Astrophotography ..... starting over or basics to high level?

[Tristimulus]

Just thinking:

For high resolution deep sky imaging focal lenghts between 500mm and 800mm should do well coupled with the ordinary 4 - 6 micron pixel size. Usually a plate scale around 1 to 2 arc seconds per pixel (that is in the 400 - 800mm ballpark for 4.1 micron pixels, for cameras like my Canon 7DII). Atmospheric turbulence will usually (unless beeing at the few world class observatory sites around) be the limiting factor.

If going for a larger telescope a good mount is mandatory. Get a high quality mount if you can afford one (my choice is the Vixen SXP mount, moderate locating capacity but smooth and well designed, the first mount - in my case - giving 101% satisfaction). Take a good look around, one man's favourite mount is another man's lemon and stinker...

For tracking moderate focal lenghts (like the white bright telephoto lenses) the Astrotrack or Fornax star trackers might do - remember that stacking 30-60sec sub exposures is as good as fewer longer exposures when using modern CMOS cameras.

For high resolution solar, lunar and planetary images the atmosphere might be the limiting factor. In my location we have lively turbulence and getting good planetary images is possible only a few night every year. We get images with moderate resolution, never high resolution, from my site. Usually the resolution - limited by the atmosphere - is bad or very bad. No dream location for this kind of work - so the solution is to have fun, and simply skip plans about stunning high resolution solar, lunar and planetary images from here.

Still - despite no chance to get world class results - astronomy is a dear hobby here.

So:

How is the atmosphere at your site?

You can fight whatever you want, but nature always win! ;-)

How can i measure or determine the atmosphere at my site?

I can't tell exactly, but if i have to lie then i can say that i can see the planets as dots by my naked eye crystal clear, very very bright, and once looked at 9.25 with i don't know eyepiece and the view was just out of world, as i said, crystal clear, no flickering, no blurry, even in one hazy night a bit we were able to see the moon and planets as if there is no haze, and there are room for magnification, and i have only ST80, i did shoot the moon in motion or still and it was like steady, but are those all not enough to tell how good or bad the atmosphere?

No wind, no clouds but now we have clouds because it is the season, but most of the year no clouds, also no rains only few weeks between Dec and March, but if i am talking about solar system only not DSO then i can see them clear, so i am sure i can have high magnification for it.

I don't know where do you locate, i think we aren't in same atmosphere, i live in a dry normal average and very hot climate, it means seeing can be fine in most times for us.

If so, go ahead and take advantage of the conditions at your location. Get what you need. If determined you will get the first class images you are longing for.

Wish you luck and happy hours under a starry sky.

Sure nature always win, but GOD gifted us with stable nature and no disaster like storms or snow or heavy rains, but sure we have extreme heat and humidity during summer, but we managed many days and nights for visual or astro if possible, i swear i did shoot Saturn once with my Canon lens only and DSLR, it was so small and no details at all because it was super bright, i did quick editing and despite there are no details yet but surprisingly i gave me the shape of Saturn immediately, so i can imaging if i have narrower aperture maybe and shot as video and stacking i can definitely resolve details.

If god gifted you with a stable nature, then the devil must have had some fun at my place. We have warm and bright summer nights, dark and cold winter nights, fog, mist, rain, snow, wind and layers of cloud - clear dark nights are few and far between.

But we have a rich nature and varied weather patterns - a good place to live for us bored with every day beeing like the yesterday. And to top that, stars appear now and then!

I hope your post isn't a joke or sarcastic about me,

Not at all!

This forum is international.

You should have heard us Norwegians having fun and joking, we can be merciless in a very friendly way! So if beeing diffuse, it is simply based on cultural difference! ;-)

Find it good that some have splendid conditions for astronomy, simple as that!

i still can't tell the exact or accurate atmosphere, but from what i hear from others i think we have less crazy weather, we have clouds and rains, but that is only in winter which is mostly between November up to March, and not everyday cloudy anyway, but from late March or April until October we have the sun burning us and clouds-free sky for long time, and the moon is crystal clear, and planets during summer are stronger than our house lights considering how far they are, hehehehe

Just want to know when you call the atmosphere or seeing condition bad/poor?

We often have severe and fast turbulence (50hz or faster) ereasing every fine detail. When photographing the moon through a telescope the images are smeared and stacking programs do not cope with the distorted images. Jupiter show two blurred belts. Saturn show the ring but no detail.

When the conditions are bad, there is no gain going above 60mm aperture for lunar and planetary work - and even this tiny aperture is severely limited by nature!

That is what is bad seeing is here.

In bad cases even deep sky images taken with a measly 135mm focal lenght show bloated stars. My longest focal lenght for deep sky is 530mm - and rarely do this setup resolve to the limit when using my Canon 6D with 6.6 micron pixels.

So bad seeing is limiting what I can acheive with modest telescopes and focal lenghts here.

Getting something like a C11 would be a complete waste in my case.

But still having lots of rewarding fun!

I can tell if our weather or condition here is good or bad if you define "poor"/bad condition then i can compare or tell if we have factors of bad seeing, maybe i am wrong and we have also moderate/poor seeing condition.

another assumption, when i started astronomy this year i was searching about anything astronomy in my country, a club or group or whatever, and i came across an observatory in the capital, not sure if it is around the desert or the city, but the sky is the same in the whole city, only difference is that in city there are light pollution and in desert it is LP, and that observatory have 16" scope, i doubt if there is only good and any another place in the country is bad, and if it is fine to use 16" then anything lower or less can be definitely fine, and from another forums some told me that the closer you get to equator the better condition you can have, so that those big names or rewarded known planetary photographers are using locations near of the equator, we are about 25 degree above equator, and also the locations they used are very near to the water surface, i am also not very far from sea or water surface, even with bad seeing condition i will never give up, Venus in summer every morning before sunrise is strong shining, i swear i can have it sharp no matter what, and i always see Jupiter also very very bright in the sky from anywhere in my city, and when i looked at it through C9.25 before it was really amazing clear view, the bands and the moons, does the visual different than imaging?

 

[RustierOne]

Just want to know when you call the atmosphere or seeing condition bad/poor?

I can tell if our weather or condition here is good or bad if you define "poor"/bad condition then i can compare or tell if we have factors of bad seeing, maybe i am wrong and we have also moderate/poor seeing condition.

I don't know if someone else has already given you this information, but there are unaided eye views that are fairly good predictors of seeing conditions. Almost without exception bright stars very low in the sky will be twinkling. Planets almost never twinkle . Only when a planet has a relatively small angular diameter (that is, far from Earth) and down very low in the sky that some twinkling might be apparent. Higher up un the sky, the planets never twinkle.

But as a bright star is seen higher in the sky the amount of twinkling decreases. On nights of worst seeing bright stars will be twinkling even above 45°. On a night of better seeing bright stars at 30° elevation won't be twinkling. So the lower the elevation of the twinkle-free stars, the better the seeing.

Of course the real test of seeing is to examine the view through a telescope. As telescope aperture and magnification increase, the more seeing conditions will degrade the image. But with unaided eye if you see twinkling at 45°, planetary imaging won't likely be productive, especially if the planet is low or the telescope aperture is large.

another assumption, when i started astronomy this year i was searching about anything astronomy in my country, a club or group or whatever, and i came across an observatory in the capital, not sure if it is around the desert or the city, but the sky is the same in the whole city, only difference is that in city there are light pollution and in desert it is LP, and that observatory have 16" scope, i doubt if there is only good and any another place in the country is bad, and if it is fine to use 16" then anything lower or less can be definitely fine,

There have been many instances where expensive, larger aperture telescopes have been installed at convenient locations that proved to be unsuitable due to poor seeing or light pollution. So best to do your own estimates of seeing or light pollution conditions at your observing location.

and from another forums some told me that the closer you get to equator the better condition you can have, so that those big names or rewarded known planetary photographers are using locations near of the equator, we are about 25 degree above equator, and also the locations they used are very near to the water surface, i am also not very far from sea or water surface, even with bad seeing condition i will never give up, Venus in summer every morning before sunrise is strong shining, i swear i can have it sharp no matter what, and i always see Jupiter also very very bright in the sky from anywhere in my city, and when i looked at it through C9.25 before it was really amazing clear view, the bands and the moons, does the visual different than imaging?

I sure hope you'll find seeing is good at your latitude. Another advantage of being nearer to the equator is that the planets will be found higher in the sky

--
Best Regards,
Russ

 

[rgibbons]

This is harder, and more expensive than you imagine.

Buying expensive equipment is part of it, but spending years of practice, getting better each year at data collection is another part. Learning to do post processing (I'd recommend Pixinsight) is also important.

I'd recommend against starting with a big scope (I did, it is a hard path). Start with a small scope (80-127mm). It is lighter, faster to setup (so you will use it more often). And with less magnification the pictures are more tolerant of the guiding and mount errors.

There are all sizes of objects in space, Some require a relatively wide angle (100mm) others lots of magnification (3,000mm). You will want to do both. There is no one scope that can take all targets, might as well start with the cheaper easier use scope, on the larger and brighe targets first. Add more scopes later, I think at least 3 are needed.

Spend over half your initial budget on the mount (good ones last decades, $6-7K is the minimum to get good results (small tight stars) with an 11 inch SCT. Another post recommended 1/3 your budget, and in the long run it will be under 1/3 when you buy the other stuff.

Don't include the computer in your budget, you will replace those frequently as they improve quickly. Camera's improve slower, scopes and mounts very slow to improve.

For Cameras, I like the high efficiency low noise Sony sensors. with 8 or 9 position filter wheels, and Off-axis guiding. They aren't cheap, but it will save intermediate upgrades (which I just did). To not keep upgrading, spend a LOT now, more than you are thinking about. I recently upgraded my 5nm filter to 3nm for Oiii. Now I need to sell the old one. I have many large suitcases of astronomy stuff I no longer use, because I upgraded when my old stuff wouldn't allow me to go to the next level of quality.

This forum is NOT the place to learn to take great pictures, most people are beginners. There are several other forums you can find that are much more advanced. There are many books that will help you more than the random advice of forums. And there is a semi annual astro-photography conference to help you go deeper.

There are several web sites that predict the weather for astronomy, especially of interest is the "seeing" at sites such as www.cleardarksky.com, which also lists the history over the years at your site. Each website gives slightly different predictions, I often check 5 before observing.

It is a long journey, you do this hobby for fun and the personal challenge; not science, nor to compete with the giant observatories or Hubble. Start simple, and enjoy.

Russ G.

 

[RustierOne]

Good advice, Russ!

 

[TareqPhoto]

Just want to know when you call the atmosphere or seeing condition bad/poor?

I can tell if our weather or condition here is good or bad if you define "poor"/bad condition then i can compare or tell if we have factors of bad seeing, maybe i am wrong and we have also moderate/poor seeing condition.

