Hi Everyone
I am new here and VERY new at Astrophotography so please dont laugh.
I am looking into buying a new scope of course (maybe a 12" Meade Lightbridge) because my scope is terrible, its an 80MM Celestron Nexstar which I bought about 4 years ago and is my first scope.
So yesterday I went to a photo store and purchased the T Mount and T Ring, I have a Canon DSLR Rebel which I think is a great camera. Anyway, I had no idea what on Earth I was doing, but I started dabbling with the new equipment. I got a few shots of the moon which were a bit blurry, so the moon set and I started focusing on stars, I left the shutter open for about 15 seconds and below is what I got, I fixed it up a bit in photoshop to show colors. Does anyone know if this image could be loads of stars and gas clouds, or is it just a bunch of nothing that I snapped. Again, please dont laugh, as this was my first go ever. I am also attaching my first lunar photo.
Thanks
Starchild615

Attached Images

	1st Space Picture2.jpg (59.4 KB, 81 views)
	1st Moon Picture2.jpg (29.3 KB, 87 views)

First one is just a light flare from some local light source it appears. The brightest stars (except the sun) are hundreds to thousands of times dimmer than the moon, so to take a bright one you need a hundred times the exposure, faint one you see in the field take thousands of times the exposure, stars fainter than you can see visuall even longer. This is why the lunar astronaught photos showed no stars from space. Lunar Hoax nuts, not understanding this see it as evidence the landings are fake. No, just the exposure time must be very long compared to a photo of the moon's surface, distance from that surface doesn't matter, the exposure setting is the same.

To take stars with that camera just put the camera on a tripod, set it for normal lens focal length if it is a zoom lens or use a normal lens for the camera. Open it up fully and expose for 15 seconds at ASA800 or so. A dark site helps a lot. That will pick up constellations. Stars though a telescope require a telescope with a drive. Such photos aren't easy. Instead, after stars on a tripod the next step would be to drive the camera with a simple inexpensive mount such as Orion's EQ-1. This will allow you to take exposures of several minutes and stack them. You can go quite deep this way from a dark location. As you get better at polar alignment you can zoom the lens for magnified views of star clouds in the Milky way. With a modified camera (different IR cut-off filter) it will pick up lots of hydrogen gas clouds in Cygnus and other constellations along the Milky Way. Hydrogen light is mostly blocked by the standard IR filter in this camera.

Moon shots are possible with an undriven camera if you don't push the scale too large. The larger you make the moon the longer the exposure must be for proper exposure but the shorter time you have before the earth's rotation blurs the moon's detail. It's a catch 22 situation. The scale of the shown image should be fine undriven. Larger scope with more light could go for more detail since you have more light. Still a driven scope is far preferable as you quickly reach a limit with an undriven scope.

For planetary work an alt azimuth driven scope is fine. But for long exposures that stars need then an equatorial mount becomes preferable. You can't expose more than a couple minutes (depends on where you are pointed in the sky, near the meridian and celestial equator can go longer for instance) before rotation of the field of view becomes a problem. You can take many short exposures but a few long ones will always be better even when the total exposure time is the same as each readout adds noise to the image and short exposures don't use the full dynamic range of the CCD making for a flatter image to start with. Processing can fix that but that has its own drawbacks.

For now, when shooting through the scope stick to bright planets and the moon to hone your skills. For stars use a simple camera and lens. There are hundreds of good targets for such a system that will bring lots of oohs and aahs from your friends. By then you'll have the money saved for a mount well suited for deep sky through the telescope photography. The size of the scope isn't all that important. It's the mount that is critical here. A 3" scope on a good mount will often outperform a 12" on a fair mount for deep sky imaging! In fact its the skills of the shooter that matter even more than either scope or mount.

