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


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 Plus
7 1.5k 221 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.

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/).

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
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.