I don't know if someone else has already given you this information, but there are unaided eye views that are fairly good predictors of seeing conditions. Almost without exception bright stars very low in the sky will be twinkling. Planets almost never twinkle . Only when a planet has a relatively small angular diameter (that is, far from Earth) and down very low in the sky that some twinkling might be apparent. Higher up un the sky, the planets never twinkle.

But as a bright star is seen higher in the sky the amount of twinkling decreases. On nights of worst seeing bright stars will be twinkling even above 45°. On a night of better seeing bright stars at 30° elevation won't be twinkling. So the lower the elevation of the twinkle-free stars, the better the seeing.

Of course the real test of seeing is to examine the view through a telescope. As telescope aperture and magnification increase, the more seeing conditions will degrade the image. But with unaided eye if you see twinkling at 45°, planetary imaging won't likely be productive, especially if the planet is low or the telescope aperture is large.

another assumption, when i started astronomy this year i was searching about anything astronomy in my country, a club or group or whatever, and i came across an observatory in the capital, not sure if it is around the desert or the city, but the sky is the same in the whole city, only difference is that in city there are light pollution and in desert it is LP, and that observatory have 16" scope, i doubt if there is only good and any another place in the country is bad, and if it is fine to use 16" then anything lower or less can be definitely fine,

There have been many instances where expensive, larger aperture telescopes have been installed at convenient locations that proved to be unsuitable due to poor seeing or light pollution. So best to do your own estimates of seeing or light pollution conditions at your observing location.

and from another forums some told me that the closer you get to equator the better condition you can have, so that those big names or rewarded known planetary photographers are using locations near of the equator, we are about 25 degree above equator, and also the locations they used are very near to the water surface, i am also not very far from sea or water surface, even with bad seeing condition i will never give up, Venus in summer every morning before sunrise is strong shining, i swear i can have it sharp no matter what, and i always see Jupiter also very very bright in the sky from anywhere in my city, and when i looked at it through C9.25 before it was really amazing clear view, the bands and the moons, does the visual different than imaging?

I sure hope you'll find seeing is good at your latitude. Another advantage of being nearer to the equator is that the planets will be found higher in the sky

 

[TareqPhoto]

This is harder, and more expensive than you imagine.

Buying expensive equipment is part of it, but spending years of practice, getting better each year at data collection is another part. Learning to do post processing (I'd recommend Pixinsight) is also important.

I'd recommend against starting with a big scope (I did, it is a hard path). Start with a small scope (80-127mm). It is lighter, faster to setup (so you will use it more often). And with less magnification the pictures are more tolerant of the guiding and mount errors.

There are all sizes of objects in space, Some require a relatively wide angle (100mm) others lots of magnification (3,000mm). You will want to do both. There is no one scope that can take all targets, might as well start with the cheaper easier use scope, on the larger and brighe targets first. Add more scopes later, I think at least 3 are needed.

Spend over half your initial budget on the mount (good ones last decades, $6-7K is the minimum to get good results (small tight stars) with an 11 inch SCT. Another post recommended 1/3 your budget, and in the long run it will be under 1/3 when you buy the other stuff.

Don't include the computer in your budget, you will replace those frequently as they improve quickly. Camera's improve slower, scopes and mounts very slow to improve.

For Cameras, I like the high efficiency low noise Sony sensors. with 8 or 9 position filter wheels, and Off-axis guiding. They aren't cheap, but it will save intermediate upgrades (which I just did). To not keep upgrading, spend a LOT now, more than you are thinking about. I recently upgraded my 5nm filter to 3nm for Oiii. Now I need to sell the old one. I have many large suitcases of astronomy stuff I no longer use, because I upgraded when my old stuff wouldn't allow me to go to the next level of quality.

This forum is NOT the place to learn to take great pictures, most people are beginners. There are several other forums you can find that are much more advanced. There are many books that will help you more than the random advice of forums. And there is a semi annual astro-photography conference to help you go deeper.

There are several web sites that predict the weather for astronomy, especially of interest is the "seeing" at sites such as www.cleardarksky.com, which also lists the history over the years at your site. Each website gives slightly different predictions, I often check 5 before observing.

It is a long journey, you do this hobby for fun and the personal challenge; not science, nor to compete with the giant observatories or Hubble. Start simple, and enjoy.

Russ G.

 

[TareqPhoto]

Good advice, Russ!

 

[TareqPhoto]

Just thinking:

For high resolution deep sky imaging focal lenghts between 500mm and 800mm should do well coupled with the ordinary 4 - 6 micron pixel size. Usually a plate scale around 1 to 2 arc seconds per pixel (that is in the 400 - 800mm ballpark for 4.1 micron pixels, for cameras like my Canon 7DII). Atmospheric turbulence will usually (unless beeing at the few world class observatory sites around) be the limiting factor.

If going for a larger telescope a good mount is mandatory. Get a high quality mount if you can afford one (my choice is the Vixen SXP mount, moderate locating capacity but smooth and well designed, the first mount - in my case - giving 101% satisfaction). Take a good look around, one man's favourite mount is another man's lemon and stinker...

For tracking moderate focal lenghts (like the white bright telephoto lenses) the Astrotrack or Fornax star trackers might do - remember that stacking 30-60sec sub exposures is as good as fewer longer exposures when using modern CMOS cameras.

For high resolution solar, lunar and planetary images the atmosphere might be the limiting factor. In my location we have lively turbulence and getting good planetary images is possible only a few night every year. We get images with moderate resolution, never high resolution, from my site. Usually the resolution - limited by the atmosphere - is bad or very bad. No dream location for this kind of work - so the solution is to have fun, and simply skip plans about stunning high resolution solar, lunar and planetary images from here.

Still - despite no chance to get world class results - astronomy is a dear hobby here.

So:

How is the atmosphere at your site?

You can fight whatever you want, but nature always win! ;-)

How can i measure or determine the atmosphere at my site?

I can't tell exactly, but if i have to lie then i can say that i can see the planets as dots by my naked eye crystal clear, very very bright, and once looked at 9.25 with i don't know eyepiece and the view was just out of world, as i said, crystal clear, no flickering, no blurry, even in one hazy night a bit we were able to see the moon and planets as if there is no haze, and there are room for magnification, and i have only ST80, i did shoot the moon in motion or still and it was like steady, but are those all not enough to tell how good or bad the atmosphere?

No wind, no clouds but now we have clouds because it is the season, but most of the year no clouds, also no rains only few weeks between Dec and March, but if i am talking about solar system only not DSO then i can see them clear, so i am sure i can have high magnification for it.

I don't know where do you locate, i think we aren't in same atmosphere, i live in a dry normal average and very hot climate, it means seeing can be fine in most times for us.

If so, go ahead and take advantage of the conditions at your location. Get what you need. If determined you will get the first class images you are longing for.

Wish you luck and happy hours under a starry sky.

Sure nature always win, but GOD gifted us with stable nature and no disaster like storms or snow or heavy rains, but sure we have extreme heat and humidity during summer, but we managed many days and nights for visual or astro if possible, i swear i did shoot Saturn once with my Canon lens only and DSLR, it was so small and no details at all because it was super bright, i did quick editing and despite there are no details yet but surprisingly i gave me the shape of Saturn immediately, so i can imaging if i have narrower aperture maybe and shot as video and stacking i can definitely resolve details.

If god gifted you with a stable nature, then the devil must have had some fun at my place. We have warm and bright summer nights, dark and cold winter nights, fog, mist, rain, snow, wind and layers of cloud - clear dark nights are few and far between.

But we have a rich nature and varied weather patterns - a good place to live for us bored with every day beeing like the yesterday. And to top that, stars appear now and then!

I hope your post isn't a joke or sarcastic about me,

Not at all!

This forum is international.

You should have heard us Norwegians having fun and joking, we can be merciless in a very friendly way! So if beeing diffuse, it is simply based on cultural difference! ;-)

Find it good that some have splendid conditions for astronomy, simple as that!

i still can't tell the exact or accurate atmosphere, but from what i hear from others i think we have less crazy weather, we have clouds and rains, but that is only in winter which is mostly between November up to March, and not everyday cloudy anyway, but from late March or April until October we have the sun burning us and clouds-free sky for long time, and the moon is crystal clear, and planets during summer are stronger than our house lights considering how far they are, hehehehe

Just want to know when you call the atmosphere or seeing condition bad/poor?

We often have severe and fast turbulence (50hz or faster) ereasing every fine detail. When photographing the moon through a telescope the images are smeared and stacking programs do not cope with the distorted images. Jupiter show two blurred belts. Saturn show the ring but no detail.

When the conditions are bad, there is no gain going above 60mm aperture for lunar and planetary work - and even this tiny aperture is severely limited by nature!

That is what is bad seeing is here.

In bad cases even deep sky images taken with a measly 135mm focal lenght show bloated stars. My longest focal lenght for deep sky is 530mm - and rarely do this setup resolve to the limit when using my Canon 6D with 6.6 micron pixels.

So bad seeing is limiting what I can acheive with modest telescopes and focal lenghts here.

Getting something like a C11 would be a complete waste in my case.

But still having lots of rewarding fun!

I can tell if our weather or condition here is good or bad if you define "poor"/bad condition then i can compare or tell if we have factors of bad seeing, maybe i am wrong and we have also moderate/poor seeing condition.

another assumption, when i started astronomy this year i was searching about anything astronomy in my country, a club or group or whatever, and i came across an observatory in the capital, not sure if it is around the desert or the city, but the sky is the same in the whole city, only difference is that in city there are light pollution and in desert it is LP, and that observatory have 16" scope, i doubt if there is only good and any another place in the country is bad, and if it is fine to use 16" then anything lower or less can be definitely fine, and from another forums some told me that the closer you get to equator the better condition you can have, so that those big names or rewarded known planetary photographers are using locations near of the equator, we are about 25 degree above equator, and also the locations they used are very near to the water surface, i am also not very far from sea or water surface, even with bad seeing condition i will never give up, Venus in summer every morning before sunrise is strong shining, i swear i can have it sharp no matter what, and i always see Jupiter also very very bright in the sky from anywhere in my city, and when i looked at it through C9.25 before it was really amazing clear view, the bands and the moons, does the visual different than imaging?

I made a video of the moon for about or nearly 3 minutes, but that came out at about 8GB, how can i download or show you that video for demo? it is in AVI format, should i convert it somehow to compress the file size? this video maybe not the best i can do, but it can give you an idea of one of those nights where we can see the moon just amazing, the scope is weak, my focus isn't dead/spot on, but you can see if there is any twinkling or flickering or blurring or whatever poor condition may affect the view, i can try again later another night if you need to, but before that watch this if i know how to show then you can judge, it was taken 2 months ago in October, just right out of summer in our country, where they weather is staring to be the best, not very hot and not cold cloudy.

