Thinking about getting into astrophotography but not sure where to start...

[Perturabo]

Astrophotography - or rather the beautiful images it can produce - has always fascinated me, and I love doing some (basic) milkyway photography. Right now, my "astrophotography" is limited to stacking exposures for milkyway photography, but I don't do panoramas.

Unsurprisingly, I've been eyeing with getting more into astrophotography every now and then, but given that I love to hike and appreciate being able to carry my equipment, the amount (and weight) of the necessary equipment was a big turn-off. Now, with the advent of smaller, automated systems this seems to change.

First, what would be my intended usage and imaging equipment:

• I find both aspects interesting, wide-field / panorama as well as deep sky imaging, and given my lack of experience it's hard to say if I might prefer one over the other. It might be deep-sky, though, as I can manage the milky way without specialized equipment
• It would be nice if I was able to carry everything needed in a backpack, i.e., I want to be independent from cars etc.
• camera will be an Sony A7RV with 135 1.8, 70-200 4.0, 100-400 5.6, and preferably also 200-600 6.3
• I might eventually get an astro-modified camera, but for now I want to use what I have
• As of now I don't have any plans to purchase specific astro cameras, filter wheels, or telescopes

While I was initially positive that I've found the "best" mount option for my needs already, further research on that topic introduced some doubts about that, and I have 3 options that each seem attractive, but for entirely different reasons.

Option 1: Benro Polaris Astro Edition

Lightweight, compact, fully automated, and arguably the best (read: most comfortable) of the three when it comes to wide-field astro or milkyway panoramas. But it seems to struggle with longer focal lengths and has no option for auto-guiding, which as I understand it is a must for longer exposures with longer lenses. So it's really good for milkyway (panoramas), okay-ish for deep sky if the lens isn't too long, and it's the most portable option. I don't really care about the other features it offers. It would be mounted to my existing tripod (Sirui ST-124).

Option 2: Skywatcher Star Adventurer GTI

Still quite compact for what it is, works better with longer lenses, has a much better integration into celestial objects libraries, compatible with auto-guiding. Basically, it seems to be the much better option if I value deep-sky over wide-field. It's cheaper as well, but takes up more space and weighs more. Still a self-sufficient system that doesn't need external power, though, and I could probably mount it to my Sirui ST-124 tripod.

Option 3: ZWO AM-3

The big plunge. I hate buying twice, and it would seem a ZWO AM-3 system would be all I need for a very long time. Purchasing the tripod, ASIAir Plus, and the 120mm ZWO Mini for auto-guiding would cost me 1k more than the Benro Polaris, but I'd end up with a significantly more capable system, and probably the only one that would really be able to handle that 200-600 with confidence. I'm unsure about the total weight and bulk of that setup, but I assume it's a good deal heavier than the Skywatcher Star Adventurer GTI and probably not "hikable".

My thoughts on these 3 options so far: I'm slightly in favor of ZWO AM-3, with the Star Adventurer GTI a close second, and my initial favorite Benro Polaris the beaten third place.

Why?

Realistically, I'll only ever bring along the Benro Polaris for a multi-day hiking trip, as it's the most compact one. But even then, +1kg and plus a lot of volume is a lot if I could just do the milkyway the traditional way. And I really want that deep-sky capability - which is exactly the area where the Polaris seems to struggle. Which makes me think spending >1k for milkyway panoramas is just too much.

Even more so, as the other two options can do that just as well. Not quite as automated, but then I won't be doing milkyway panoramas all the time. They can, however, do the deep-sky thing a lot better. And the ZWO seems to win on all fronts over the Star Adventurer GTI when it comes to overall engineering and usability, setup, precision, and compatibility with possible future upgrades. On top of that, people seem to add a lot of ZWO products to their Star Adventurer GTIs anyhow - guiding cameras, ASIAir plus, etc. Which made me wonder why not go ZWO all the way if half of the setup consists of their stuff anyhow.

So what do you think?

Does my reasoning makes sense? Would you recommend one of these options over the other? Did I miss something? Would it even make sense to hop into that rather complex aspect of photography with a Star Adventurer GTI or even a ZWO AM-3 for a start and no previous experience and standard retail photography equipment?

In short, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

 

[RealWorldPhoto]

What about the Vixen Polarie U? I recently got one and have had some nights with 250 mm focal length, using polar finder (a must when using longer focal lengths), balance bar and counterweight. Using balance bar and counterweight makes searching for and centering objects way easier than when using just a ball head, and everything will also stay balanced at all positions.

When using shorter focal lengths, say, up to 135 mm, you can just leave the balance bar and counterweight at home, and use a ball head to point the camera at the sky.

This well-built device can be used for about two minutes at 300-400 mm focal lengths. Until now, after doing hundreds and hundreds of 30 sec frames (enough to make saturated single photos) I have just deleted a few files, due to wind, not caused by tracking error.

This tracker is very small and lightweight. You don't need any phone connection to run it. There is an option to do that, though. And it can be auto-guided if you connect it to a desktop computer. My goal is to avoid phone and computer when doing my astrophotography.

