Quote:

---

I would bet I have seen a dozen recent posts here in the beginner forum saying, in essence, "I want to get into AP soon" or "scope would be for visual and first but AP later." I wonder if many of these folks realize the major investment in time, equipment, money and frustration involved in astrophotography at any level beyond sticking an iphone up to the eyepiece?

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

But somebody who wants to do visual observing won't let astrophotography get in his way. As it happens, all the really good astrophotographers I know -- and I know many -- are also great visual observers.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

The image isn't the same each time. There are differences, be it in detail or color. No two pictures of the same image would look the same.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Why do people want to do it? As many have said above, some really don't. For me, I dabbled in AP because I wanted to see the gorgeous colors and detail that I just can't get visually with my modest equipment and poor viewing location. So why not just download some Hubble pics and look at those? Same reason every tourist takes a picture of Niagara Falls, or Old Faithful, or the Grand Canyon. How many people have photographed the Eiffel Tower? All of these look pretty much the same as they have for many years. Yet people take their own pictures because, well, I don't know why. You want one you created yourself, I guess. Something about which you can say, "Yes, that's a photo I took myself" to the interested coworker walking by.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I have come to recognize that Astrophotography and Visual astronomy are really two different hobbies. Still, I do cringe when I see "and AP later", AP is not just a casual add on, it's a serious commitment, not so much of money but of time...

I think it is worth explaining the effort required and the commitment of time and resources that astrophotography requires... it's good to know what you are in for, if one thinks you setup the scope and start snapping away a bit of dissuasion is probably very useful. And if one has what it takes to tackle astrophotography, a bit of dissuasion is not a road block.

Jon

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I would bet I have seen a dozen recent posts here in the beginner forum saying, in essence, "I want to get into AP soon" or "scope would be for visual and first but AP later." I wonder if many of these folks realize the major investment in time, equipment, money and frustration involved in astrophotography at any level beyond sticking an iphone up to the eyepiece? I recognize and respect the skills of a number of advanced astrophotographers, and I realize that for some it is an ultimate destination in this hobby, but I worry that most true beginners are missing out on the fundamental joy of astronomy by leapfrogging into AP before they really learn the sky or their equipment on the visual side. I am a strictly visual observer, and I have a hard time understanding the attraction of sitting behind a laptop for seven hours while a $20,000 scope/mount/camera rig absorbs photons from a faint fuzzy, but each to their own. I also doubt the need for one more pic of M51; it's not like it's going to sprout horns some night. But that aside, I would say to beginners, give it at least one (and preferably two) years in visual mode before you even think of snapping a shutter. You're going to miss the core of astronomy otherwise.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

And that, Brian, is ample justification for the hobby.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I know a guy that does only visual.
He loves to tell me 'You image, I imagine'.

---

Beautiful! "Suffice to say, what we behold is censored by our eyes."

(And, "I know a girl from a tribe so primitive, she can call me up without no telephone.")

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I'm baffled by such "controversy."

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I've been trying to do AP for four years.
Admittedly I get out once a month at most.
I've had two pretty nice rigs. A NexStar11GPS and currently A Sirius mount with an AT6RC.
I have a total of about 5 images that are recognizable.

I will retire at the end of the year and hope to be able to spend more time on the endeavor, but I'm the first to tell you it's extremely frustrating and requires a lot of patience.

---

Quote:

---

I know a guy that does only visual.
He loves to tell me 'You image, I imagine'.

---

I would love to tell him, "You imagine, I will transform your imagination into an image".

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I would bet I have seen a dozen recent posts here in the beginner forum saying, in essence, "I want to get into AP soon" or "scope would be for visual and first but AP later." I wonder if many of these folks realize the major investment in time, equipment, money and frustration involved in astrophotography at any level beyond sticking an iphone up to the eyepiece?

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I bought a DSI camera for $100 about 3 months after I bought my 8SE. I was told you can't do AP with an 8SE. The first night I got some very good shots of Jupiter. The second night out I got the Orion Nebulae and started the processing learning curve. I moved on to a CG-5 with the C8 and an 80mm guide scope. I was also told you can't AP with this set up. I'm glad people know that they can't do things, but don't tell me what I can and can not do. I know better. I'll decide that for myself.

Stan

---

My thoughts exactly. I jumped into a AP shortly after my first scope when I was a beginner (still am). I shot the moon and bright objects through my dob and later on bought a EQ-1 and Orion ST80 for $150. It wasn't a great AP setup but it allowed me to take 1min exposures at 400mm with little to no star trails.