 

[RustierOne]

Just want to know when you call the atmosphere or seeing condition bad/poor?

I can tell if our weather or condition here is good or bad if you define "poor"/bad condition then i can compare or tell if we have factors of bad seeing, maybe i am wrong and we have also moderate/poor seeing condition.

I don't know if someone else has already given you this information, but there are unaided eye views that are fairly good predictors of seeing conditions. Almost without exception bright stars very low in the sky will be twinkling. Planets almost never twinkle . Only when a planet has a relatively small angular diameter (that is, far from Earth) and down very low in the sky that some twinkling might be apparent. Higher up un the sky, the planets never twinkle.

But as a bright star is seen higher in the sky the amount of twinkling decreases. On nights of worst seeing bright stars will be twinkling even above 45°. On a night of better seeing bright stars at 30° elevation won't be twinkling. So the lower the elevation of the twinkle-free stars, the better the seeing.

Of course the real test of seeing is to examine the view through a telescope. As telescope aperture and magnification increase, the more seeing conditions will degrade the image. But with unaided eye if you see twinkling at 45°, planetary imaging won't likely be productive, especially if the planet is low or the telescope aperture is large.

another assumption, when i started astronomy this year i was searching about anything astronomy in my country, a club or group or whatever, and i came across an observatory in the capital, not sure if it is around the desert or the city, but the sky is the same in the whole city, only difference is that in city there are light pollution and in desert it is LP, and that observatory have 16" scope, i doubt if there is only good and any another place in the country is bad, and if it is fine to use 16" then anything lower or less can be definitely fine,

There have been many instances where expensive, larger aperture telescopes have been installed at convenient locations that proved to be unsuitable due to poor seeing or light pollution. So best to do your own estimates of seeing or light pollution conditions at your observing location.

and from another forums some told me that the closer you get to equator the better condition you can have, so that those big names or rewarded known planetary photographers are using locations near of the equator, we are about 25 degree above equator, and also the locations they used are very near to the water surface, i am also not very far from sea or water surface, even with bad seeing condition i will never give up, Venus in summer every morning before sunrise is strong shining, i swear i can have it sharp no matter what, and i always see Jupiter also very very bright in the sky from anywhere in my city, and when i looked at it through C9.25 before it was really amazing clear view, the bands and the moons, does the visual different than imaging?

I sure hope you'll find seeing is good at your latitude. Another advantage of being nearer to the equator is that the planets will be found higher in the sky

 

[TareqPhoto]

Just want to know when you call the atmosphere or seeing condition bad/poor?

I can tell if our weather or condition here is good or bad if you define "poor"/bad condition then i can compare or tell if we have factors of bad seeing, maybe i am wrong and we have also moderate/poor seeing condition.

I don't know if someone else has already given you this information, but there are unaided eye views that are fairly good predictors of seeing conditions. Almost without exception bright stars very low in the sky will be twinkling. Planets almost never twinkle . Only when a planet has a relatively small angular diameter (that is, far from Earth) and down very low in the sky that some twinkling might be apparent. Higher up un the sky, the planets never twinkle.

But as a bright star is seen higher in the sky the amount of twinkling decreases. On nights of worst seeing bright stars will be twinkling even above 45°. On a night of better seeing bright stars at 30° elevation won't be twinkling. So the lower the elevation of the twinkle-free stars, the better the seeing.

Of course the real test of seeing is to examine the view through a telescope. As telescope aperture and magnification increase, the more seeing conditions will degrade the image. But with unaided eye if you see twinkling at 45°, planetary imaging won't likely be productive, especially if the planet is low or the telescope aperture is large.

another assumption, when i started astronomy this year i was searching about anything astronomy in my country, a club or group or whatever, and i came across an observatory in the capital, not sure if it is around the desert or the city, but the sky is the same in the whole city, only difference is that in city there are light pollution and in desert it is LP, and that observatory have 16" scope, i doubt if there is only good and any another place in the country is bad, and if it is fine to use 16" then anything lower or less can be definitely fine,

There have been many instances where expensive, larger aperture telescopes have been installed at convenient locations that proved to be unsuitable due to poor seeing or light pollution. So best to do your own estimates of seeing or light pollution conditions at your observing location.

and from another forums some told me that the closer you get to equator the better condition you can have, so that those big names or rewarded known planetary photographers are using locations near of the equator, we are about 25 degree above equator, and also the locations they used are very near to the water surface, i am also not very far from sea or water surface, even with bad seeing condition i will never give up, Venus in summer every morning before sunrise is strong shining, i swear i can have it sharp no matter what, and i always see Jupiter also very very bright in the sky from anywhere in my city, and when i looked at it through C9.25 before it was really amazing clear view, the bands and the moons, does the visual different than imaging?

I sure hope you'll find seeing is good at your latitude. Another advantage of being nearer to the equator is that the planets will be found higher in the sky

 

[rgibbons]

Starting with a 100mm scope isn't necessarily cheap, nor something that will be wasted when you go to a larger scope. You can spend over $2K for a nice 100mm APO refractor, that you can enjoy and cherish all your life. (An analogy: For taking pictures of things on Earth, I have many lenses, from super wide angle to telephoto. I use all the lenses for various subjects.) Same with telescopes, during different seasons, you will have different targets, Some are big and won't fit into the smaller field of view of a larger telescope that provides much more magnification.

I have a 9.25" SCT, it is nice. 11" isn't doesn't provide a whole lot more brightness, and only a little more resolution. For planets you can use a Barlow to get more magnification. Planets don't need much aperture to brighten them, Since they aren't really night time images that are poorly lit, they are really like day time images, lit by the Sun.

Wider aperture scopes suffer more during poor seeing, and it is a rare night that you can appreciate the extra resolution.

You don't always get better planetary pictures nearer the Equator. It depends more on the air turbulence above you. I have a home in California near the coast, the "seeing" (lack of twinkling) is good many nights. I also have a home in Peru, in the Andes mountains near the equator, at 9,000 feet. The seeing isn't as good for planets, since the surrounding mountain peaks stir up the air, it is like looking at a coin on the bottom of a fountain on a windy day, the coin appears to dance in distortions. Each location is better for different types of targets.

If you get a 3nm filter, you may find the Oiii gives you more return on the investment, there are more targets that shine in Oiii, and on moonlit nights, the sky has a blue tint that causes more trouble for bluish Oiii than reddish Sii. 5nm for H-a is actually good, the wider bandwidth captures another emission line to the side for targets such as the Dumbbell nebula.

A DSLR is nice for some astronomy pictures. Besides wide angle for the Milky way, it is also good for M31 (Andromeda galaxy is 6 times wider than the moon). I was out last night for a few hours with my DSLR and 300mm lens, taking additional exposures of M31. This setup is also convenient for taking pictures in the mountains.

Russell

 

[TareqPhoto]

Starting with a 100mm scope isn't necessarily cheap, nor something that will be wasted when you go to a larger scope. You can spend over $2K for a nice 100mm APO refractor, that you can enjoy and cherish all your life. (An analogy: For taking pictures of things on Earth, I have many lenses, from super wide angle to telephoto. I use all the lenses for various subjects.) Same with telescopes, during different seasons, you will have different targets, Some are big and won't fit into the smaller field of view of a larger telescope that provides much more magnification.

I have a 9.25" SCT, it is nice. 11" isn't doesn't provide a whole lot more brightness, and only a little more resolution. For planets you can use a Barlow to get more magnification. Planets don't need much aperture to brighten them, Since they aren't really night time images that are poorly lit, they are really like day time images, lit by the Sun.

Wider aperture scopes suffer more during poor seeing, and it is a rare night that you can appreciate the extra resolution.

You don't always get better planetary pictures nearer the Equator. It depends more on the air turbulence above you. I have a home in California near the coast, the "seeing" (lack of twinkling) is good many nights. I also have a home in Peru, in the Andes mountains near the equator, at 9,000 feet. The seeing isn't as good for planets, since the surrounding mountain peaks stir up the air, it is like looking at a coin on the bottom of a fountain on a windy day, the coin appears to dance in distortions. Each location is better for different types of targets.

If you get a 3nm filter, you may find the Oiii gives you more return on the investment, there are more targets that shine in Oiii, and on moonlit nights, the sky has a blue tint that causes more trouble for bluish Oiii than reddish Sii. 5nm for H-a is actually good, the wider bandwidth captures another emission line to the side for targets such as the Dumbbell nebula.

A DSLR is nice for some astronomy pictures. Besides wide angle for the Milky way, it is also good for M31 (Andromeda galaxy is 6 times wider than the moon). I was out last night for a few hours with my DSLR and 300mm lens, taking additional exposures of M31. This setup is also convenient for taking pictures in the mountains.

Russell

 

[Jared Willson]

Thank you very much for that post and explanation, so do you think with all of those i will be able to have kind of mind blowing or winner images?

Let me start to post my gear list of astronomy i have so far, and i will ask about my future plans and see if that is a good idea or not, as on another forums some agree and some don't, and each has points of views of agreement or disagreement.

Telescope: SkyWatcher StarTravel 80mm [or called ST80]

Mount: SkyWatcher AZ-EQ6

Camera for DSO imaging: QHY163M [Mono cooled]

Scope for guiding for now: ZWO 60mm with Helical focus

Camera for guiding also for now: QHY5L-II-M

Filters: Astrodon Ha 5nm 1.25", 3rd party LRGB 36mm

Polemaster, laptop good enough for collecting data and 2 desktop powerful enough for processing, Polemaster, QHY filter wheel which i just received yesterday [it has 7x36mm disk, i ordered 8x1.25 with it but i think they forgot to send it, i will call back for it], adapter to use Canon lenses with the filter wheel and camera.

My plans for future:

Camera for planetary: ASI either 290 or 224 or their new one 385, all are great for planetary, i want to have a color version, i do have QHY5 mono but i want color if i don't have headache with filters again for planetary, and no harm to have one color as long i already have mono cameras.

Scope for DSO: most likely in my mind is 100mm Esprit, i was looking at many 80mm, but i feel that 80mm will be quickly done then i want to upgrade, i saw many started with 80mm then upgraded to 100 or 120 or larger, so as long i have ST80 and Canon lenses then i think i am covered of wide field, then a better choice is about 100mm range [100/102/115....] and i can use a reducer anytime if i want wider with that scope over my other scopes, what do you think?