While a Dob like the lightbridge can be used on a basic Poncet platform for planetary shots the platforms needed for deep sky shots are about as expensive as a top quality equatorial mount and, to me, far harder to use. Most who do it seem to do it just to show it can be done if you work hard enough. If your eventual goal is deep sky photos through the scope keep in mind the lightbridge scope can't be put on an equatorial mount like those with solid tubes can since the rocker box is part of the scope itself rather than just holding an optical tube that can be moved to other mounts. It can be used with a driven platform however. I see it more for those who need a highly portable large scope that can be broken down into small pieces and used for mostly visual use. For that it is an excellent choice. Do get a opaque cloth shroud for any truss scope to increase contrast. Too much scattered light gets in an open tube otherwise.

Rick

A nice first try and very good info Rick has giving you. We all started the same way and thanks for the internet we could ask questions and get answers. Welcome and enjoy!.

There was no internet in 1954 to help me! My first moon shot looked a lot like Starchild's but was black and white. I couldn't afford color film.

Rick

Thanks Rick I appreciate all the time you put into this post. And thanks Joica for looking at my pix.
I am going to try (as soon as this sky clears up all these clouds) to use my camera and tripod on the stars, I want to try the horsehead nebula.
So do you think I am better off with an equitoral mount? I am having such issues selecting a new scope. This is scarier than buying a new house LOL
what a decision.
I tried the sun today and got the image I am posting, I doctored the colors up on photoshop.

Thanks for any advice you can provide
Gina (Starchild615)

Attached Images

mysun2.jpg (26.9 KB, 28 views)

Pretty good shot of the sun, What were your setup? Clear Skies

Thanks, That was my first sun shot

Ok , I did IT, I just ordered my new scope from Orion Telescopes. I purchased the ORION SKY VIEW PRO 127MM Mac-Cass

Did I make a good choice, came out to 699.99

I am very nervous

Short version: Skip to the last paragraph.

As to that being the right scope, it depends on what you want to do. It's a good planetary scope and can show you brighter deep sky objects. It won't show you the horsehead however. That is very very faint. with a drive a camera can be put on the mount for good starfield shots and should support lenses up to 200mm or so. You can use the Mak for manual guiding corrections and push that to a 400mm lens (35mm equivalent).

For planetary photos or piggy back star field shots you will need the battery drive package. That will allow it to track the earth's rotation, when properly polar aligned, for 5 to 10 minutes allowing piggy back photos of star fields. If you use a film camera or a digital one with the IR filter replaced with one that passes Hydrogen Alpha light then you might pick up a faint, small version of the horsehead. It's very faint and requires a trained eye to see visually even in large scopes. We have members with 16 and 18 inch dobs that can't see it. They just don't have the eye/brain skills needed apparently. I can see it in a 6" scope on a good dark night with 6.5 magnitude stars visible at the zenith naked eye. I know how to get the most out of various "tricks" for seeing very faint things like the horsehead using averted vision and a moving field of view. Adding a hydrogen beta filter helps. This isn't a beginner's object. Your eye captures light for only about a tenth of second before going on to the next "exposure". Yet with my 14" and a hydrogen alpha filter to enhance contrast I need 90 minutes of exposure time to show it well. It's that faint.

The drive has no guider inputs so is rather unsuited for deep sky photos through the telescope. It's mainly a visual, highly portable scope for planets and big bright deep sky objects like the Orion Nebula, star clusters like many Messier open clusters in the winter sky, M35, M36, M37, M38 and some NGC clusters like the Double cluster. It will take rather nice planetary photos as well with the drive. Don't expect to see spiral arms in galaxies, most will be just fuzz patches at first. As you learn to see faint detail you will see some structure in near by ones but they won't begin to look like their photos. No scope will do that! At 8" you will start to see the spiral structure in M51 and a M33 but you need to know what to look for. Some planetary nebula like M57 and M27 will look somewhat like their photos, just a lot fainter and no color.

Planets are bright enough for the eye to see color but deep sky objects are normally too faint to show any color. Some bright emission nebula may show a slight greenish tint even though they are very pink in color photos. This is because the red light of hydrogen is seen very poorly by our eye but very well by a camera. Not a digital one without modifying the IR filter however. Our eye is very sensitive to the much dimmer green light of oxygen. That tends to fall between the blue and the green filter of color film and digital cameras but hits our eye perfectly. So in a nebula bright enough to see color we see green while cameras see pink which is a mixture of the red and blue green of hydrogen alpha and beta light as well as the green of OIII light.