I personally don't find AP all that difficult and never really did when I started (although I'm not all the way up the learning curve). It just takes a little bit of time and patience. I think just because some people are incapable of doing things, they automatically think other people are incapable of them as well.

Picture of M101 from the second time I ever used my CG-5.


Edited by TopherTheME (08/20/12 05:29 PM)

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And that, Brian, is ample justification for the hobby.

---

This is not a critism at all for your statement, please don't take it as such. Your statement got me thinking... Why does anyone need any justification for a hobby?

If people want to do it, they should. If they're grossly underestimating the effort required that's their problem, but it doesn't mean they're making a mistake.

---

Don't worry, I understand what you mean, and you got it. We don't need justification. It's a 'because it's there' kind of thing.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I was thinking this way. I was considering a dob (xt10i) but I wanted future expandability into beginner AP. I saw posts about what could be done with a Nexstar 8SE and I almost got that. Really, the only thing that prevented me from getting it were reviews about it being unstable for even visual observing and the fact that it needs a power pack for any reasonable amount of observing.

I did end up getting an XT10i, I ordered it in May and am still waiting for it (yes, I am patient).

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

...

Most amateurs are visual only, with some dabbling occasionally with imaging. They'd rather spend the majority of their time enjoying the wonders of the night sky. I encourage everyone to initially follow that path. ...

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I was thinking this way. I was considering a dob (xt10i) but I wanted future expandability into beginner AP. I saw posts about what could be done with a Nexstar 8SE and I almost got that. Really, the only thing that prevented me from getting it were reviews about it being unstable for even visual observing and the fact that it needs a power pack for any reasonable amount of observing.

I did end up getting an XT10i, I ordered it in May and am still waiting for it (yes, I am patient).

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

When compared with (I dare say) most astro photographers, 2500 is in fact very modest.

---

I dunno, I've seen some fairly fantastic pictures from guys running a DSI and a CG-5 with some random widefield refractor on it. I think many people get blind by the people who post in the 'beginners' imaging forum with not-so beginner equipment or experience.

John Graham comes to mind as someone who produces wonderful images with a relatively modest equipment setup (OK, he has two identical setups... but still). It's expectations; I think you can do some amazing things with very little.

As for visual first: what about those of us with light pollution to deal with? The things I see through my mono camera with a few minutes of exposure completely demolish what I can see visually through the same equipment. Star hopping is fine when you can see your guide stars.. I unfortunately am lucky to have nights down to magnitude 5 or 6.

The other option people forget is video. It's almost a hybrid between visual and AP. Not so pretty pictures compared to AP, but a few that blows out what you'll see through a Nagler in a 16" dob. The views I got through my mallincam prior to moving on to mono imaging were staggering; it revitalized my interest in astronomy to the point I built a ROR .

I think that people planning from the start for AP is not a 'bad' thing. It keeps them from buying the cheaper equipment when they realize they could possibly be interested in more.

Clear skies

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I think that people planning from the start for AP is not a 'bad' thing. It keeps them from buying the cheaper equipment when they realize they could possibly be interested in more.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I think many people get blind by the people who post in the 'beginners' imaging forum with not-so beginner equipment or experience.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I think many people get blind by the people who post in the 'beginners' imaging forum with not-so beginner equipment or experience.

---

I agree. I wish there was a beginner, intermediate and advanced imaging areas, for DSI and solar system stuff. I usually feel pretty proud of stuff I take but after seeing what others post (while saying they had bad seeing conditions) is intimidating and often makes me think I'm completely wasting my time. When dealing with a true beginner they usually think my planetary stuff is pretty good.

Not sure when someone should graduate from beginner to intermediate to advanced.

At the same time I think the beginners want the advice and experience from the intermediate and advanced guys. Though the advanced guys are typical in another realm in terms of equipment and commitment.

Jim

---

Jim nothing is a waste of your time that brings you a sense of self accomplishment and lets you kind of get away from the world for a while while doing it.

Personally, I am of the mindset that there is no reason I couldn't have an APOD; however, I refuse to let the fact that I don't diminish the sense of accomplishment that my images bring me. Don't let all of the noise dampen your enthusiasm...equipment is not the be all and end all of the imagng hobby. I made the point on the imagng forum that while we get stuck in these debates over what equiment works "best" I think we tend to forget that technique and the experience of the imager have a lot to do with the finished images, both in acquisitin and processing. Betcha Jerry Lodriguss could post some absolutely incredible images whether he was using his Tak or someone else's achromat on an eq-4 mount; he would pick a target the equipment is capable of, and his experience at both ends would certainly make for his usual expected outstanding work.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

When compared with (I dare say) most astro photographers, 2500 is in fact very modest.