Scope for planetary: i was thinking about larger than 9.25", i looked at that scope few times or 3 times and i loved the view, so clear and no bad seeing condition, and i wanted more, so i put in my mind i want something like 10" minimum or 11" or even 14", but many did fight me about 14" because they all think that i have poor seeing condition and it is too much and i am still beginning, but the main reason is that my mount can't handle it, well, if it is the mount then definitely no C14, But i really don't want to look at less than 11", i know what issues i may face like cooling down or weight or whatever, this is a nice challenge, as long i saw others managed to use 14" or 11" then i have too even if it takes months or years, i want to pay once not to go with 6" or 8" then 11" then 14" then 16", i better have 1 or 2 jumps than many, also why can't learn with larger and have all the time? i have enough time, my country weather condition is different than many in Europe, and from what i read, the more i am to Equator the better it will be maybe for planetary, so i told them i have excellent to very good seeing condition for planets even under light pollution area, what is your thought here?

I am still learning to polar alignment my mount at best, then i will start soon i hope very soon about guiding, and as long i got my filter wheel finally then i want to use LRGB filters, but Ha is in a different size, and i did change my ST80 standard focuser to 2" CrayFord focuser, so no more 1.25" unless i buy a converter adapter to hold 1.25" on 2", i found but i can't order very small cheap item alone, waiting another budget because i want to add 3rd party Ha/O3/S2 filters 36mm at once then i can fill that 7x36mm disk in filter wheel.

I have software for stacking and processing such as DSS and PixInsight and ofcourse Photoshop and SharpCap and whatever, also Stellarium and PHD2, i try to cover everything with my limited budget, i couldn't buy expensive mount such as APs one or expensive mount such as Takahashi, but i hope with whatever i have it will do the job for me for long time until i can afford something expensive if it is a must or necessary, i don't want to left behind, also i want to have the best results, not sure if best results really need best gear or not.

This coming year i hope i can put allmy gear into use and enjoy doing it, it is a winter here so M42 is the main target and it is definitely my top target anyway, it was the first image that made me to get into astrophotography, so i will focus on this and horsehead and M45 and also the Andromeda galaxy, other targets i can give it a try time to time, i don't know how i will do it, but i will never give up, i squeezed my ST80 to have best i can until i can put Canon lenses or buy another scope to use in DSO, who knows, i hope someone guiding me and being patient with me than someone trying to hold me back because i don't have enough good gear.

Anything you want to add to help you are most welcome and i appreciate it.

Creating "mind blowing" or "winner" images takes more than just equipment. It also takes knowledge of all the techniques and some artistic skills. You can have the best equipment in the world, but that won't be sufficient if you don't know how to calibrate your images, properly polar align your scope (fairly tight tolerances), get your equipment to effectively guide, collimate your telescope, collect enough data, achieve and maintain perfect focus, etc., etc. In addition, a really good image requires some careful planning and artistry. What's the right night or nights to collect your data? Do you have the right focal length for the object you wish to image? What's going to be different in your image vs. the thousand images before of the same object? How will you compose your image? How saturated or natural looking do you want your colors? Lots and lots of practice required.

Basically, no matter how good your equipment, don't expect really good images without a bunch of work. As long as you are planning on spending time perfecting your craft, I think I can let you know whether your equipment will be holding you back or not.

SkyWatcher 100mm Esprit: Solid choice for wide field, deep sky imaging. Comes with an appropriate field flattener. Wide imaging circle. Reasonably fast at f/5.5. Fairly light, so it won't push your mount's limits too hard. Back focus is a touch limited, so be careful on your camera and filter choices. Should be fine, though. Good value--most of the performance of a Takahashi FSQ for a much lower cost. Recommended.

SkyWatcher AZ-EQ6: Also a good choice. It's not an absolutely top-end mount, so make sure you stay well within the weight restrictions. Don't expect insanely low periodic error from this mount, but it is usually quite smooth so it handles guiding very well. It can easily handle the 100mm refractor. You'll need EQMOD to run it from a PC. That's a proven solution, so no concerns there.

QHY163: Along with the ASI1600 (same chip), probably the hottest affordable camera out there right now for deep sky. Extremely low read noise which will be critical for narrow band imaging. The only real issue with this camera is the fact that it's 12 bits. As a result, each sub exposure has very limited bit dynamic range. Either you have quantization error in the shadows (if your gain is low), or you quickly start to clip stars. The techniques for using 12-bit cameras are therefore a little different--you take LOTS of sub exposures of relatively short duration rather than perhaps a dozen exposures of much longer duration. Averaging this high volume of subs allows you to address the quantization error and effectively overcome the limited bit depth. Works great as long as you use the current techniques aimed at CMOS cameras. Just don't read older websites when learning how to use this camera. Hundreds of 30s subs with moderate gain can do wonders and have almost no downside due to the low read noise. Again, this is a solid choice and it is well matched to the 100mm refractor. You'll get a reasonable compromise at 1x1 binning of field of view and resolution. Should be a match for a fairly wide range of subjects, and the 16 megapixels gives you some head room for cropping and framing.

Guiding: You've got a choice here. You can either use a second guide scope (as you are proposing) or you can use an off axis guider. For now--and maybe indefinitely--you will probably be fine with the separate guide scope. Because of the camera you have chosen and your light pollution conditions, your sub exposures are going to be relatively short even with narrow band. That, coupled with the relatively short focal length of the 100mm refractor, means you probably won't have issues with differential flexure. You should be good to go with a separate guide scope. Longer term, it's POSSIBLE you will want to move to an off-axis guider in front of the filter wheel, but you have limited back focus to play with so that may be challenging. I think you could probably fit something in, but no need to do that right away if ever. Basically, if you get nice, round stars with the separate guide scope, stick with it. The only disadvantage aside from flexure is weight, and your system won't be pushing that EQ6 very hard.

Guide Camera: QHY5-II is a solid choice. No worries there.

Filters: The Astrodon 5nm should be OK even at f/5.5 though you are bumping up against the edge here and may lose a little sensitivity. I use one with an f/3.3 scope, though, with no real problems. I'm a little worried about the 1.25" vs. 36mm. Double check to make sure that's enough not to vignette with the QHY163. Don at Astrodon will be able to tell you. Your scope is just fast enough that you will be near the edge of what that filter can cover. The 36mm LRGB filters are large enough, so no issue there. Lots of people fight about whether you need top quality LRGB filters or not to avoid reflections and halos. Experiences differ. I'd say try them and see. Most people's coatings have been improving over the last few years. Oh, I'm a little worried that you won't be able to mix the 1.25" filter and the 36mm filters on the same filter wheel insert, and I don't think you want to switch in the field. I'd recommend unifying on one or the other, preferably 36mm.

Polemaster: Haven't used one, but I've hard good things about them. Should be a solid choice for quick, accurate polar alignment.

Summary for Deep Sky: I'd say the equipment you are selecting is very good quality and is not likely to be a barrier to your creating top notch images. Whether or not they are really exceptional will depend on your skills; you have chosen stuff that is nice enough you shouldn't need to worry about it holding you back. Nice choices.

Planetary Imaging Scope: I have very limited experience on planetary imaging so won't offer a ton of advice. I'll give you a couple pieces, though. First, planetary imaging is about two things: Aperture and seeing. More aperture allows you to capture more resolution during moments of good seeing (steady air), and the better the seeing the more frequent and lengthy those moments of high resolution are. A 9.25" is a good place to start. A 10" or 11" would be even better. A 14" is capable of absolutely world class images if you seeing is good enough, but if you seeing is only mediocre or even above average, you can stick with the 9" - 12" type scopes. You don't need a flat field for planetary imaging, so no need to splurge on an Edge design (if looking at Celestron SCT's). You'll want a decent barlow as well since you need a lot of focal length coupled with tiny pixels to get a high res planetary image. A C9.25 or C11 would do fine on your EQ6, so no problems there. Same for a Meade 10" ACF. Lots of experienced planetary imagers use SCT's since they get you lots of aperture in a compact, low weight (comparatively) package. If you look at the Meade scopes I'd lean towards f/10 for planetary imaging rather than f/8. Tracking accuracy for planetary imaging is much less critical than deep sky since exposure length is on the order of 1/100s, so I wouldn't worry too much about whether you are approaching the mount's rated capacity or not. If your seeing is mediocre, though, I'd stick with 11" or smaller scopes. They will cool faster and will probably get all the resolution moderate seeing will allow. Sounds like you have your heart set on an 11" or larger. I'd say go with that--11" scope. With good seeing you can get absolutely stunning results with an 11" scope, and it will equilibrate a lot more easily than a 14".

Sounds like a really good start! Will you ever outgrow this system? Sure, if you stick with it long enough and your skills are good enough and your skies are steady enough. But I would be surprised if you ran into any serious limitations in the first couple years. Certainly, the equipment you have chosen is capable of "Wow!" type images.

 

[Jared Willson]

I don't think anyone has given you a good idea yet on how to measure your seeing. There are two ways to do it, one visually and one photographically. First, the visual:

Here is a link to a website belonging to Damian Peach.

www.damianpeach.com/pickering.htm

He's one of the best in the world at planetary imaging, so he knows all about "seeing." The Pickering scale allows you to estimate your seeing conditions using (ideally) a 5" scope with a high power eyepiece. You could use your 9.25" as well, though it's a bit more sensitive so whatever number you get, add one and you are probably about right. All you need to do is let your scope equilibrate (fully cool), then look at a moderately bright star near zenith using a high power eyepiece. The power needs to be high enough for you to see the first diffraction ring around the star. Perhaps 250x should do it. Don't use your 80mm scope for taking this measure--use your 9.25". Make sure it is fully cooled and well collimated before judging. Which picture looks most like the star?

If you routinely have nights in the 5, 6, or 7 range, your seeing is probably about average. On a good night you will be able to get good planetary images, but on most nights things will be a bit soft. Don't expect to make "Wow!" type planetary images with a 5, 6, or 7 type of night.

If you routinely have nights in the 8, 9, or 10 range, then you have a great site for planetary imaging, and I'd concentrate on that rather than on the deep sky stuff (given your light pollution).

The second way to measure your seeing conditions is photographically. This will have to wait till you have your imaging scope ready to go, and your imaging scope needs to have small enough pixels and/or enough focal length that you can actually tell. That means it will be easier to judge with the planetary setup than with the deep sky setup. Basically, you measure the FWHM (full width/half maximum) diameter of a non-saturated star when the scope is cooled and focused. Most of the capture software can take this measurement for you, just look it up in your user guide. If your FWHM is in the 2" - 3" range, you have average seeing. If you are below 2" you have good seeing. Above 3" and it's poor. Make sure you are measuring in arc seconds, not just in pixels. Again, read the user guide for the software to figure out how to set it up.

 

[TareqPhoto]

Thank you very much for that post and explanation, so do you think with all of those i will be able to have kind of mind blowing or winner images?

Let me start to post my gear list of astronomy i have so far, and i will ask about my future plans and see if that is a good idea or not, as on another forums some agree and some don't, and each has points of views of agreement or disagreement.

