magnitude of the correction factor... at least for my mount... which I learned the hard way.

In the sense of this thread (shoot the moon), planetary imaging, solar imaging, or viewing anything (including deep space objects)... the comment about the mount types "They're just different approaches to the same thing" is true. If you get into imaging deep space objects for long periods of time, then the mount types are very different and produce different results. When the scope is polar aligned, the position of the stars in the field of view remains constant as the earth and scope rotates to track the desired object. So, if you were to leave the shutter open for an hour, with accurate alignment+correction and good tracking, you would end up with pin-point stars in the entire field of view. When the scope is Alt-Az aligned, this is not true. You can accurately track the center point (hopefully the target) for very long periods of time in Alt-Az, but the other stars in the field of view will rotate about the tracked point leaving star trails if the exposure is long enough. Planetary and close, bright objects will not suffer from this alt-az FOV rotation because the time period is so short. The rotation is numerically there (it has to be), but it is so small during the time of exposure that the sensor simply can't capture it so the entire FOV comes out "sharp" (as sharp as can be given focus and seeing).

Hope that helped a little... I was also trying to get out of work for a bit.

One day old Moon over Orange Co this evening.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/278o​d83

stevieray wrote in post #18645558
One day old Moon over Orange Co this evening.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/278o​d83 IMG_7007 by Steve Christle, on Flickr

Aaaawe the moon is just a baby!!

Another closeup shot of the moon, Which version do you prefer?

Tareq wrote in post #18645601
Another closeup shot of the moon, Which version do you prefer?

I think I like the 2nd picture better. For some reason the contrast is better and it looks cleaner to me.

Inspeqtor wrote in post #18645623
I think I like the 2nd picture better. For some reason the contrast is better and it looks cleaner to me.

Ok, good!

i like either. They are both incredibly fantastic!!!

2005GLI wrote in post #18646101
i like either. They are both incredibly fantastic!!!

Thank you!

Heard the Disneyland fireworks, and got a shot of the 2 day old Moon setting with some of the show.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/25uA​6pW