---

I dunno, I've seen some fairly fantastic pictures from guys running a DSI and a CG-5 with some random widefield refractor on it. I think many people get blind by the people who post in the 'beginners' imaging forum with not-so beginner equipment or experience.

---

I wonder at all these posts that imply anyone said AP couldn't possibly be done cheaply. Particularly those that think I said it.

Someone called 2500 a modest equipment figure. I agreed with him that 2500 is modest compared with most astro photographers I know and most I see posting on here.

I can go outside tonight and take an astro photo with a piece of photo paper and a box and a pin and a couple pieces of tape. That's not the point. The point is that 2500 isn't a lot to spend in the AP hobby. Not that you must spend 2500.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

1. If I buy the good stuff now, I won't have to sell to upgrade later. I will already have well-suited equipment. It's cheaper in the long run.

---

Quote:

---

2. There are very cool objects in the sky that are far better defined by a stack of long exposure images than through visual observing. I may wanna do that some day.

---

Quote:

---

3. I have a long standing hobby in photography with tons of DSLR equipment and lenses. So if I decide to do AP, a good chunk of the expense has already been paid.

---

Quote:

---

What I don't like is how long the astrophographer spends tweaking at the computer.

---

Quote:

---

5. My scope is fine for visual also, so no harm done that it can also take some decent pics, if it is ever put to that task.

---

Quote:

---

But as I make fairly substantial investments (for me) into this hobby, I want to keep my options open. I want equipment that is versatile and can last a lifetime.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

When compared with (I dare say) most astro photographers, 2500 is in fact very modest.

---

I dunno, I've seen some fairly fantastic pictures from guys running a DSI and a CG-5 with some random widefield refractor on it. I think many people get blind by the people who post in the 'beginners' imaging forum with not-so beginner equipment or experience.

---

I wonder at all these posts that imply anyone said AP couldn't possibly be done cheaply. Particularly those that think I said it.

Someone called 2500 a modest equipment figure. I agreed with him that 2500 is modest compared with most astro photographers I know and most I see posting on here.

I can go outside tonight and take an astro photo with a piece of photo paper and a box and a pin and a couple pieces of tape. That's not the point. The point is that 2500 isn't a lot to spend in the AP hobby. Not that you must spend 2500.

---

I made that point and as you stated, compared to many AP'er's, 2500 indeed is a modest investment and not necessarily means one MUST spend at least 2500. Some can do it for even less.

Recently, I recall seeing some stunning widefield images of the Sagittarius region taken as follows:-

Samir Kharusi: Placing a DSLR on a rock and shooting 10 secs exposures.

Jerry Lodriguss: DSLR and a Fixed Tripod shooting 8 secs exposures.

They should be available at the Beginning and Intermediate Imaging Forums though Samir's may be a few pages back.

While granted you need dark skies to obtain such stunning images, even with expensive equipment, one still requires decent to dark sites to image anyway.

End of the day, like Sixela mentioned, talent and the art of processing plays a role.

In my case, I am limited to eternal light pollution and even if I could afford, I wouldn't buy anything more than what I have today simply because I wouldn't be able to get more than 2 minutes exposure at best before the subs look washed out. For the same reason I didn't buy an autoguider.

For those blessed with dark skies or access to dark skies, half the job is already done. The other half is entirely based on your passion.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I would bet I have seen a dozen recent posts here in the beginner forum saying, in essence, "I want to get into AP soon" or "scope would be for visual and first but AP later." I wonder if many of these folks realize the major investment in time, equipment, money and frustration involved in astrophotography at any level beyond sticking an iphone up to the eyepiece? I recognize and respect the skills of a number of advanced astrophotographers, and I realize that for some it is an ultimate destination in this hobby, but I worry that most true beginners are missing out on the fundamental joy of astronomy by leapfrogging into AP before they really learn the sky or their equipment on the visual side. I am a strictly visual observer, and I have a hard time understanding the attraction of sitting behind a laptop for seven hours while a $20,000 scope/mount/camera rig absorbs photons from a faint fuzzy, but each to their own. I also doubt the need for one more pic of M51; it's not like it's going to sprout horns some night. But that aside, I would say to beginners, give it at least one (and preferably two) years in visual mode before you even think of snapping a shutter. You're going to miss the core of astronomy otherwise.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I was thinking this way. I was considering a dob (xt10i) but I wanted future expandability into beginner AP. I saw posts about what could be done with a Nexstar 8SE and I almost got that. Really, the only thing that prevented me from getting it were reviews about it being unstable for even visual observing and the fact that it needs a power pack for any reasonable amount of observing.