Telescope: SkyWatcher StarTravel 80mm [or called ST80]

Mount: SkyWatcher AZ-EQ6

Camera for DSO imaging: QHY163M [Mono cooled]

Scope for guiding for now: ZWO 60mm with Helical focus

Camera for guiding also for now: QHY5L-II-M

Filters: Astrodon Ha 5nm 1.25", 3rd party LRGB 36mm

Polemaster, laptop good enough for collecting data and 2 desktop powerful enough for processing, Polemaster, QHY filter wheel which i just received yesterday [it has 7x36mm disk, i ordered 8x1.25 with it but i think they forgot to send it, i will call back for it], adapter to use Canon lenses with the filter wheel and camera.

My plans for future:

Camera for planetary: ASI either 290 or 224 or their new one 385, all are great for planetary, i want to have a color version, i do have QHY5 mono but i want color if i don't have headache with filters again for planetary, and no harm to have one color as long i already have mono cameras.

Scope for DSO: most likely in my mind is 100mm Esprit, i was looking at many 80mm, but i feel that 80mm will be quickly done then i want to upgrade, i saw many started with 80mm then upgraded to 100 or 120 or larger, so as long i have ST80 and Canon lenses then i think i am covered of wide field, then a better choice is about 100mm range [100/102/115....] and i can use a reducer anytime if i want wider with that scope over my other scopes, what do you think?

Scope for planetary: i was thinking about larger than 9.25", i looked at that scope few times or 3 times and i loved the view, so clear and no bad seeing condition, and i wanted more, so i put in my mind i want something like 10" minimum or 11" or even 14", but many did fight me about 14" because they all think that i have poor seeing condition and it is too much and i am still beginning, but the main reason is that my mount can't handle it, well, if it is the mount then definitely no C14, But i really don't want to look at less than 11", i know what issues i may face like cooling down or weight or whatever, this is a nice challenge, as long i saw others managed to use 14" or 11" then i have too even if it takes months or years, i want to pay once not to go with 6" or 8" then 11" then 14" then 16", i better have 1 or 2 jumps than many, also why can't learn with larger and have all the time? i have enough time, my country weather condition is different than many in Europe, and from what i read, the more i am to Equator the better it will be maybe for planetary, so i told them i have excellent to very good seeing condition for planets even under light pollution area, what is your thought here?

I am still learning to polar alignment my mount at best, then i will start soon i hope very soon about guiding, and as long i got my filter wheel finally then i want to use LRGB filters, but Ha is in a different size, and i did change my ST80 standard focuser to 2" CrayFord focuser, so no more 1.25" unless i buy a converter adapter to hold 1.25" on 2", i found but i can't order very small cheap item alone, waiting another budget because i want to add 3rd party Ha/O3/S2 filters 36mm at once then i can fill that 7x36mm disk in filter wheel.

I have software for stacking and processing such as DSS and PixInsight and ofcourse Photoshop and SharpCap and whatever, also Stellarium and PHD2, i try to cover everything with my limited budget, i couldn't buy expensive mount such as APs one or expensive mount such as Takahashi, but i hope with whatever i have it will do the job for me for long time until i can afford something expensive if it is a must or necessary, i don't want to left behind, also i want to have the best results, not sure if best results really need best gear or not.

This coming year i hope i can put allmy gear into use and enjoy doing it, it is a winter here so M42 is the main target and it is definitely my top target anyway, it was the first image that made me to get into astrophotography, so i will focus on this and horsehead and M45 and also the Andromeda galaxy, other targets i can give it a try time to time, i don't know how i will do it, but i will never give up, i squeezed my ST80 to have best i can until i can put Canon lenses or buy another scope to use in DSO, who knows, i hope someone guiding me and being patient with me than someone trying to hold me back because i don't have enough good gear.

Anything you want to add to help you are most welcome and i appreciate it.

Creating "mind blowing" or "winner" images takes more than just equipment. It also takes knowledge of all the techniques and some artistic skills. You can have the best equipment in the world, but that won't be sufficient if you don't know how to calibrate your images, properly polar align your scope (fairly tight tolerances), get your equipment to effectively guide, collimate your telescope, collect enough data, achieve and maintain perfect focus, etc., etc. In addition, a really good image requires some careful planning and artistry. What's the right night or nights to collect your data? Do you have the right focal length for the object you wish to image? What's going to be different in your image vs. the thousand images before of the same object? How will you compose your image? How saturated or natural looking do you want your colors? Lots and lots of practice required.

Basically, no matter how good your equipment, don't expect really good images without a bunch of work. As long as you are planning on spending time perfecting your craft, I think I can let you know whether your equipment will be holding you back or not.

SkyWatcher 100mm Esprit: Solid choice for wide field, deep sky imaging. Comes with an appropriate field flattener. Wide imaging circle. Reasonably fast at f/5.5. Fairly light, so it won't push your mount's limits too hard. Back focus is a touch limited, so be careful on your camera and filter choices. Should be fine, though. Good value--most of the performance of a Takahashi FSQ for a much lower cost. Recommended.

SkyWatcher AZ-EQ6: Also a good choice. It's not an absolutely top-end mount, so make sure you stay well within the weight restrictions. Don't expect insanely low periodic error from this mount, but it is usually quite smooth so it handles guiding very well. It can easily handle the 100mm refractor. You'll need EQMOD to run it from a PC. That's a proven solution, so no concerns there.

QHY163: Along with the ASI1600 (same chip), probably the hottest affordable camera out there right now for deep sky. Extremely low read noise which will be critical for narrow band imaging. The only real issue with this camera is the fact that it's 12 bits. As a result, each sub exposure has very limited bit dynamic range. Either you have quantization error in the shadows (if your gain is low), or you quickly start to clip stars. The techniques for using 12-bit cameras are therefore a little different--you take LOTS of sub exposures of relatively short duration rather than perhaps a dozen exposures of much longer duration. Averaging this high volume of subs allows you to address the quantization error and effectively overcome the limited bit depth. Works great as long as you use the current techniques aimed at CMOS cameras. Just don't read older websites when learning how to use this camera. Hundreds of 30s subs with moderate gain can do wonders and have almost no downside due to the low read noise. Again, this is a solid choice and it is well matched to the 100mm refractor. You'll get a reasonable compromise at 1x1 binning of field of view and resolution. Should be a match for a fairly wide range of subjects, and the 16 megapixels gives you some head room for cropping and framing.

Guiding: You've got a choice here. You can either use a second guide scope (as you are proposing) or you can use an off axis guider. For now--and maybe indefinitely--you will probably be fine with the separate guide scope. Because of the camera you have chosen and your light pollution conditions, your sub exposures are going to be relatively short even with narrow band. That, coupled with the relatively short focal length of the 100mm refractor, means you probably won't have issues with differential flexure. You should be good to go with a separate guide scope. Longer term, it's POSSIBLE you will want to move to an off-axis guider in front of the filter wheel, but you have limited back focus to play with so that may be challenging. I think you could probably fit something in, but no need to do that right away if ever. Basically, if you get nice, round stars with the separate guide scope, stick with it. The only disadvantage aside from flexure is weight, and your system won't be pushing that EQ6 very hard.

Guide Camera: QHY5-II is a solid choice. No worries there.

Filters: The Astrodon 5nm should be OK even at f/5.5 though you are bumping up against the edge here and may lose a little sensitivity. I use one with an f/3.3 scope, though, with no real problems. I'm a little worried about the 1.25" vs. 36mm. Double check to make sure that's enough not to vignette with the QHY163. Don at Astrodon will be able to tell you. Your scope is just fast enough that you will be near the edge of what that filter can cover. The 36mm LRGB filters are large enough, so no issue there. Lots of people fight about whether you need top quality LRGB filters or not to avoid reflections and halos. Experiences differ. I'd say try them and see. Most people's coatings have been improving over the last few years. Oh, I'm a little worried that you won't be able to mix the 1.25" filter and the 36mm filters on the same filter wheel insert, and I don't think you want to switch in the field. I'd recommend unifying on one or the other, preferably 36mm.

Polemaster: Haven't used one, but I've hard good things about them. Should be a solid choice for quick, accurate polar alignment.

Summary for Deep Sky: I'd say the equipment you are selecting is very good quality and is not likely to be a barrier to your creating top notch images. Whether or not they are really exceptional will depend on your skills; you have chosen stuff that is nice enough you shouldn't need to worry about it holding you back. Nice choices.

Planetary Imaging Scope: I have very limited experience on planetary imaging so won't offer a ton of advice. I'll give you a couple pieces, though. First, planetary imaging is about two things: Aperture and seeing. More aperture allows you to capture more resolution during moments of good seeing (steady air), and the better the seeing the more frequent and lengthy those moments of high resolution are. A 9.25" is a good place to start. A 10" or 11" would be even better. A 14" is capable of absolutely world class images if you seeing is good enough, but if you seeing is only mediocre or even above average, you can stick with the 9" - 12" type scopes. You don't need a flat field for planetary imaging, so no need to splurge on an Edge design (if looking at Celestron SCT's). You'll want a decent barlow as well since you need a lot of focal length coupled with tiny pixels to get a high res planetary image. A C9.25 or C11 would do fine on your EQ6, so no problems there. Same for a Meade 10" ACF. Lots of experienced planetary imagers use SCT's since they get you lots of aperture in a compact, low weight (comparatively) package. If you look at the Meade scopes I'd lean towards f/10 for planetary imaging rather than f/8. Tracking accuracy for planetary imaging is much less critical than deep sky since exposure length is on the order of 1/100s, so I wouldn't worry too much about whether you are approaching the mount's rated capacity or not. If your seeing is mediocre, though, I'd stick with 11" or smaller scopes. They will cool faster and will probably get all the resolution moderate seeing will allow. Sounds like you have your heart set on an 11" or larger. I'd say go with that--11" scope. With good seeing you can get absolutely stunning results with an 11" scope, and it will equilibrate a lot more easily than a 14".

Sounds like a really good start! Will you ever outgrow this system? Sure, if you stick with it long enough and your skills are good enough and your skies are steady enough. But I would be surprised if you ran into any serious limitations in the first couple years. Certainly, the equipment you have chosen is capable of "Wow!" type images.

Hey again,

Thank you very much for your well detailed post.

I will tell you something, many on another forums or even facebook groups told me to change that scope ST80 immediately for DSO, they are right, but i wanted to have a big challenge in AP, using a less quality scope for good imaging, because if i squeeze it to maximum then if i get something else either Esprit or even Takahashi then it will make life eaiser, but before that i have to understand it better. And few nights i gave it a try, you know what? I saw the targets i was dreaming about, M45, M42, Rosette, even the Andromeda galaxy was in the screen without any details but i definitely saw the core, all those with just ST80, and all those were only single not very long exposure except for horeshead, and that was a big hope and enough for me to be happy that i can have them, so once i get more filters and make my filter wheel working then i will focus on those targets, no need to compete with others and trying to have 100 targets in short time, if i can get those 4-6 targets soon for whole year i will be happy, and until summer i will save budget and get C11 i hope then i can start with planets, now i am trying to cover DSO first because it is the main goal for me, i just added planetary recently because i thought it is possible, and the sun also a big target in my country for nearly whole year.