Our eye though has rods and cones. Rods see only in black and white but are very sensitive to dim light. Cones see in color but need bright light. Most nebula and galaxies are too faint for cones to detect. Also cones are in the center of our eye and crowd out the rods. Toward the edge of vision we have a lot more rods but they are not tightly packed and our lens doesn't focus light very sharply there. So that vision isn't clear away from the very center. Try looking to the side of the monitor and read this text. You can see text but not what it says. Can you even count the lines? If so you are one step ahead for seeing dim things in your scope. This is where you have to look to see faint things. Few deep sky object are bright enough to show color in any telescope. One member has a 30" Obsession that does show color but viewing at night atop a 10' ladder isn't my way to observe. I'm too worried about proving Newton right about gravity. I settle for seeing color in my photos.

The scope can show you all the Messier objects and many NGC and IC ones as well. It will take a while to see them all!

Rick

Nice thread, thanks for the all the good info Rick. I'm kind of in the same boat as Starchild. Just took a stab tonight at shooting the lunar eclipse with my Nikon D80 and a 200mm lens. I've got a 10" Dobsonian that I haven't used in many years along with several adapters for attaching the Nikon but I've never tried it. I've decided that I've had this on the back burner for too many years now and I'd like to start taking some decent images. Sounds like an equitorial mount is the way to go. Lot of reading to do...

How did you photos turn out from last night ? Mine were just ok nothing to brag about lol.. Can you take pictures with the dobsonian ?

Are you getting excited.. your scope will be there in a few hours.. Since i am unable to lift because of my recent back surgery in January anything heavier then 10lbs I decided to buy a nice pair of of Garrett Binoculars 22x85 signature series, bogen manfrotto 3246 tripod and universal astronomic unimount.. By the time i was finished it was almost the price of a decent scope 1100.00
Thats ok though if i dont like them i will just sell it when im ready for a scope in a few months or longer then that if the doctor says so. I should be able to just kick back in a comfy chair and look deep into space with these things.. I bet i could see into the las vegas strip if i can go to a higher elevation.. Has anyone seen the forums http://www.cloudynights.com its a really great forum that i just found the other day. You can spend hours getting lost in these forums haha.. makes the day go by faster.

Hi

The scope is here, fedex dropped it off at 5PM, my husband is upstairs now putting it together, I took the little finder scope outside to see what that was like and even that is good, I can see stars and stars. Soon as he is done we are going outside to check it out
Maybe you are better off the Binocs for now if your back is hurting because this thing is a BEAST, it weighs a ton for me and I am a pretty strong girl. I can not believe how much bigger this is than my former scope, WOW. I hate new things though, I am scared to touch them, I tense up because I dont want to scratch it or anything.
I will post photos soon as I get them, I cant wait to see the difference, and best thing is, the skies just cleared up beautifully

Starchild615

Ok
Here are the 1st new photos from the new scope
I did make one mistake when purchasing my scope, I got with it, the intelliscope , I thought this was a Go To Gadget, but it was not, so I can not track. I will have to buy the upgrade kit, I will ask Orion if they can take back the intelliscope and credit me the left over for the Go To System (no big deal)
Anyway, what a difference I see in the new photos as opposed to the old scope photos, have a look for yourselves.
I tried Saturn without tracking and something came out instead of nothing like the old scope.
Please note - I froze to death taking these photos
Also this is my first ever Saturn photo, so it looks kinda weird, but you can see its Saturn, I guess.

Attached Images

	moon001AA.jpg (109.2 KB, 18 views)
	Saturn002A.jpg (15.5 KB, 22 views)
	moon004A.jpg (60.8 KB, 13 views)

You don't need the full goto to track objects, just the single or dual axis drives. You don't need goto for planetary work. Dual axis helps with centering when using it at f/30 for planetary work but isn't required. It is for deep sky if you move out of the NYC area. Of course the more expensive goto system provides dual axis control as well.

Rick

Hi Rick

I have the intelliscope that came packaged with the scope, is this a dual axis?