I did end up getting an XT10i, I ordered it in May and am still waiting for it (yes, I am patient).

---

Where did you order it from? It looks like I could order one today and get it shipped in two days from Orion's website. I'd call the people up or cancel that order and get it from Orion directly.

Good luck!

---

Well I'm from Canada so shipping charges would be huge. I got it from Canadian Telescopes which is located in BC.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

My bottom line question is, what's wrong with me getting a 110mm refractor as my first refractor that can also do AP? If I never do AP, what did I sacrifice by getting an AP capable scope? I get great views. I'm enjoying it very much.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

1. If I buy the good stuff now, I won't have to sell to upgrade later. I will already have well-suited equipment. It's cheaper in the long run.

---

Fallacy ...

---

Agreed. This is indeed the fundamental mistake that many beginners make, and it's a big one.

All-purpose scopes do exist, and they do have their uses, notably as travel scopes. But one thing that they strikingly fail to do is save money. Quite the contrary!

Beginners who try to start with all-purpose scopes are likely to cheat themselves on both ends. They will end up with scopes that are too small to yield really impressive visual images and are also too unstable to take really high-quality astrophotos.

Moreover, in the grand scheme of astrophotography, optical tubes are the cheapest part. So trying to economize there is penny wise and pound foolish.

Remember, a telescope is a camera lens -- neither more nor less. So building a system around a single telescope is like trying to build a DSLR system around a single lens and multiple bodies.

Almost all serious astronomers own two or more telescopes, for extremely good reasons. Not only is it cheaper, you also get better results than you possibly could with a single scope, no matter how expensive.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I think many people get blind by the people who post in the 'beginners' imaging forum with not-so beginner equipment or experience.

---

I agree. I wish there was a beginner, intermediate and advanced imaging areas, for DSI and solar system stuff. I usually feel pretty proud of stuff I take but after seeing what others post (while saying they had bad seeing conditions) is intimidating and often makes me think I'm completely wasting my time. When dealing with a true beginner they usually think my planetary stuff is pretty good.

Not sure when someone should graduate from beginner to intermediate to advanced.

At the same time I think the beginners want the advice and experience from the intermediate and advanced guys. Though the advanced guys are typical in another realm in terms of equipment and commitment.

Jim

---

Jim, I feel the same way. Most the pictures I post get ignored; the 'beginners' are discussing things I'm not quite ready for. Maybe we need a new forum for 'real' imaging beginners? :P

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I think many people get blind by the people who post in the 'beginners' imaging forum with not-so beginner equipment or experience.

---

I agree. I wish there was a beginner, intermediate and advanced imaging areas, for DSI and solar system stuff. I usually feel pretty proud of stuff I take but after seeing what others post (while saying they had bad seeing conditions) is intimidating and often makes me think I'm completely wasting my time. When dealing with a true beginner they usually think my planetary stuff is pretty good.

Not sure when someone should graduate from beginner to intermediate to advanced.

At the same time I think the beginners want the advice and experience from the intermediate and advanced guys. Though the advanced guys are typical in another realm in terms of equipment and commitment.

Jim

---

Jim, I feel the same way. Most the pictures I post get ignored; the 'beginners' are discussing things I'm not quite ready for. Maybe we need a new forum for 'real' imaging beginners? :P

---

I'd comment on your images, but as a beginner myself I never feel qualified to offer anything of value...

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

1. If I buy the good stuff now, I won't have to sell to upgrade later. I will already have well-suited equipment. It's cheaper in the long run.

---

Fallacy ...

---

Agreed. This is indeed the fundamental mistake that many beginners make, and it's a big one.

All-purpose scopes do exist, and they do have their uses, notably as travel scopes. But one thing that they strikingly fail to do is save money. Quite the contrary!

Beginners who try to start with all-purpose scopes are likely to cheat themselves on both ends. They will end up with scopes that are too small to yield really impressive visual images and are also too unstable to take really high-quality astrophotos.

Moreover, in the grand scheme of astrophotography, optical tubes are the cheapest part. So trying to economize there is penny wise and pound foolish.

Remember, a telescope is a camera lens -- neither more nor less. So building a system around a single telescope is like trying to build a DSLR system around a single lens and multiple bodies.

Almost all serious astronomers own two or more telescopes, for extremely good reasons. Not only is it cheaper, you also get better results than you possibly could with a single scope, no matter how expensive.

---

Well, if you are suggesting I have started out with too small an aperture, I looked at larger refractors (achros), but there was a portability issue. The CGEM is heavy enough, but adding a heavier scope would likely mean I would use it much less. I just know myself on that one; weight and portability matters.

