What's the Best Telescope for Astrophotography Under $1,500?

[kolleamm]

I purchased a 6" mirror reflector telescope, but no matter how much I tried to get good photos all came out blurry, I'm guessing the mirror was low quality, also the tracking system made absolutely no sense and could not even find the Moon. Not just that but it wasn't stable either.

So basically I'd like any recommendations for a really good quality telescope with tracking that can at least take great pictures of the planets.

I'm willing to spend up to $1,500.

Thanks in advance!

 

[davenn]

I purchased a 6" mirror reflector telescope, but no matter how much I tried to get good photos all came out blurry, I'm

what make and model of scope ?
what sort of camera were you trying to use ?
how were you mounting the camera to the scope ?

I'm guessing the mirror was low quality, also the tracking system made absolutely no sense and could not even find the Moon.

sounds more like user error than a faulty/poor scope

So basically I'd like any recommendations for a really good quality telescope with tracking that can at least take great pictures of the planets.

I'm willing to spend up to $1,500.

Thanks in advance!

the scope mount is almost more important than the scope ... great optics on a crappy mount won't solve any problems

so again what make and model have you got
a photo ? ... a link to it's sales
what country are you in ?
is that US$1500 or some other currency ?Dave

 

[russ_watters]

sounds more like user error than a faulty/poor scope

...and don't let that sound like an insult to you; astrophotography is a set of skills with difficult learning curves.

Adding to the potential issues though might be an expectations gap.

 

[davenn]

...and don't let that sound like an insult to yo; astrophotography is a set of skills with difficult learning curves.

maybe I could have worded that better ... definitely not intended as an insult
Astrophotography is not a trivial activity Dave

 

[kolleamm]

This is an image I took with the reflector. With or without the camera it looked the same. Almost like a double image.

 

[kolleamm]

yes US currency, and I'm in the US

 

[russ_watters]

Here is a link to the telescope on ebay

GPS Reflector Telescope w iOptron SmartStar Mount

http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-6inch-1400x150-mm-GPS-Reflector-Telescope-w-iOptron-SmartStar-Mount-/141237956239?hash=item20e2702e8f:g:BR4AAOSwEetWAt8c

That is a decent starter scope and your first image isn't bad. A couple of tips right away;
1. Ensure the mount mode (alt/AZ or eq) is correct and you set it up properly. Getting the mount set up isn't always easy and it is easy to make mistakes.
2. It looks like the moon might have been low in the sky. That hurts image quality a lot.
3. Focus on a star with your eyes. If it isn't a pinpoint or maybe with concentric rings, you may need to collimate the scope. Common for a new scope.

What kind of camera did you use and how did you attach it?

 

[kolleamm]

That is a decent starter scope and your first image isn't bad. A couple of tips right away;
1. Ensure the mount mode (alt/AZ or eq) is correct and you set it up properly. Getting the mount set up isn't always easy and it is easy to make mistakes.
2. It looks like the moon might have been low in the sky. That hurts image quality a lot.
3. Focus 9n a star with your eyes. If it isn't a pinpoint or maybe with concentric rings, you may need to collie ate the scope. Common for a new scope.

What kind of camera did you use and how did you attach it?

I used the camera that came with the scope, I believe it was a few megapixels.
Also here is an image I took with my 3in refractor, which came out way better for some reason with the same camera attached.

 

[russ_watters]

maybe I could have worded that better ... definitely not intended as an insult
Astrophotography is not a trivial activity

Dave

I didn't think you did, but some people take it that way.

 

[davenn]

I used the camera that came with the scope, I believe it was a few megapixels.
Also here is an image I took with my 3in refractor, which came out way better for some reason with the same camera attached.

OK, not a bad effort for an early attempt

I used the camera that came with the scope, I believe it was a few megapixels.

that doesn't really tell us much ...
show a photo of it
how does it connect to the scope ?

 

[russ_watters]

I used the camera that came with the scope, I believe it was a few megapixels.

I don't see it described in your link; what is the make and model? And megapixels are meaningless.

 

[kolleamm]

what make and model of scope ?
I believe it's twin star, here is an exact link

http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-6-Computerized-EQ-GPS-Reflector-Telescope-w-Camera/131670466083?_trksid=p2047675.c100009.m1982&_trkparms=aid%3D888007%26algo%3DDISC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D40130%26meid%3D726b7ce4dabd4e44815de187b58256a5%26pid%3D100009%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D2%26sd%3D141237956239

what sort of camera were you trying to use ?

The 3MP camera that came with the scope, it attaches to the eyepiece and connects to the computer via USB. Not sure what brand though.how were you mounting the camera to the scope ?

I was mounting it to the eye piece by putting it on and the tightening that little screw on the side.

 

[russ_watters]

The 3MP camera that came with the scope, it attaches to the eyepiece and connects to the computer via USB. Not sure what brand though.

We'll need to know the make and model when you can look at it - should be written on the camera.

I was mounting it to the eye piece by putting it on and the tightening that little screw on the side.

Sorry, but that doesn't make much sense. Do you mean instead of the eyepiece, on the eyepiece mount?

 

[newjerseyrunner]

Can we forget about the camera, does it look like that with an eyepiece in? If not, it's not the mirror.

Where is the moon when you are taking the picture? I get a similar distortion effect when I take pictures of the sky in the direction of NYC (I live < 10 miles away.) Pollution, light pollution, and heat from the buildings all make skygazing harder. That picture of the moon looks a lot like some that I've taken. It's not my scope, it's my location. When I take my scope to my mom's in the country, it's way better.

Also, how long is the exposure? It's actually better to take many short exposures and stack them. The atmosphere distorts images more than most people realize. Looking at the moon through a telescope makes it look like it's underwater and the lower on the sky it is, the worse it gets.

How good is the tracking on your mount? Is it jittery or smooth? If the gears have a tooth that's catching on something, the tracking will be jittery the image will bounce around.

Can you reduce the amount of light coming in? The moon is actually pretty bright, you do not need or want 6 inches. My scope has a hard cover like this:

When I shoot the moon, I actually leave the cover on and only remove the smaller part of it.

 

[kolleamm]

Can we forget about the camera, does it look like that with an eyepiece in? If not, it's not the mirror.

Where is the moon when you are taking the picture? I get a similar distortion effect when I take pictures of the sky in the direction of NYC (I live < 10 miles away.) Pollution, light pollution, and heat from the buildings all make skygazing harder. That picture of the moon looks a lot like some that I've taken. It's not my scope, it's my location. When I take my scope to my mom's in the country, it's way better.

Also, how long is the exposure? It's actually better to take many short exposures and stack them. The atmosphere distorts images more than most people realize. Looking at the moon through a telescope makes it look like it's underwater and the lower on the sky it is, the worse it gets.

How good is the tracking on your mount? Is it jittery or smooth? If the gears have a tooth that's catching on something, the tracking will be jittery the image will bounce around.

I highly doubt its the camera since it looks exactly the same through the eyepiece, so not sure why the camera type would be relevant. If you look at ordinary objects with the telescope such as grass it still looks the same, almost like a double image.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

Can you post a picture of it aimed at something terrestrial? Preferably something with regular lines that we could key in on: a stop sign?

 

[kolleamm]

Sure will post an image

 

[PAllen]

To my naive eye, both those moon images look out of focus, at least if that is also how they look through the eyepiece. I only have 3.5 inch reflector, and never attempt photos, but the moon always looks spectacular and sharp, way better than either of those images. It's the one object always easy; everything else is hit or miss for me since I only go out once year or so (well, Saturn is always nice, but stripes on Jupiter - hardly ever).

 

[sophiecentaur]

May I add my two cents worth, as a real beginner in this? Earlier posts are suggesting that motion blur could be a problem. The Moon is a large object in 'full sunlight' so the standard exposure at moderate ISO numbers is the familiar 125th at f8. I haven't ever seen motion blur on any of the pictures I have taken of the Moon on an 8" Dobs with either of my DSLRs - unlike the star trails with 10s exposures, taken directly with camera and telephoto lens. I don't know what ISO an astro camera uses (?).
Focus appears not good on those images. Buy a bahtimov mask and get razor sharp focus (tape the focus wheel, once you have focussed a nearby star, this way)
Taking photos in the dark, with unfamiliar equipment etc etc, is a nightmare. There is so much to think about and when I look at 99% of my astro images, they suck.

how were you mounting the camera to the scope ?

I was mounting it to the eye piece by putting it on and the tightening that little screw on the side.

This isn't clear. Normally, a specialised camera is used in 'Prime Focus', without using an eyepiece at all (except when a smart phone is clipped onto the eyepiece, in place of your actual eye). If you are taking images through an eyepiece then it's possible that the camera fixing is wonky. Using 'live view', is that the best focus you can get? As commented above, you should expect 'razor sharp' (that is, until you look at them in the cold light of dawn. lol)
Get a book on astrophotography is some of this thread is gobbledegook. It will be money well spent, whatever level you are at.
Don't give up. There is light at the end of the tunnel. (Moonlight.)

 

[sas3]

If the image does not look clear visualy it is either a dirty lens or mirror or the mirror needs adjustment.
If it looks clear try taking a picture with a cell phone and see how that looks. Here are some pictures I took by just holding my tablet up to the eyepiece, no tracking.

I used a 13.1 inch dobsonian stopped down to 5 inches

 

[sophiecentaur]

What does a bright star look like?

 

[sophiecentaur]

If the focus is always bad then perhaps the range of focused positions is wrong. Is there an extension tube in the focuser that can be used to alter the mean position of the focus adjustment? My Newtonian focuser has a very small range of movement with the knob. I have to pull out a second tube to focus at infinity even. Which end of adjustment gives you best focus?

 

[Walt Bobrowski]

I believe the image quality problem will be corrected by performing a collimation, aligning the primary mirror with the secondary mirror. I highly recommend the use of a Laser Collimator. I happen to have the Orion model. A brief video on the relatively easy process can be found here:



The only missing step is knowing, and marking, the center of your mirror (shown by the black circle in the video). You may need to remove the mirror to perform this. Do a web search on marking the center of the primary mirror. Fairly easy. Reinstall the primary and perform the collimation as directed. That should improve the image quality dramatically. Have fun!

 

[sophiecentaur]

I believe the image quality problem will be corrected by performing a collimation, aligning the primary mirror with the secondary mirror. I highly recommend the use of a Laser Collimator. I happen to have the Orion model. A brief video on the relatively easy process can be found here:



The only missing step is knowing, and marking, the center of your mirror (shown by the black circle in the video). You may need to remove the mirror to perform this. Do a web search on marking the center of the primary mirror. Fairly easy. Reinstall the primary and perform the collimation as directed. That should improve the image quality dramatically. Have fun!

The problem here is that we are trying to help a real beginner - by his own assessment. Expecting him to strip down and re-colimate a piece of precision alien kit is asking an awful lot. Whilst it may be elementary to a good DIYer and an experienced Astronomer, those things may give him a dose of the wobblies rather than helping him to solve the problem. Only when there is a positive indication of bad collation should he be going that far.
Actually, we still need to establish a proper dialogue with the OP so that we can nail down what's actually wrong. He doesn't seem to realize how important the details of the setup are. I suggested checking the position of best focus and he has not responded. If best focus is at one end of the adjustment then the extension tube is wrong. Does it focus at all on terrestrial objects like the houses in the street (or even the bottom of the garden) or are they even more blurred? These tests are easy without any dismantling and they are things that 'you and I' would probably do automatically. Not so obvious for a beginner.
Assuming the primary mirror is half decently clean (easy to see by looking down the end, what is the secondary mirror like? (It can be seen by removing the eyepiece and looking in the hole. The secondary should occupy the whole of the aperture when looking straight into it and it should 'look' circular from that angle. It looks like it's a new scope so the supplier would be responsible if it really is faulty, rather than not yet focused.

 

[Walt Bobrowski]

Agreed. Dialogue is good. But even as a beginner, there are plenty of resources available on the web. Another good source would be a local astronomy club. I would disagree that the supplier is responsible as mirror misalignment can easily occur during shipping/transport. I still recommend the purchase of a laser collimator as it will eliminate any light path errors. Always hard to troubleshoot hardware issue online.
Best regards!

 

[sophiecentaur]

Yes. Nothing like a face to face discussion with a local enthusiast. As a matter of fact, I am going to do just that tomorrow evening at a pub with a number of well informed local guys.
You are correct about a laser collimator - as long as he doesn't spend too much on it and can learn how to line it up (trivial adjustment) first (Search for youtube movies).