I also have an Astrotrac 360, a beautiful high-precision tracker for a bit heavier gear. But then you have more weight and you also need a pretty capable 12V battery, since this tracker concumes guite some power. This tracker is also pretty expensive.

For a lightweight, easy to set up and use tracker, I can reccomend the Vixen Polarie U. For future astrophotography I am not going to buy anything more complex than what I have now. These two trackers should keep me occupied for years.


Iris nebula and surrounding clouds with dust. TS 76 (342mm fl f:4.5), 1 hr 40 min exposure, 30 sec sub frames. Astrotrac 360. Ha-modified mirrorless camera.


Orion nebula and faint surroundings. Redcat 51 (250 mm fl f:4.9), 2 hr 30 min exposure, 30 sec sub frames. Vixen Polarie U. Ha-modified mirrorless camera.


Pleiades with some dark clouds. Redcat 51 (250 mm fl f:4.9) , 90 min exposure, 30 sec sub frames. Vixen Polarie U. Not modified mirrorless camera.

 

[GrayCard]

You might want to consider adding in one or more Night Sky light pollution filters (depending on how many differently-sized lenses you plan to use). Breakthrough Photography makes a very good one. Understand the NPF rule and make yourself a set of tables to match the lenses you intend to use to get the right shutter speed to minimize streaking while on a simple tripod. If you do choose to use a tracker, it should make things much easier.

 

[Perturabo]

What about the Vixen Polarie U? I recently got one and have had some nights with 250 mm focal length, using polar finder (a must when using longer focal lengths), balance bar and counterweight. Using balance bar and counterweight makes searching for and centering objects way easier than when using just a ball head, and everything will also stay balanced at all positions.

When using shorter focal lengths, say, up to 135 mm, you can just leave the balance bar and counterweight at home, and use a ball head to point the camera at the sky.

This well-built device can be used for about two minutes at 300-400 mm focal lengths. Until now, after doing hundreds and hundreds of 30 sec frames (enough to make saturated single photos) I have just deleted a few files, due to wind, not caused by tracking error.

This tracker is very small and lightweight. You don't need any phone connection to run it. There is an option to do that, though. And it can be auto-guided if you connect it to a desktop computer. My goal is to avoid phone and computer when doing my astrophotography.

I also have an Astrotrac 360, a beautiful high-precision tracker for a bit heavier gear. But then you have more weight and you also need a pretty capable 12V battery, since this tracker concumes guite some power. This tracker is also pretty expensive.

For a lightweight, easy to set up and use tracker, I can reccomend the Vixen Polarie U. For future astrophotography I am not going to buy anything more complex than what I have now. These two trackers should keep me occupied for years.


Iris nebula and surrounding clouds with dust. TS 76 (342mm fl f:4.5), 1 hr 40 min exposure, 30 sec sub frames. Astrotrac 360. Ha-modified mirrorless camera.


Orion nebula and faint surroundings. Redcat 51 (250 mm fl f:4.9), 2 hr 30 min exposure, 30 sec sub frames. Vixen Polarie U. Ha-modified mirrorless camera.


Pleiades with some dark clouds. Redcat 51 (250 mm fl f:4.9) , 90 min exposure, 30 sec sub frames. Vixen Polarie U. Not modified mirrorless camera.

These are some nice shots! Wonder if I might get there myself eventually...



As for the Vixen Polarie U:

To be completely honest, it just didn't show up before you mentioned it. I did my research cross-reading astrobackyard, capture the atlas, cloudynights, astrobin, and a number of other sites that showed up, as well as a range of youtube videos (astrobackyard again, peter zelinka, some others), but the Vixen Polarie U simply wasn't mentioned. Ever. Upon researching it specifically I now found some information on it, and it seems quite capable indeed. And very portable. Thanks a lot for bringing it up!



What I don't like, though, is that it seems to lack a motorized 3rd axis. Not sure if it's really that big of a problem, but as stated I want to avoid double purchases, and I don't want more than one setup at home. Which is why I'm currently leaning towards the ZWO AM-3: it's more expensive initially, but it can do everything I want it to do. And then some.

However, I'm not decided yet, and I did add the Polarie U to the list of candidates.



--
Flickr photostream: https://flickr.com/photos/198185181@N03/

 

[82Virago]

Here is my 3 cents (adjusted for inflation)

The Benro Polaris, doesn't seem geared for serious astrophotography. It might be capable, but at a glance, not for me.

I am a big Sky Watcher fan, I have 2 Star Adventurers. Very Happy. The GTi version adds Goto which is easier than star hopping like I do. If you already have a decent tripod.

You are in for reasonable cost.

The Am-3 is a great mount from what I have read, but spendy $$$, but if you are getting in serious, it will carry you a long way.

One thing I would not worry about yet is guiding/auto guiding. You will easily get good 2-3 minute subs, with the GTi or the AM3. At your present focal lengths you will be fine.

I shoot at up to 672mm equivalent and 2 minute subs are my norm. I can't shoot longer anyway as it is not dark enough, even when I am 2 hours away from the city.

There is enough to learn, that adding more complexity this early will not be beneficial in my opinion. Certainly the most absolutely stunning sharp images have guiding behind them, but you are not there yet. Save the money and headache for now.