I'm also fairly new to the hobby: 2 years. So I had (and have) a small Newtonian as my first scope. After two years I got a refractor. Why? Just cuz. I wanted one. Nothing more and nothing less. Check me out in another few years, and I'll probably have a 3rd scope. I can't afford to buy an entire stable of scopes right now, nor would I know what to do with them. I still have so much to learn. You gotta start somewhere in this hobby, and this is how I started.

I'm not sure where you are going when you suggest I am "building a system around a single telescope." Who said this was my last scope? I am not building anything around the WO FLT. I don't even have the DSLR adaptor for it yet, nor do I have any immediate plans to buy one. (Though I am now looking for a nice wide field eyepiece, so recommendations accepted.)

The WO FLT may not be the best AP scope out there. It also may not be the best visual scope out there. I'm sure it has its particularities. Actually, it seems that all scopes do. But, in my opinion and limited experience, it is a nice, first refractor for me. I'm enjoying it a lot. I did my first 2 star alignment at a recent star party, and then slewed it right to Saturn. It was awesome!

Yep, I'm a newbie. I am easily thrilled. I have yet to take a star chart to a star party. Why? Because I really don't care what I am looking at. It just cool to look "out there." (Though when I found Saturn is was an amazing moment.)

And again, I so appreciate your comments and opinions, because they are molding mine.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Yep, I'm a newbie. I am easily thrilled. I have yet to take a star chart to a star party. Why? Because I really don't care what I am looking at. It just cool to look "out there." (Though when I found Saturn is was an amazing moment.)

---

And that, after all, is what it's all about.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

(Though when I found Saturn is was an amazing moment.)

---

Saturn started it all for me. Now she's behind trees as soon as it's dark and I have to stay up until 2:30 ish for Jupiter to make it over another tree. Guess I'll sleep when it's cloudy.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I'm baffled by such "controversy."

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

The WO FLT may not be the best AP scope out there. It also may not be the best visual scope out there. I'm sure it has its particularities. Actually, it seems that all scopes do. But, in my opinion and limited experience, it is a nice, first refractor for me. I'm enjoying it a lot. I did my first 2 star alignment at a recent star party, and then slewed it right to Saturn. It was awesome!

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The WO FLT may not be the best AP scope out there. It also may not be the best visual scope ... but I'm enjoying it a lot. I did my first 2 star alignment at a recent star party, and then slewed it right to Saturn. It was awesome!

---

If you are enjoying your scope, that is what counts.

---

Amen!

Quote:

---

In general, my gut feeling is that it is best to start out with a scope that is optimized for visual observation, get one's feet wet, learn about telescopes, find ones way around the sky. Then when one is more familiar with the hobby, that's a time to make a decision based on experience.

---

Exactly. But every rule has many exceptions.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I probably shouldn't pipe up here as I am 4 months into this hobby. I bought my Meade LX200 with the very idea of visual/AP. I thought that it was necessary to be involved in AP if one was to be fully engaged in Astronomy.

Of course the Florida clouds rolled in about the same time the UPS truck did so I've spent a lot of time reading various forums, manuals, and scouring how to's just to see what AP involved. I have to admit after reading as much material as I have, I will not be taking any pictures for quite a while.

But, I will never forget first light with my new equipment an hour before dusk. Sitting alone in a large open field expectantly watching the sky darken and the first alignment star to appear, a very bright meteor appeared ever so briefly cutting brightly across the dusky background. I sat back in my chair and couldn't remember feeling that kind of peace in a long time. It was at that moment I became fully engaged.

---

Excellent post Odell!

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I would bet I have seen a dozen recent posts here in the beginner forum saying, in essence, "I want to get into AP soon" or "scope would be for visual and first but AP later." I wonder if many of these folks realize the major investment in time, equipment, money and frustration involved in astrophotography at any level beyond sticking an iphone up to the eyepiece? I recognize and respect the skills of a number of advanced astrophotographers, and I realize that for some it is an ultimate destination in this hobby, but I worry that most true beginners are missing out on the fundamental joy of astronomy by leapfrogging into AP before they really learn the sky or their equipment on the visual side. I am a strictly visual observer, and I have a hard time understanding the attraction of sitting behind a laptop for seven hours while a $20,000 scope/mount/camera rig absorbs photons from a faint fuzzy, but each to their own. I also doubt the need for one more pic of M51; it's not like it's going to sprout horns some night. But that aside, I would say to beginners, give it at least one (and preferably two) years in visual mode before you even think of snapping a shutter. You're going to miss the core of astronomy otherwise.

---

Post Extras: