Life|Time said:
Thanks for the reply! I wouldn't mind spending in around the $600-$1200 region, as it is something I've wanted to do for a long time and I know I'll like it!
Ok, On that range, you have the Meade ETX or the low end of the LXD75 series.
http://meade.telescopes.com/site_search/index.php?&keywords=&display=&cur=5&cat=17&sort=pd&brand=51&lp=&hp=
...or the Celestron C---GT series
http://celestron.telescopes.com/site_search/index.php?&keywords=&display=&cur=4&cat=17&sort=pd&brand=22&lp=&hp=
...or the Orion Skyview Pro series (probably the best, bang-for-buck)
http://www.telescope.com/shopping/p...RODUCT&iMainCat=4&iSubCat=8&iProductID=149144
Had I done it differently, I probably would
not have gotten my ETX, I would have either spent a little more for an LXD series or gotten an Orion for about the same price. Part of the problem there was that I already knew I wanted to go the next level up, but didn't quite have the funds yet, so I wanted something to hold me over until I could get something better (which I am about ready to do). I actually bought a $400 Meade reflector that was junk, decided I was willing to spend $800, then didn't spend enough effort on the decision.
Some key issues:
Focal Ratio (ratio between focal length and aperature):
This is probably the biggest issue. It is what determines whether or not you can do deep-sky imaging with much success. Lower is better and if you want to do deep-sky, having a high focal ratio is an absolute killer. At f14, my ETX requires
eight times the exposure of the Orion Skyview Pro (f4.9 - you ratio the squares) to get the same brightness. Now mine can work with a focal reducer, which brings it down to about f7, but that still means double the exposures. Similarly...
Mount:
Very close second. My mount has a tracking bug that makes exposures over 30 seconds impossible (and even at 30 seconds, I can only keep about half). Some people have gotten better, but the ETX is hit or miss. The Skyview Pro is better, though even then people say getting 2 minutes unguided is difficult with any scope. Still, that means you can get 8x brighter images with the Skyview than I can with my ETX, without having to jump up in difficulty to autoguiding. There are a lot of deep-sky objects in range of a scope like the Skyview, not a lot in range of mine.
Aperature/Focal Length:
Since most scopes in the same product line/family have the same focal ratio, bigger scopes essentially just yield the same brightness but a bigger image. For planetary, though, aperature=resolution.
Scope Type:
Real quick, reflectors or CATs (half refractor, half reflector) are generally the most versatile and therefore best bang-for-buck. I encourage you to learn about the different types, though.
What I don't really understand is what sort of camera you use with a telescope?
I'd probably prefer a digital camera to use...Just need pointing in the right direction of what to buy and how to use! Complete beginner here
There are three basic options:
Webcams:
For planetary imaging, a decent webcam (Quickcam 3000 or 4000, or anything with a CCD, not a CMOS imaging chip) will match or exceed the results of a more expensive camera. Regardless of if you are going to move up to deep-sky imaging, I highly recommend starting out with a webcam. People make adapters, but all you really need to do is remove the lens and hot-glue a 35mm film canister to it. Then it goes in place of your eyepiece.
By shooting videos and stacking hundreds of images with software like
http://registax.astronomy.net/", you get about double the resolution from the final pic than in any individual image.
Low-end deep-sky imagers:
Meade makes a camera called the Deep-Sky Imager ($300) and Orion makes the Starshoot ($400).
http://meade.telescopes.com/site_search/index.php?keywords=DSI&display=grid&cat=26&brand=51&lp=&hp=
http://www.telescope.com/shopping/p...ODUCT&iMainCat=6&iSubCat=29&iProductID=130820
They come with software that takes the pictures and they have image processing suites with them. They are a good start, but they are low resolution and low sensitivity. One big drawback of the color DSI - it is actually a monochrome camera with a grid of filters on it. That means its output resolution is really only a quarter of what the CCD is (and therefore advertised as), and it is noticeable in some of my photos. I don't think the Starshoot has that issue.
Midrange CCD Imagers:
The next step up from there is the monochrome DSI II ($700), or competing products in the up to $1500 range. The obvious drawback is the need to shoot 3 (or more) sets of images to then combine the colors via software. Benefit: sensitivity and resolution.
DSLR Cameras
On a similar pricerange is a regular digital SLR camera. Their benefit is bigger chips (for wider fields of view) and higher resolution. Drawbacks are that they are unsuitable for planetary imaging and their sensitivity is lower than the dedicated astrocams at similar prices.
You can also piggyback (means exactly what it sounds like) a dslr with its lens to take really wide-field pictures. I coupled an slr lens with my DSI for a few of mine.
Have a look at my website (shameless plug). You'll notice nice planetary pictures, but not a lot of deep sky. The Orion Skyview should be capable of slightly better planetary and
much better deep-sky.
I need to start copying some of this stuff to my blog on my website...
