Is there anyone into astrophotography? About once a year I get a wild hair and start looking into astrophotography, this is that time for this year
When that happens I read a bunch of forums, watch a ton of youtube videos and read online content and what I come away with is a TON of different opinions and things people swear by that are polar opposites of each other.
From a community that I trust more than others.. what do you use?
Where do I start?
I've been shooting as a hobbyist for 23 years. Went from a point and shoot Olympus to a 10D to a 5D3 and soon to upgrade to the R6.
I've heard I need a dedicated body specifically for night sky. Others said I can use any that I have.
I'd like to start by mounting my current setup on an EQ mount. This is the least expensive route to get my feet wet. I started digging this week and before I knew it was had a list that included a Celestron Edge HD 11" telescope, ZWO ASI 160mm pro camera etc. etc. before I knew it, I had $12,000 in my cart... So, I backed up and came here.
I don't like to skimp and regret not getting 'what I really needed'.
Any help getting started would be greatly appreciated.
Yes I recently got into it (end of 2019) and up until now I was using the ANCIENT Canon 40D on an uncorrected Skywatcher Newton 200/1000mm f5, all riding on Skywatcher EQ6 Equatorial GO TO mount.
Sadly I won't be able to post my latest attempts here on Canon forum, since me and my dad upgraded the camera to QHY 168c (unless I get an adapter to use it with my Canon 300 f2.8, which I plan to do).
... Sadly I don't have more files at hand on my website, but they are available to look at on my Instagram...
So to get you started in a serious way, you WILL have to get a good Equatorial mount (not ALT-AZ!!!). Depending on the payload you plan to use and portability, a Skywatcher HEQ5 or EQ6-R Pro are excellent candidates. EQ6-R is a "buy once and be done with it" mount, however it's a heavy beast that's suitable for permanent setups. You will have to buy an autoguiding solution for top notch long exposures and dithering function. An excellent and not that expensive guidecam is the ZWO 120mm mini. For main imaging, you can of course use a *reasonably recent* DSLR (I definitely DO NOT recommend 40D unless you want to be frustrated), but you will be missing on cooling feature and will have less sensitivity around 650nm (red color) unless you have it modified. If you happen to have a Canon supertelephoto (300mm and up) you can use that easily with great results, and even use dedicated astro cameras on them, however, there is a slight issue with focusing and stopping the lens down a bit with them. If you use a DSLR or mirrorless, no problem with focusing or stopping down. One other thing - be prepared - every adapter/ring/spacer can cost 10s or even 100s of Dollars and you will realize very quickly, that a Newtonian telescope or a starter APO Refractor is by far the cheapest thing you can drop your money on this black hole of a hobby. If you plan to get a Newton or a refractor, then you absolutely have to get the corresponding coma corrector or field flattner with them. It is a must buy purchase, because without them the stars in corners will be massively ugly and it will frustrate you a lot.
Edit: One other thing... You mentioned you looked at Celestron Edge HD11. It's a very common beginner mistake to buy massive focal lenghts for astrophotography. Unless you want to hunt Galaxies full time or plan to spend Massive amount on *an adapter that I forgot the name of* that allows you to install your camera on the front plate and make it shorter/way faster apperture, this is not a good telescope for a new astrophotographer.
Edit 2: Starizona Hyperstar for Edge HD11 - 1299 US will make it 540mm f1.9.
Edit 3: You don't list your full Canon gear, but if you want to use a DSLR and DON'T have a supertelephoto lens you will most likely have to use an APS-C camera with most beginner telescopes.
Milan- i'm grateful for your reply- Some of this is still a foreign language due to the fact that I have no hands on experience. I appreciate your input.
No problem at all, it takes quite a long time and to have the equipment actually at hand to learn the *tech* side of it.
At minimum, you will require a mount. Some people will probably jump in and tell you to get a Skywatcher star adventurer, which I hear is fine for lenses up to around 200mm and even then I'm not fully convinced you can get pin point stars with it for long exposures. Getting a Skywatcher HEQ5 would be my recommendation. You will have to learn how to polar align it either via built in scope, or you can get excellent QHY Pole master, but that costs quite a penny... You will have to come up with some sort of a connection between your lenses and the mount and find a way how to attach a guidescope/guidecam on that. We have a DIY solution that I can show you if you're interested. Telescope have a different dimensions for mounting compared to cameras (Vixen or Losmandy rails compared to say Arca swiss plates).
Your Sigmas have a tripod collar which will allow you to rotate the camera for desired composition - not all objects align with the non rotating camera and corresponding field of view. Your Sigma 50-500 should be very flexible - you can frame Andromeda Galaxy very nicely at around 400mm on a FF camera, however, I'm not entirely sure if the sharpness will be sufficient at f6.3 or f7.1 across the frame at or near infinity.
Depending on your location and Bortle class, you probably will have to look into a light pollution filter however, you will have to be very careful with what format will you get and if it's going to be compatible with your camera. There are clip in filters for DSLRs/mirrorless cameras that are compatible with say 5D3 but are not with 5D4 because of it's mirror box design. It is best to leave the filters for later purchase, since they can get very expensive.
My last recommendation is - if you aren't a *lone wolf* that wants to do it *all by him/herself*, try to contact an astronomy club near you. They will probably have all the equipment you can think of at hand and can show you around and probably even let you try your photo gear on that at a star party or some kind of a public event.
Jeffrey Myers wrote:
About once a year I get a wild hair and start looking into astrophotography, this is that time for this year
Same here. A few years ago I received an 8" dobsonian and started to go down the rabbit hole that is astrophotography. Once I better understood the equipment I would need to get the shot I wanted, plus the very late nights, and what seems like an incredible amount of post-processing (which is my least favorite part of photography), I decided that I'm best served by leaving astrophotography to people like Milan and just enjoying their amazing photos. Yet part of me still really wants to as least buy a tracking mount and give it a shot.
Milan Hutera wrote:
Yes I recently got into it (end of 2019) and up until now I was using the ANCIENT Canon 40D on an uncorrected Skywatcher Newton 200/1000mm f5, all riding on Skywatcher EQ6 Equatorial GO TO mount.
Sadly I won't be able to post my latest attempts here on Canon forum, since me and my dad upgraded the camera to QHY 168c (unless I get an adapter to use it with my Canon 300 f2.8, which I plan to do).
... Sadly I don't have more files at hand on my website, but they are available to look at on my Instagram...
So to get you started in a serious way, you WILL have to get a good Equatorial mount (not ALT-AZ!!!). Depending on the payload you plan to use and portability, a Skywatcher HEQ5 or EQ6-R Pro are excellent candidates. EQ6-R is a "buy once and be done with it" mount, however it's a heavy beast that's suitable for permanent setups. You will have to buy an autoguiding solution for top notch long exposures and dithering function. An excellent and not that expensive guidecam is the ZWO 120mm mini. For main imaging, you can of course use a *reasonably recent* DSLR (I definitely DO NOT recommend 40D unless you want to be frustrated), but you will be missing on cooling feature and will have less sensitivity around 650nm (red color) unless you have it modified. If you happen to have a Canon supertelephoto (300mm and up) you can use that easily with great results, and even use dedicated astro cameras on them, however, there is a slight issue with focusing and stopping the lens down a bit with them. If you use a DSLR or mirrorless, no problem with focusing or stopping down. One other thing - be prepared - every adapter/ring/spacer can cost 10s or even 100s of Dollars and you will realize very quickly, that a Newtonian telescope or a starter APO Refractor is by far the cheapest thing you can drop your money on this black hole of a hobby. If you plan to get a Newton or a refractor, then you absolutely have to get the corresponding coma corrector or field flattner with them. It is a must buy purchase, because without them the stars in corners will be massively ugly and it will frustrate you a lot.
Edit: One other thing... You mentioned you looked at Celestron Edge HD11. It's a very common beginner mistake to buy massive focal lenghts for astrophotography. Unless you want to hunt Galaxies full time or plan to spend Massive amount on *an adapter that I forgot the name of* that allows you to install your camera on the front plate and make it shorter/way faster apperture, this is not a good telescope for a new astrophotographer.
Edit 2: Starizona Hyperstar for Edge HD11 - 1299 US will make it 540mm f1.9.
Edit 3: You don't list your full Canon gear, but if you want to use a DSLR and DON'T have a supertelephoto lens you will most likely have to use an APS-C camera with most beginner telescopes. ...Show more →
Very nicely done Astro photos lots and lots of work involved in those you should have them printed big on walls i love them all .
qc_mountain wrote:
Very nicely done Astro photos lots and lots of work involved in those you should have them printed big on walls i love them all .
Francois.
Thank you, I actually did print the first one - the Horsehead nebula and Flame nebula at 12x18" and it came out surprisingly bad (not sharp at all). I'm not sure what happened there. This one - a pair of galaxies M81 - M82 came out a bit better. Still I will be reshooting everything as they come back to their respective seasons, because of new and vastly superior camera and also the addition of coma corrector, which we ordered in march and came basically at the same time as the camera.
jeraldcook wrote:
Same here. A few years ago I received an 8" dobsonian and started to go down the rabbit hole that is astrophotography. Once I better understood the equipment I would need to get the shot I wanted, plus the very late nights, and what seems like an incredible amount of post-processing (which is my least favorite part of photography), I decided that I'm best served by leaving astrophotography to people like Milan and just enjoying their amazing photos. Yet part of me still really wants to as least buy a tracking mount and give it a shot.
Too bad we are not neighbors, we could share in the wallet pain to experiment when that wild hair gets wild again.
Jeffrey Myers wrote:
Is there anyone into astrophotography? About once a year I get a wild hair and start looking into astrophotography, this is that time for this year
When that happens I read a bunch of forums, watch a ton of youtube videos and read online content and what I come away with is a TON of different opinions and things people swear by that are polar opposites of each other.
From a community that I trust more than others.. what do you use?
Where do I start?
I've been shooting as a hobbyist for 23 years. Went from a point and shoot Olympus to a 10D to a 5D3 and soon to upgrade to the R6.
I've heard I need a dedicated body specifically for night sky. Others said I can use any that I have.
I'd like to start by mounting my current setup on an EQ mount. This is the least expensive route to get my feet wet. I started digging this week and before I knew it was had a list that included a Celestron Edge HD 11" telescope, ZWO ASI 160mm pro camera etc. etc. before I knew it, I had $12,000 in my cart... So, I backed up and came here.
I don't like to skimp and regret not getting 'what I really needed'.
Any help getting started would be greatly appreciated. ...Show more →
This is a great time of year to think that!!! I was just thinking that now that the full moon passed, maybe I should get the binoculars out and see the Messier and other objects in the galactic center region of Sagittarius, Scorpius, and Ophiuchus etc. Even 15x70's can see a lot here, and birding binoculars should be able to get the Lagoon nebula Sagittarius star cloud etc in moderate to low light pollution.
I haven't done much astrophotography, but I did all the reading to get started. And I've done a lot of visual astronomy. Assuming you already have a tripod, you don't need to buy anything to get started. I would absolutely not recommend an 11" telescope at this point!!! Most people seem to be using more 400mm or so telescopes for astro, think 70mm aperture f/6, and the 11" could be really difficult. I remember seeing one nice shot of the Horsehead nebula shot on the long end of a 75-300 zoom!! Polar alignment apparently often has more to do with sharpness than the optics
If you want to buy something, get a drive, at least that'd probably be my 1st purchase. CG-5 considered excellent for starting, when I looked, I'd probably get that used or the later model that replaced it. DSS is free and supposed to be good to process. You're supposed to shoot darks, flats , bias etc. The lenses you have should be good I think you want low coma. Join Cloudy nights and post photos there. I'll have to read the other advice given now hadn't read before posting. Interestingly someone else mentioned the horsehead nebula. I've used the 85/1.4 samyang/rokinon/bower etc (really low coma I guess, looks nice 1.4) to shoot comet photos (that I still need to process lol) and Forrest Tanaka had a video about andromeda galaxy using 70-200/2.8 on regular tripod
Before even attempting to answer, I'd have to ask you what you consider 'astrophotography'. It's a deep rabbit-hole to take a dive down, and shooting the moon and planets is very different from shooting deep sky objects, which is very different from shooting wide-field Milky Way.