Here is what the specs are for the intelliscope:
(You just install the two digital encoders on the SkyView Pro mount, plug in the Computerized Object Locator and you're all set for efficient, hassle-free stargazing. You just select an object from the Locator's user-friendly menus of 14,000+ celestial denizens and then guide the scope manually right to it following the directions on the LCD screen. Or press the "Tour" button to survey the best objects visible each month. For such a small additional investment, you will enjoy easier, more-productive observing sessions and discover many more objects per session than you ever could find before.)

I am now able to see the stars in my cameras view finder as well. For instance, If I wanted to take a shot at the Pleadies tonight, would I need tracking for this as well as taking a shot at the orion nebula, I ask because with the new scope I can see something now as before I couldn't with the old scope.

Saturn looks so small in my photo, I wish it looked larger

Thanks


Also I found this for 129.99
Is this the dual axis you are talking about Thanks
TrueTrack Dual-Axis Drive

* TrueTrack provides dual-axis control for high-power viewing and astrophotography
* Controller allows sidereal tracking and electronic control of declination
* Features 2x, 4x, and 8x speeds and pause mode
* Includes two motors, controller and battery pack. Four D cell batteries not included


This precision DC drives provides accurate, regulated tracking for SkyView Pro mounted telescopes.

This TrueTrack Drive System offers dual-axis control which is ideal for high-power viewing and astrophotography. Hand controller allows sidereal tracking in right ascension and electronic control of declination. Features 2x, 4x, and 8x speeds, plus pause mode. Thumbwheel clutches on both motors allow use of manual slow-motion controls if desired. Includes two motors, hand controller, and battery pack (four D cells not included).

While you can use the Intelliscope stuff with the dual axis unit it isn't necessary.

Your scope isn't designed for deep sky and your location makes it nearly impossible with the intense light pollution. You can get something with but don't have high expectations there. For now work on planetary imaging. Save deep sky for when you live in a better location. You can get good planetary images with far less effort than deep sky. Though do mount the camera atop the scope and let it track while the camera takes the shot with its own lens. That gets results rather easily. Say the lens on the camera is 35 mm focal length. Compared to the 1800mm of the scope you have 50x the leeway for drive and alignment errors. Only after getting that to work well with pinpoint stars should you try the 50 times more difficult deep sky through the telescope imaging. Planetary takes tracking and vibration elimination for only a fraction of a second not minutes on end. A very very different world.

For your moon shots are you locking the mirror up and letting vibration die down before snapping your image with a cable release or delayed shutter? Just touching the camera will give it way too much vibration to take a good shot as will the mirror flipping up. Triggering the exposure from a lap top with the software listed in that link I sent you will result in far superior shots as it eliminates vibration and allows far more accurate focusing. Still if you let the vibration die down after the mirror flips up and use a limber cable release or delayed exposure you can get a much clearer shot.

A web cam is ideal for high res moon and planet shots with that scope.

Get in touch with one of the NYC astronomy clubs and learn from those members first hand. They can show you in 5 minutes what takes years over the internet to learn. This is just one of them.
http://www.aaa.org/

I've attached an image taken on film with a SLR some 25 years ago with my 6" f/4. Your scope should do as well with a DSLR and FAR BETTER when stacking hundreds out of thousands of web cam images and using Registax or K3CCDTools to process them. It will take a lot of learning and practice to accomplish this however. Not just at the scope but in using the software running the camera and processing the image.

For what a web cam on a 5" Mak can do see Saturn June 2007
Note how many images he started with! This is the great advantage of a web cam type setup over DSLR.
One of the moon using the same process and scope also by Paul
http://www.bautforum.com/attachments...el-purbach.jpg
I picked these as they use a Mak smaller than yours.

Rick

Attached Images

APENNINES-.jpg (122.9 KB, 10 views)

Hi Starchild615, Congrats on your new equipment and the first light results of the moon and saturn in which it came out very very good. Welldone and Clear Skies.

Thanks Jaicoa
I would like to use my new stuff more, but we have clouds for days yet again