Thanks for your post, it gave me a relief, and sure one way or another i will grow with my equipment, and i still learn, i ask, i read, i watch videos and tutorials, i am fast learning in something and slow in something else, but at the end as long i love it and i spent a lot and i have long free time and our nights clear are tremendous then i think i shouldn't give up, watching those targets on my screen made me deep deep in the rabbit hole actually, so wait me next year with some first serious images i hope.

 

[TareqPhoto]

I don't think anyone has given you a good idea yet on how to measure your seeing. There are two ways to do it, one visually and one photographically. First, the visual:

Here is a link to a website belonging to Damian Peach.

www.damianpeach.com/pickering.htm

He's one of the best in the world at planetary imaging, so he knows all about "seeing." The Pickering scale allows you to estimate your seeing conditions using (ideally) a 5" scope with a high power eyepiece. You could use your 9.25" as well, though it's a bit more sensitive so whatever number you get, add one and you are probably about right. All you need to do is let your scope equilibrate (fully cool), then look at a moderately bright star near zenith using a high power eyepiece. The power needs to be high enough for you to see the first diffraction ring around the star. Perhaps 250x should do it. Don't use your 80mm scope for taking this measure--use your 9.25". Make sure it is fully cooled and well collimated before judging. Which picture looks most like the star?

If you routinely have nights in the 5, 6, or 7 range, your seeing is probably about average. On a good night you will be able to get good planetary images, but on most nights things will be a bit soft. Don't expect to make "Wow!" type planetary images with a 5, 6, or 7 type of night.

If you routinely have nights in the 8, 9, or 10 range, then you have a great site for planetary imaging, and I'd concentrate on that rather than on the deep sky stuff (given your light pollution).

The second way to measure your seeing conditions is photographically. This will have to wait till you have your imaging scope ready to go, and your imaging scope needs to have small enough pixels and/or enough focal length that you can actually tell. That means it will be easier to judge with the planetary setup than with the deep sky setup. Basically, you measure the FWHM (full width/half maximum) diameter of a non-saturated star when the scope is cooled and focused. Most of the capture software can take this measurement for you, just look it up in your user guide. If your FWHM is in the 2" - 3" range, you have average seeing. If you are below 2" you have good seeing. Above 3" and it's poor. Make sure you are measuring in arc seconds, not just in pixels. Again, read the user guide for the software to figure out how to set it up.

I don't want to say that, but i think i will pass all these and just go with C11, i really don't have any scope rather than my 80mm now, i don't have C9.25, the one i was talking about is belong to an astronomy group that i won't go there at all again, but as i said, the seeing was great, and i really don't worry or care about those seeing condition or turbulence, C9.25 for few tests proved me that the condition is good enough, and i think i heard one of the members said that he saw through 12" of his friend and it was out of the world, so if that is true then 11" shouldn't be any different, and don't worry, those bad or poor nights sure are there, i simply pass those nights, and try in great nights, i don't say that my nights will be like 365 all clear, but i believe and i could be wrong that half of those we have realy nice clear night, forget about LP, that is affecting the DSO much more than planets, it is enough for me from my yard i look up and see the Jupiter so so bright waiting to be photographed, even my kids telling me they see it small not twinkling at all, and in my bino it is also steady, i remember one time i asked in the group to bring 2x barlow and use it on that C9.25 and that was my last visit, even with 2X it was amazing, and that night it was hazy, imagine, so i really shouldn't worry or scared too too much about this seeing conditions, and at the end, i may use C11 in another places one day, and between my refractor for DSO and C11 if i buy it there will be some additional scopes, such as 6", 8" Newt or Dobsonian, so i will be always covered one way or another between wide to larger/narrow, and with C11 and Hyperstar i can use it for DSO too, i saw images of people using C11 in moderate or not that good and they had very nice results, so i shouldn't be afraid of that, and automatically i will buy a corrector for backup and collimator to be ready for anything.

 

[Jared Willson]

C11 is a great choice for planetary imaging, so no concerns at all with your choice. Your mount would struggle to do long exposures with that focal length and weight, but for planetary it will be just fine. Good luck!

 

[Jared Willson]

Thank you very much for that post and explanation, so do you think with all of those i will be able to have kind of mind blowing or winner images?

Let me start to post my gear list of astronomy i have so far, and i will ask about my future plans and see if that is a good idea or not, as on another forums some agree and some don't, and each has points of views of agreement or disagreement.

Telescope: SkyWatcher StarTravel 80mm [or called ST80]

Mount: SkyWatcher AZ-EQ6

Camera for DSO imaging: QHY163M [Mono cooled]

Scope for guiding for now: ZWO 60mm with Helical focus

Camera for guiding also for now: QHY5L-II-M

Filters: Astrodon Ha 5nm 1.25", 3rd party LRGB 36mm

Polemaster, laptop good enough for collecting data and 2 desktop powerful enough for processing, Polemaster, QHY filter wheel which i just received yesterday [it has 7x36mm disk, i ordered 8x1.25 with it but i think they forgot to send it, i will call back for it], adapter to use Canon lenses with the filter wheel and camera.

My plans for future:

Camera for planetary: ASI either 290 or 224 or their new one 385, all are great for planetary, i want to have a color version, i do have QHY5 mono but i want color if i don't have headache with filters again for planetary, and no harm to have one color as long i already have mono cameras.

Scope for DSO: most likely in my mind is 100mm Esprit, i was looking at many 80mm, but i feel that 80mm will be quickly done then i want to upgrade, i saw many started with 80mm then upgraded to 100 or 120 or larger, so as long i have ST80 and Canon lenses then i think i am covered of wide field, then a better choice is about 100mm range [100/102/115....] and i can use a reducer anytime if i want wider with that scope over my other scopes, what do you think?

Scope for planetary: i was thinking about larger than 9.25", i looked at that scope few times or 3 times and i loved the view, so clear and no bad seeing condition, and i wanted more, so i put in my mind i want something like 10" minimum or 11" or even 14", but many did fight me about 14" because they all think that i have poor seeing condition and it is too much and i am still beginning, but the main reason is that my mount can't handle it, well, if it is the mount then definitely no C14, But i really don't want to look at less than 11", i know what issues i may face like cooling down or weight or whatever, this is a nice challenge, as long i saw others managed to use 14" or 11" then i have too even if it takes months or years, i want to pay once not to go with 6" or 8" then 11" then 14" then 16", i better have 1 or 2 jumps than many, also why can't learn with larger and have all the time? i have enough time, my country weather condition is different than many in Europe, and from what i read, the more i am to Equator the better it will be maybe for planetary, so i told them i have excellent to very good seeing condition for planets even under light pollution area, what is your thought here?

I am still learning to polar alignment my mount at best, then i will start soon i hope very soon about guiding, and as long i got my filter wheel finally then i want to use LRGB filters, but Ha is in a different size, and i did change my ST80 standard focuser to 2" CrayFord focuser, so no more 1.25" unless i buy a converter adapter to hold 1.25" on 2", i found but i can't order very small cheap item alone, waiting another budget because i want to add 3rd party Ha/O3/S2 filters 36mm at once then i can fill that 7x36mm disk in filter wheel.

I have software for stacking and processing such as DSS and PixInsight and ofcourse Photoshop and SharpCap and whatever, also Stellarium and PHD2, i try to cover everything with my limited budget, i couldn't buy expensive mount such as APs one or expensive mount such as Takahashi, but i hope with whatever i have it will do the job for me for long time until i can afford something expensive if it is a must or necessary, i don't want to left behind, also i want to have the best results, not sure if best results really need best gear or not.

This coming year i hope i can put allmy gear into use and enjoy doing it, it is a winter here so M42 is the main target and it is definitely my top target anyway, it was the first image that made me to get into astrophotography, so i will focus on this and horsehead and M45 and also the Andromeda galaxy, other targets i can give it a try time to time, i don't know how i will do it, but i will never give up, i squeezed my ST80 to have best i can until i can put Canon lenses or buy another scope to use in DSO, who knows, i hope someone guiding me and being patient with me than someone trying to hold me back because i don't have enough good gear.

Anything you want to add to help you are most welcome and i appreciate it.

Creating "mind blowing" or "winner" images takes more than just equipment. It also takes knowledge of all the techniques and some artistic skills. You can have the best equipment in the world, but that won't be sufficient if you don't know how to calibrate your images, properly polar align your scope (fairly tight tolerances), get your equipment to effectively guide, collimate your telescope, collect enough data, achieve and maintain perfect focus, etc., etc. In addition, a really good image requires some careful planning and artistry. What's the right night or nights to collect your data? Do you have the right focal length for the object you wish to image? What's going to be different in your image vs. the thousand images before of the same object? How will you compose your image? How saturated or natural looking do you want your colors? Lots and lots of practice required.

Basically, no matter how good your equipment, don't expect really good images without a bunch of work. As long as you are planning on spending time perfecting your craft, I think I can let you know whether your equipment will be holding you back or not.

SkyWatcher 100mm Esprit: Solid choice for wide field, deep sky imaging. Comes with an appropriate field flattener. Wide imaging circle. Reasonably fast at f/5.5. Fairly light, so it won't push your mount's limits too hard. Back focus is a touch limited, so be careful on your camera and filter choices. Should be fine, though. Good value--most of the performance of a Takahashi FSQ for a much lower cost. Recommended.

SkyWatcher AZ-EQ6: Also a good choice. It's not an absolutely top-end mount, so make sure you stay well within the weight restrictions. Don't expect insanely low periodic error from this mount, but it is usually quite smooth so it handles guiding very well. It can easily handle the 100mm refractor. You'll need EQMOD to run it from a PC. That's a proven solution, so no concerns there.

QHY163: Along with the ASI1600 (same chip), probably the hottest affordable camera out there right now for deep sky. Extremely low read noise which will be critical for narrow band imaging. The only real issue with this camera is the fact that it's 12 bits. As a result, each sub exposure has very limited bit dynamic range. Either you have quantization error in the shadows (if your gain is low), or you quickly start to clip stars. The techniques for using 12-bit cameras are therefore a little different--you take LOTS of sub exposures of relatively short duration rather than perhaps a dozen exposures of much longer duration. Averaging this high volume of subs allows you to address the quantization error and effectively overcome the limited bit depth. Works great as long as you use the current techniques aimed at CMOS cameras. Just don't read older websites when learning how to use this camera. Hundreds of 30s subs with moderate gain can do wonders and have almost no downside due to the low read noise. Again, this is a solid choice and it is well matched to the 100mm refractor. You'll get a reasonable compromise at 1x1 binning of field of view and resolution. Should be a match for a fairly wide range of subjects, and the 16 megapixels gives you some head room for cropping and framing.

Guiding: You've got a choice here. You can either use a second guide scope (as you are proposing) or you can use an off axis guider. For now--and maybe indefinitely--you will probably be fine with the separate guide scope. Because of the camera you have chosen and your light pollution conditions, your sub exposures are going to be relatively short even with narrow band. That, coupled with the relatively short focal length of the 100mm refractor, means you probably won't have issues with differential flexure. You should be good to go with a separate guide scope. Longer term, it's POSSIBLE you will want to move to an off-axis guider in front of the filter wheel, but you have limited back focus to play with so that may be challenging. I think you could probably fit something in, but no need to do that right away if ever. Basically, if you get nice, round stars with the separate guide scope, stick with it. The only disadvantage aside from flexure is weight, and your system won't be pushing that EQ6 very hard.

Guide Camera: QHY5-II is a solid choice. No worries there.

Filters: The Astrodon 5nm should be OK even at f/5.5 though you are bumping up against the edge here and may lose a little sensitivity. I use one with an f/3.3 scope, though, with no real problems. I'm a little worried about the 1.25" vs. 36mm. Double check to make sure that's enough not to vignette with the QHY163. Don at Astrodon will be able to tell you. Your scope is just fast enough that you will be near the edge of what that filter can cover. The 36mm LRGB filters are large enough, so no issue there. Lots of people fight about whether you need top quality LRGB filters or not to avoid reflections and halos. Experiences differ. I'd say try them and see. Most people's coatings have been improving over the last few years. Oh, I'm a little worried that you won't be able to mix the 1.25" filter and the 36mm filters on the same filter wheel insert, and I don't think you want to switch in the field. I'd recommend unifying on one or the other, preferably 36mm.

Polemaster: Haven't used one, but I've hard good things about them. Should be a solid choice for quick, accurate polar alignment.

Summary for Deep Sky: I'd say the equipment you are selecting is very good quality and is not likely to be a barrier to your creating top notch images. Whether or not they are really exceptional will depend on your skills; you have chosen stuff that is nice enough you shouldn't need to worry about it holding you back. Nice choices.

Planetary Imaging Scope: I have very limited experience on planetary imaging so won't offer a ton of advice. I'll give you a couple pieces, though. First, planetary imaging is about two things: Aperture and seeing. More aperture allows you to capture more resolution during moments of good seeing (steady air), and the better the seeing the more frequent and lengthy those moments of high resolution are. A 9.25" is a good place to start. A 10" or 11" would be even better. A 14" is capable of absolutely world class images if you seeing is good enough, but if you seeing is only mediocre or even above average, you can stick with the 9" - 12" type scopes. You don't need a flat field for planetary imaging, so no need to splurge on an Edge design (if looking at Celestron SCT's). You'll want a decent barlow as well since you need a lot of focal length coupled with tiny pixels to get a high res planetary image. A C9.25 or C11 would do fine on your EQ6, so no problems there. Same for a Meade 10" ACF. Lots of experienced planetary imagers use SCT's since they get you lots of aperture in a compact, low weight (comparatively) package. If you look at the Meade scopes I'd lean towards f/10 for planetary imaging rather than f/8. Tracking accuracy for planetary imaging is much less critical than deep sky since exposure length is on the order of 1/100s, so I wouldn't worry too much about whether you are approaching the mount's rated capacity or not. If your seeing is mediocre, though, I'd stick with 11" or smaller scopes. They will cool faster and will probably get all the resolution moderate seeing will allow. Sounds like you have your heart set on an 11" or larger. I'd say go with that--11" scope. With good seeing you can get absolutely stunning results with an 11" scope, and it will equilibrate a lot more easily than a 14".

Sounds like a really good start! Will you ever outgrow this system? Sure, if you stick with it long enough and your skills are good enough and your skies are steady enough. But I would be surprised if you ran into any serious limitations in the first couple years. Certainly, the equipment you have chosen is capable of "Wow!" type images.

Hey again,

Thank you very much for your well detailed post.

I will tell you something, many on another forums or even facebook groups told me to change that scope ST80 immediately for DSO, they are right, but i wanted to have a big challenge in AP, using a less quality scope for good imaging, because if i squeeze it to maximum then if i get something else either Esprit or even Takahashi then it will make life eaiser, but before that i have to understand it better. And few nights i gave it a try, you know what? I saw the targets i was dreaming about, M45, M42, Rosette, even the Andromeda galaxy was in the screen without any details but i definitely saw the core, all those with just ST80, and all those were only single not very long exposure except for horeshead, and that was a big hope and enough for me to be happy that i can have them, so once i get more filters and make my filter wheel working then i will focus on those targets, no need to compete with others and trying to have 100 targets in short time, if i can get those 4-6 targets soon for whole year i will be happy, and until summer i will save budget and get C11 i hope then i can start with planets, now i am trying to cover DSO first because it is the main goal for me, i just added planetary recently because i thought it is possible, and the sun also a big target in my country for nearly whole year.

Thanks for your post, it gave me a relief, and sure one way or another i will grow with my equipment, and i still learn, i ask, i read, i watch videos and tutorials, i am fast learning in something and slow in something else, but at the end as long i love it and i spent a lot and i have long free time and our nights clear are tremendous then i think i shouldn't give up, watching those targets on my screen made me deep deep in the rabbit hole actually, so wait me next year with some first serious images i hope.

You're looking at a good system. Absolute best money can buy in that aperture range? No. But good enough that you won't be held back by your equipment as you learn? Yes. Good enough that you can take world class images of appropriate subjects? Yes.

Here is a sample of what one can do with a small refractor on some of the showcase objects you mentioned. This was with a 5" f/4.5 scope rather than the 4" f/5 scope you are thinking of, but the field of view will be quite similar. It's monochrome, but should still give you an idea of how deep you can go even under heavily light polluted skies. This was from here in Oakland, California which is severely light polluted.




Andromeda Galaxy

Your proposed equipment should be capable of very similar results (though you may need a two panel mosaic for Andromeda since your camera chip is somewhat smaller than mine).

- Jared

 

[TareqPhoto]

C11 is a great choice for planetary imaging, so no concerns at all with your choice. Your mount would struggle to do long exposures with that focal length and weight, but for planetary it will be just fine. Good luck!

Great, this is the point, i have another choices of scopes if i want long exposures or DSO, i won't do like some having a scope for many tasks even it is allowed or capable, as long my mount isn't up to hold it for long exposure then i never use it for that with this scope until i can afford a much better stronger/sturdier mount.

I hope to find mounts heads only so i don't need to have the tripod, i saw a tripod that can carry/hold up to 100KG, i don't know if i did read it correctly or wrong, 100KG?!!!! if it is 100LB i can understand, but 100 KILOGRAM!!! WOW, and the price cheaper than my AZ-EQ6 complete mount kit itself.

 

[TareqPhoto]

Thank you very much for that post and explanation, so do you think with all of those i will be able to have kind of mind blowing or winner images?

Let me start to post my gear list of astronomy i have so far, and i will ask about my future plans and see if that is a good idea or not, as on another forums some agree and some don't, and each has points of views of agreement or disagreement.

Telescope: SkyWatcher StarTravel 80mm [or called ST80]

Mount: SkyWatcher AZ-EQ6

Camera for DSO imaging: QHY163M [Mono cooled]

Scope for guiding for now: ZWO 60mm with Helical focus

Camera for guiding also for now: QHY5L-II-M

Filters: Astrodon Ha 5nm 1.25", 3rd party LRGB 36mm

Polemaster, laptop good enough for collecting data and 2 desktop powerful enough for processing, Polemaster, QHY filter wheel which i just received yesterday [it has 7x36mm disk, i ordered 8x1.25 with it but i think they forgot to send it, i will call back for it], adapter to use Canon lenses with the filter wheel and camera.

My plans for future:

Camera for planetary: ASI either 290 or 224 or their new one 385, all are great for planetary, i want to have a color version, i do have QHY5 mono but i want color if i don't have headache with filters again for planetary, and no harm to have one color as long i already have mono cameras.

Scope for DSO: most likely in my mind is 100mm Esprit, i was looking at many 80mm, but i feel that 80mm will be quickly done then i want to upgrade, i saw many started with 80mm then upgraded to 100 or 120 or larger, so as long i have ST80 and Canon lenses then i think i am covered of wide field, then a better choice is about 100mm range [100/102/115....] and i can use a reducer anytime if i want wider with that scope over my other scopes, what do you think?

Scope for planetary: i was thinking about larger than 9.25", i looked at that scope few times or 3 times and i loved the view, so clear and no bad seeing condition, and i wanted more, so i put in my mind i want something like 10" minimum or 11" or even 14", but many did fight me about 14" because they all think that i have poor seeing condition and it is too much and i am still beginning, but the main reason is that my mount can't handle it, well, if it is the mount then definitely no C14, But i really don't want to look at less than 11", i know what issues i may face like cooling down or weight or whatever, this is a nice challenge, as long i saw others managed to use 14" or 11" then i have too even if it takes months or years, i want to pay once not to go with 6" or 8" then 11" then 14" then 16", i better have 1 or 2 jumps than many, also why can't learn with larger and have all the time? i have enough time, my country weather condition is different than many in Europe, and from what i read, the more i am to Equator the better it will be maybe for planetary, so i told them i have excellent to very good seeing condition for planets even under light pollution area, what is your thought here?

I am still learning to polar alignment my mount at best, then i will start soon i hope very soon about guiding, and as long i got my filter wheel finally then i want to use LRGB filters, but Ha is in a different size, and i did change my ST80 standard focuser to 2" CrayFord focuser, so no more 1.25" unless i buy a converter adapter to hold 1.25" on 2", i found but i can't order very small cheap item alone, waiting another budget because i want to add 3rd party Ha/O3/S2 filters 36mm at once then i can fill that 7x36mm disk in filter wheel.

I have software for stacking and processing such as DSS and PixInsight and ofcourse Photoshop and SharpCap and whatever, also Stellarium and PHD2, i try to cover everything with my limited budget, i couldn't buy expensive mount such as APs one or expensive mount such as Takahashi, but i hope with whatever i have it will do the job for me for long time until i can afford something expensive if it is a must or necessary, i don't want to left behind, also i want to have the best results, not sure if best results really need best gear or not.

This coming year i hope i can put allmy gear into use and enjoy doing it, it is a winter here so M42 is the main target and it is definitely my top target anyway, it was the first image that made me to get into astrophotography, so i will focus on this and horsehead and M45 and also the Andromeda galaxy, other targets i can give it a try time to time, i don't know how i will do it, but i will never give up, i squeezed my ST80 to have best i can until i can put Canon lenses or buy another scope to use in DSO, who knows, i hope someone guiding me and being patient with me than someone trying to hold me back because i don't have enough good gear.

Anything you want to add to help you are most welcome and i appreciate it.

Creating "mind blowing" or "winner" images takes more than just equipment. It also takes knowledge of all the techniques and some artistic skills. You can have the best equipment in the world, but that won't be sufficient if you don't know how to calibrate your images, properly polar align your scope (fairly tight tolerances), get your equipment to effectively guide, collimate your telescope, collect enough data, achieve and maintain perfect focus, etc., etc. In addition, a really good image requires some careful planning and artistry. What's the right night or nights to collect your data? Do you have the right focal length for the object you wish to image? What's going to be different in your image vs. the thousand images before of the same object? How will you compose your image? How saturated or natural looking do you want your colors? Lots and lots of practice required.

Basically, no matter how good your equipment, don't expect really good images without a bunch of work. As long as you are planning on spending time perfecting your craft, I think I can let you know whether your equipment will be holding you back or not.

SkyWatcher 100mm Esprit: Solid choice for wide field, deep sky imaging. Comes with an appropriate field flattener. Wide imaging circle. Reasonably fast at f/5.5. Fairly light, so it won't push your mount's limits too hard. Back focus is a touch limited, so be careful on your camera and filter choices. Should be fine, though. Good value--most of the performance of a Takahashi FSQ for a much lower cost. Recommended.

SkyWatcher AZ-EQ6: Also a good choice. It's not an absolutely top-end mount, so make sure you stay well within the weight restrictions. Don't expect insanely low periodic error from this mount, but it is usually quite smooth so it handles guiding very well. It can easily handle the 100mm refractor. You'll need EQMOD to run it from a PC. That's a proven solution, so no concerns there.

QHY163: Along with the ASI1600 (same chip), probably the hottest affordable camera out there right now for deep sky. Extremely low read noise which will be critical for narrow band imaging. The only real issue with this camera is the fact that it's 12 bits. As a result, each sub exposure has very limited bit dynamic range. Either you have quantization error in the shadows (if your gain is low), or you quickly start to clip stars. The techniques for using 12-bit cameras are therefore a little different--you take LOTS of sub exposures of relatively short duration rather than perhaps a dozen exposures of much longer duration. Averaging this high volume of subs allows you to address the quantization error and effectively overcome the limited bit depth. Works great as long as you use the current techniques aimed at CMOS cameras. Just don't read older websites when learning how to use this camera. Hundreds of 30s subs with moderate gain can do wonders and have almost no downside due to the low read noise. Again, this is a solid choice and it is well matched to the 100mm refractor. You'll get a reasonable compromise at 1x1 binning of field of view and resolution. Should be a match for a fairly wide range of subjects, and the 16 megapixels gives you some head room for cropping and framing.

Guiding: You've got a choice here. You can either use a second guide scope (as you are proposing) or you can use an off axis guider. For now--and maybe indefinitely--you will probably be fine with the separate guide scope. Because of the camera you have chosen and your light pollution conditions, your sub exposures are going to be relatively short even with narrow band. That, coupled with the relatively short focal length of the 100mm refractor, means you probably won't have issues with differential flexure. You should be good to go with a separate guide scope. Longer term, it's POSSIBLE you will want to move to an off-axis guider in front of the filter wheel, but you have limited back focus to play with so that may be challenging. I think you could probably fit something in, but no need to do that right away if ever. Basically, if you get nice, round stars with the separate guide scope, stick with it. The only disadvantage aside from flexure is weight, and your system won't be pushing that EQ6 very hard.

Guide Camera: QHY5-II is a solid choice. No worries there.

Filters: The Astrodon 5nm should be OK even at f/5.5 though you are bumping up against the edge here and may lose a little sensitivity. I use one with an f/3.3 scope, though, with no real problems. I'm a little worried about the 1.25" vs. 36mm. Double check to make sure that's enough not to vignette with the QHY163. Don at Astrodon will be able to tell you. Your scope is just fast enough that you will be near the edge of what that filter can cover. The 36mm LRGB filters are large enough, so no issue there. Lots of people fight about whether you need top quality LRGB filters or not to avoid reflections and halos. Experiences differ. I'd say try them and see. Most people's coatings have been improving over the last few years. Oh, I'm a little worried that you won't be able to mix the 1.25" filter and the 36mm filters on the same filter wheel insert, and I don't think you want to switch in the field. I'd recommend unifying on one or the other, preferably 36mm.

Polemaster: Haven't used one, but I've hard good things about them. Should be a solid choice for quick, accurate polar alignment.

Summary for Deep Sky: I'd say the equipment you are selecting is very good quality and is not likely to be a barrier to your creating top notch images. Whether or not they are really exceptional will depend on your skills; you have chosen stuff that is nice enough you shouldn't need to worry about it holding you back. Nice choices.

Planetary Imaging Scope: I have very limited experience on planetary imaging so won't offer a ton of advice. I'll give you a couple pieces, though. First, planetary imaging is about two things: Aperture and seeing. More aperture allows you to capture more resolution during moments of good seeing (steady air), and the better the seeing the more frequent and lengthy those moments of high resolution are. A 9.25" is a good place to start. A 10" or 11" would be even better. A 14" is capable of absolutely world class images if you seeing is good enough, but if you seeing is only mediocre or even above average, you can stick with the 9" - 12" type scopes. You don't need a flat field for planetary imaging, so no need to splurge on an Edge design (if looking at Celestron SCT's). You'll want a decent barlow as well since you need a lot of focal length coupled with tiny pixels to get a high res planetary image. A C9.25 or C11 would do fine on your EQ6, so no problems there. Same for a Meade 10" ACF. Lots of experienced planetary imagers use SCT's since they get you lots of aperture in a compact, low weight (comparatively) package. If you look at the Meade scopes I'd lean towards f/10 for planetary imaging rather than f/8. Tracking accuracy for planetary imaging is much less critical than deep sky since exposure length is on the order of 1/100s, so I wouldn't worry too much about whether you are approaching the mount's rated capacity or not. If your seeing is mediocre, though, I'd stick with 11" or smaller scopes. They will cool faster and will probably get all the resolution moderate seeing will allow. Sounds like you have your heart set on an 11" or larger. I'd say go with that--11" scope. With good seeing you can get absolutely stunning results with an 11" scope, and it will equilibrate a lot more easily than a 14".

Sounds like a really good start! Will you ever outgrow this system? Sure, if you stick with it long enough and your skills are good enough and your skies are steady enough. But I would be surprised if you ran into any serious limitations in the first couple years. Certainly, the equipment you have chosen is capable of "Wow!" type images.

Hey again,

Thank you very much for your well detailed post.

I will tell you something, many on another forums or even facebook groups told me to change that scope ST80 immediately for DSO, they are right, but i wanted to have a big challenge in AP, using a less quality scope for good imaging, because if i squeeze it to maximum then if i get something else either Esprit or even Takahashi then it will make life eaiser, but before that i have to understand it better. And few nights i gave it a try, you know what? I saw the targets i was dreaming about, M45, M42, Rosette, even the Andromeda galaxy was in the screen without any details but i definitely saw the core, all those with just ST80, and all those were only single not very long exposure except for horeshead, and that was a big hope and enough for me to be happy that i can have them, so once i get more filters and make my filter wheel working then i will focus on those targets, no need to compete with others and trying to have 100 targets in short time, if i can get those 4-6 targets soon for whole year i will be happy, and until summer i will save budget and get C11 i hope then i can start with planets, now i am trying to cover DSO first because it is the main goal for me, i just added planetary recently because i thought it is possible, and the sun also a big target in my country for nearly whole year.

Thanks for your post, it gave me a relief, and sure one way or another i will grow with my equipment, and i still learn, i ask, i read, i watch videos and tutorials, i am fast learning in something and slow in something else, but at the end as long i love it and i spent a lot and i have long free time and our nights clear are tremendous then i think i shouldn't give up, watching those targets on my screen made me deep deep in the rabbit hole actually, so wait me next year with some first serious images i hope.

You're looking at a good system. Absolute best money can buy in that aperture range? No. But good enough that you won't be held back by your equipment as you learn? Yes. Good enough that you can take world class images of appropriate subjects? Yes.

Here is a sample of what one can do with a small refractor on some of the showcase objects you mentioned. This was with a 5" f/4.5 scope rather than the 4" f/5 scope you are thinking of, but the field of view will be quite similar. It's monochrome, but should still give you an idea of how deep you can go even under heavily light polluted skies. This was from here in Oakland, California which is severely light polluted.


Andromeda Galaxy

Your proposed equipment should be capable of very similar results (though you may need a two panel mosaic for Andromeda since your camera chip is somewhat smaller than mine).

- Jared

Don't worry, i thought about it, i will try to see what i can get at the end, and how to make it working for me, long FL or short wide field all will have a place, not all targets for widest and not all for longest, and if some targets such as this amazing Andromeda as your image i can simply ignore it until i can get wider scope or getting better in Mosaic for example then give it a try.

Now i am thrilled that my filter wheel is working, but it is only working with USB connection to PC, not camera direct connection, i hate that because it means another long cable, but good in many forums people are trying to help me to figure out how to make a direct connection from camera to filter wheel, hope very soon maybe today i make it happen, then i will enjoy taking LRGB shots, not sure i start with M42 or Andromeda or M45? those are the main targets that i can test LRGB at best first, we will see.

I am still trying to figure out which refractor to get, many told me start with 80mm, but while i am still waiting answers other bringing other FL such as 60mm, 100mm, 75mm,....etc, so it made me lost more, all are nice great and all will work for some targets, but while i was thinking about i kept coming to the idea of going middle way but at higher side and use reducer, so i was thinking if i should go with 100mm and use reducer to have some wider fields if needed, rather than going with 80mm and i get bored with so many ultra wide fields and i can't wait for narrower field or longer scope, and honestly i see about 90% of people moving from 60-80mm to 100-120mm, some still keep those smaller wide scopes and some just sold it, this is giving me the idea that they go to higher way not from narrow to wide, and i still have Canon lenses which i can connect to my camera fine and have wide field, and my cheap less quality ST80 too, but why i must have a higher quality 80mm to start with if i already can start with something else and can learn from it? sometimes i can't understand people way of thinking, the more i read and wait answers from others the more i feel i can't satisfy everyone and that always true, but who is right here or who is wrong? and whom experience i should follow for my decision?!!! you got my point why i ask around a lot.