Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here

Enter ePHOTOzine's Prize Draw, with fab gifts for everyone! Click Here


10 Dec 2012 12:53PM
Richsabre - Isn't Skywatcher too heavy? I had the Bresser-Messier (8"), it was a great scope, but very heavy (they use a very thick material). I think the Skywatcher's the same... That is why a heavier mount is needed. Of course there is very good price/quality ratio, but I tried to build something 'good' on my Newton, and... I sold it Wink It was too expensive.

Well, Paul, the most important question is: what you want to photograph. If you choose your subject, then you can look for equipment. It's very hard to find something for everything - stuff like this doesn't exist Wink

My newest idea about astrophoto is... just the camera with a good telephoto lens Smile Maybe something like Rubinar 500mm. Maybe shorter. But (if I do it) I want to invest in a good mount with good guide system.

I don't look at really deep space objects, to be honest, I don't live in Arizona Wink

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Sooty_1 5 1.4k 218 United Kingdom
10 Dec 2012 1:36PM
I had a 6" skywatcher and it wobbled a lot. Great for seeing as long as you didn't touch, but the mount wasn't beefy enough and the telescope was quite long, so damping oscillations was problematical. I now have a Meade ETX. Haven't had the opportunity to try photographing yet, as the motor requires attention.

wawatson 12 74
10 Dec 2012 2:19PM
I back up what Sooty_1 says ... I am looking for a telescope and would be settling on a Skywatcher 10P with equatorial mount. I looked through a friend's 130mm Skywatcher, and noted that the telescope wobbled at the slightest touch. I, too, thought I'd end up using something like a Nikon D90 for astrophotography, but now think I'll have to use a CCD (inexpensive one at first) to capture a motion picture then stack individual frames to create a composite image.

Some stuff on this approach is on the website of my local Astronomical Society, www.farnham-as.co.uk

Basically, though, the overall message is that your telescope must be very stable (and not wobble) and be prepared to spend time in post-processing (eg see www.farnham-as.co.uk/2012/09/m31-revisitied-by-peter-campbell-burns/).

10 Dec 2012 4:34PM
Standard mounts for these scopes are too weak. Even for seeing as you wrote. I'm sure, if somebody thinks about astrophoto, a real astrophoto, not only photos of Moon or Sun (eventually our Solar system), they have to buy a 'proper' mount, not 'serial' one Smile Which means, EQ5 is much too weak for a telescope as well as Orion SVP, which is sad because it is the most expensive out of the cheap mountsWink
Here is an interesting article, I had the same 'thinking progress', until I abandoned thinking about astrophoto ;P
MrGoatsmilk 7 1.5k England
10 Dec 2012 6:19PM
I was just using the V's mode when I came across a shot of Jupiter taken by this user


His website is well worth a look.



Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.