7. ### glappkaeft

89
Well they are legitimate images taken with CCDs and hours of exposure but that has almost nothing to do with what the human eye can register looking through an eye piece. Except stars and planets only a few deep sky objects have enough surface brightness to trigger our colour vision. All of them appear blue-green since the human colour vision is most sensitive there.

The M33 galaxy featured on the web page will look more like this in a telescope but even that would require some experience as an observer and dark skies.

### Staff: Mentor

You will see next to no color with any reasonably sized telescope you could purchase. At best everything but the planets will be "faint fuzzies" you can barely make out. In the age of digital imaging, visual observing is fairly underwhelming in my opinion. Though some people believe otherwise.

9. ### tfr000

133
Yes, I agree that you should not expect to see nebulae and galaxies as dramatically as photos. For instance... a great observing accomplishment is observing one or more dark lanes in M31 - not any detail or anything, just the fact that you can see them at all with your eye. For many "deep sky" objects, that is the goal - seeing them at all.
Planets look pretty good, but the detail comes in short bursts in-between minutes of swirly, fuzzy (Earth's) atmosphere.
Take a look at some of the drawings here http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/postlist.php/Cat/0/Board/Sketching to see what can be done visually.

10. ### Chrispen Evan

9

22
Thanks for the info all who helped.

I plan to buy this scope (1300$), a cheap DSLR camera (~500$), and find some sort of program for photo stacking, if anybody has any further recommendations for cameras or stacking programs that would be great. Overall, I think this is what I will likely use, thanks for the help everybody.

12. ### davenn

3,877
hi there

deep sky stacker is one of the most common ones used and best of all its free

yup you have missed out on the Venus transits, the last one was June last year and as said next isnt till 2117
I doubt any of us reading this today will be around for that one

BUT

there are several Mercury transits to look forward to

Transits of Mercury

Transit Contact Times (UT)
------------------------------------- Minimum Sun Sun Transit
Date I II Greatest III IV Sep. RA Dec GST Series
h:m h:m h:m h:m h:m " h ° h

2016 May 09 11:12 11:15 14:57 18:39 18:42 318.5 3.130 17.58 15.190 7
2019 Nov 11 12:35 12:37 15:20 18:02 18:04 75.9 15.098 -17.45 3.366 6
2032 Nov 13 06:41 06:43 08:54 11:05 11:07 572.1 15.274 -18.14 3.535 4

cheers
Dave

Dave

Last edited: Feb 1, 2014
13. ### glappkaeft

89
Note that the Dobson is a type of Altimuth-Azimuth mounted telescope that is inherently limited when it comes to astrophotography due to field rotation. If you are thinking about astrophotography I strongly advise you to first buy and read Covingtons "DSLR astrophotography" or Steve Richards "Making every photon count". It will save you both time and money.

### Staff: Mentor

That telescope/mount is not suitable for deep sky astrophotography. Though it tracks objects through the sky, it does not rotate with the celestial sphere. For that you need an equatorial mount. Such as this one:
http://www.telescope.com/mobileProd...th-GoTo-Controller/pc/1/c/11/sc/343/24729.uts

[Edit: oops, beaten to it!]

Last edited: Feb 13, 2014
15. ### Chronos

10,117
I would avoid going bigger than 8" to start with. That is pretty much the high water mark for mounts and handling. Bigger scopes require beefy mounts and handle with the grace of a greased pig. For practical advice on scopes and accessories I suggest cloudy nights. For astrophotography, APT is excellent and inexpensive. There's even a free demo version - http://ideiki.com/astro/Default.aspx.

16. ### whirlpoolm51

5
If you main interest is in visual observing I suggest something around 10 to 12". Orion makes very good dobsonians with DSC ( digital setting circles) that allow you to locate thousands of objects at the push of a button. You just type in or look up an object in the handset and then push the scope in alt and az until the coordinates reach zero. The orion 12" xti was the first big scope I ever owned and it was amazing!!!

Now if you going to be getting into astrophotography I suggest meade or celestrons SCT scopes on their high quality EQ mounts. The celestron 8" SCT on their CGX mount is a good scope for photography and visual.

Also you do not need a ccd camera to start with because you can take amazing pics with just a good dslr camera like canons eos rebel series

17. ### Chronos

10,117
Affirmed, a CCD is a waste of money until you have mastered DSLR astrophotography. The only advantage of a CCD is lower thermal noise and somewhat better pixel density - but, comes at a hefty price. It's about as practical as buying your kid a Ferrari for their sixteenth birthday. I have a Meade 8" SCT, it is fun and portable - even somewhat useful for AP. I also have a Meade 10" f/4 SNT. It is heavy, awkward, seriously under mounted, and barely adequate for visual use. Both were approximately the same price. A telescope you dread to use is called a mistake.

Last edited: Feb 6, 2014

### Staff: Mentor

I'm not sure I agree with this.

19. ### glappkaeft

89
And this just depends on which CCD camera you are looking at. You can easily find CCD sensors with pixel sizes from 3 to 24 microns. Pixel density is not a good metric for astrophoto since pixel size should be matched to to the focal length of the scope and the pixel scale you desire.

### Staff: Mentor

Me neither. The most basic problem here is that it is an incorrect/false dichotomy. A DSLR is a type of camera while a CCD is a type of chip. Dedicated astrophotography cameras are usually CCD but not always and DSLRs are more usually CMOS (the other type of chip), but not always. Much of the early breakout work in amateur astophotography was done using using a certain Philips webcam with a CCD chip. And many astrocams and DSLRs even use exactly the same chips. The main difference is the electronics and accessories you get with them (in particular, built-in cooling capability on an astrocam is a big deal).

Here's a cnet discussion of the issue of CMOS vs CCD for DSLRs:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-7603_7-6241014-3.html

Obviously, the only real con for CCDs is the price: power consumption is not an issue for a camera that is always plugged-in. But image quality is much better and the difference is much larger for long exposure astrophotography.

Bottom line: if you already have a DSLR, start with it. If you don't, I'd start with a low-end (even used) solution such as a webcam (planetary photos only) or dedicated astrocam.