I look forward to seeing some of your initial shots. Shoot, post, ask questions. Rinse and repeat.

- Cheers

 

[RealWorldPhoto]

These are some nice shots! Wonder if I might get there myself eventually...

You will, no doubt.

As for the Vixen Polarie U:

To be completely honest, it just didn't show up before you mentioned it. I did my research cross-reading astrobackyard, capture the atlas, cloudynights, astrobin, and a number of other sites that showed up, as well as a range of youtube videos (astrobackyard again, peter zelinka, some others), but the Vixen Polarie U simply wasn't mentioned. Ever. Upon researching it specifically I now found some information on it, and it seems quite capable indeed. And very portable. Thanks a lot for bringing it up!

What I don't like, though, is that it seems to lack a motorized 3rd axis. Not sure if it's really that big of a problem, but as stated I want to avoid double purchases, and I don't want more than one setup at home. Which is why I'm currently leaning towards the ZWO AM-3: it's more expensive initially, but it can do everything I want it to do. And then some.

However, I'm not decided yet, and I did add the Polarie U to the list of candidates.

Those I know who have the AM3 or AM5 are excited about these equatorial mounts. But then they have moved up from star trackers to full-featured mounts and are using a computer to run the setup with goto, autoguiding etc. Seems like you are heading towards such a solution.

 

[Perturabo]

Thank you very much for the helpful and thought-provoking input, @RealWorldPhoto and @82Virago!

After some more contemplation, I've ordered a Star Adventurer GTI to test the waters. I was tempted to go for the Vixen Polarie U for a while, but ultimately, the Star Adventurer GTI seemed to be the "more complete package". I've also been lucky enough to enjoy two clear nights over the last days (more or less... slightly foggy, but good enough to give it a go).

Still learning the ropes with everything, and I haven't taken the plunge with PixInsight yet, but thanks to some tutorials I was able to coax at least a little something out of my ... well... "work".


Orion and (faint) runngin man nebula; Sony A7RV unmodified, Sony 100-400 GM @400, ISO1600, 100x30s, no filters


Whirlpool Galaxy (M51) and Alkalid (I think); Sony A7RV unmodified, Sony 100-400 GM @400, ISO1600, 100x30s, no filters

Both images have been processed with SIRIL, post-processing with Photoshop. The second image has also been processed with Topaz DenoiseAI to get rid (as good as possible) of the walking noise that was quite prominent due to missing dithering.

For the first one (Orion nebula), I didn't polar align properly, hence everything is slightly soft. At least, that's what I assume to be the reason behind the softness. For the second one (whirlpool galaxy), polar alignment was good, but I messed up the general alignment when I mistook one of Jupiter's moons for Jupiter... at least that's what I assume to be reason why M51 ended up at the right hand edge of the frame.

Generally, what causes the greatest struggle is proper alignment. Even some very faint haze/fog in the air is enough to dim Polaris to the point where I really struggle to tell it apart from other stars through the polarscope. And the polarscope itself is a real pain.

3-star alignment is okay-ish. I learn a thing or two about the night sky, which is fun. Not so much fun is the guesswork whether or not that tiny white spot on the camera screen is the correct star (or planet). Linking up Skysafari with SynScan helps a bit, but it's still a lot of "maybe". Nevertheless looking forward to the next gap in the cloud cover.

Some more musings:

Other than that, it's quite a bit more fun than expected, and I'm seriously considering a bigger investment. Sure, I need to learn everything, but time is limited. And given the amount of time some objects require for proper images, this is even more true for this kind of photography. Which makes me wonder if the time spent learing wouldn't be spent better when learning with good equipment.

Not quite sure about it though, because there are A LOT of really good images of basically everything around, and ultimately all it would achieve is "doing it myself" (kind of... minus all the automated tools and stuff).

--
Flickr photostream: https://flickr.com/photos/198185181@N03/

 

[RealWorldPhoto]

Good luck with your new gear and your exploration of astrophotography. Much fun is waiting for you, and some frustrating events too, I guess, but the latter also brings us forward. ;-)

 

[nighthiker]

Hi!

My first thoughts to your initial posting: Why not two systems as your requirements are very different:

a) A light weight system (tracker) for MW-pano and similar wide-angle work, potentially during longer hikes

b) A precise system (mount) with Go-to, guiding and suitable for longer lenses/refractors

The Star Adventurer GTi belongs rather to the group b) and is suitable for DS and MW-panos, but it's rather heavy for MW-panos. Test it and make your mind. I'm looking into the SA GTi as a second tracker for longer lenses next to my Fornax LT (which has this annoying 100min rewind limitation, but is otherwise a very interesting tracker).

Concerning 'light pollution filters': The broad band Neodymium/Redhancer/Clear Night/ ... filters have never been very efficient as they also have a reduced transmission outside the wavelength with light pollution. The increasing use of LED lights makes these filters completely useless. It's a different story with narrow-band interference filters.

Concerning Polarie / Polarie U: My workhorse for MW and WA work. Light, compact and precise, but not a tracker for DS. The worm wheel is smaller than that of the SA GTi and so is the max payload.