You don't need a 'dedicated' anything to get started. A body, a tripod, and a lens (preferably f/2.8 minimum). Get outside at night and mess around a bit, and if you still feel compelled, only then start looking into a tracker (unless you are certain that DSOs are your thing). So many people post threads like this, and then get brain-lock and overload before they even dip a toe. A lot of astro is being alone in the middle of nowhere at night... if that's not your thing, it will be hard to enjoy the capture process.
Keep it simple, getting complicated may come later. Or not.
Jeff wrote:
Before even attempting to answer, I'd have to ask you what you consider 'astrophotography'. It's a deep rabbit-hole to take a dive down, and shooting the moon and planets is very different from shooting deep sky objects, which is very different from shooting wide-field Milky Way.
You don't need a 'dedicated' anything to get started. A body, a tripod, and a lens (preferably f/2.8 minimum). Get outside at night and mess around a bit, and if you still feel compelled, only then start looking into a tracker (unless you are certain that DSOs are your thing). So many people post threads like this, and then get brain-lock and overload before they even dip a toe. A lot of astro is being alone in the middle of nowhere at night... if that's not your thing, it will be hard to enjoy the capture process.
Keep it simple, getting complicated may come later. Or not.
Agree with Jeff, big difference in deep sky photography where you'll need trackers etc...Milky Way is a great start and you probably already have the equipment to get started there. I suggest downloading the PhotoPills app and watch their videos on how to use the app. With the app you can plan months in advanced your shoots by location, times and position of the Milky way/Sun/Mood etc. It also show you by camera and lens your shoot settings etc...Well worth the $10 for the app.
I came at this from the cheapskate angle. Bought a used vixen polarie and cobbled together an inexpensive counterweight system with a 300mm arca rail and some theater lights weights (convenient in that they have a 1/4 screw on them).
Put my 5D4 plus either a zeiss 100mm f/2 or my 100-400 on there and it was nicely balanced. I found that a geared head was really helpful to get close enough to polar alignment for 20-30 second exposures.
It produces nowhere near the level of clarity and sophistication of some of the photos I have seen but I was able to scratch the itch for about $150 and figure out whether this was something worth going deep in to for me. It is most assuredly a domain which requires pretty hefty buy in to start doing the really technical photography.
If you’re interested in this kind of a trial run I’d be happy to send you photos of the set up and some of the gotchas I found.
I know you said you don’t like to skimp, so I offer up my approach more as a way to test run whether you enjoy the process. It feels to me really different than any other type of photography in that a huge percentage of the time is in the computer integration as well as in the data acquisition (which is exacting but a bit lonely). It is a lot of fun for folks with the inclination. I was glad to have a trial run without really shelling out to learn that it is for me something I’ll do once or twice a year so in this case not something I want to go down a gear rabbit hole.
You can get trackers, iOptron had one when I looked, that will work for lighter 50/1.8 & 70-210/4 lenses. But I'm not sure if they'd be able to handle the 70-200/2.8 or not. I was going to use an alt 300/2.8, and the CG-5 could handle that easily and generally considered a good place to start. Other mounts having a 5 probably similar capacity. You might be better off getting something like that, to get started, as opposed to an astro setup like the CG-5.
Your 50-500 is 79mm front aperture. Aperture is a lot more important, FL is more secondary in astronomy. So many people using 70mm, so yours is basically bigger. Unless it's zooming on its own or some other issue you may not need to buy anything. I think it's just a matter of calling OPT or Orion or someone and getting an adapter for ~$40 or so to use it on a mount for astronomy. You might take a look at their sites.
A lot of people use f/6 or so telescopes for astro. 6 sec at 6400 at 1.4 is about the same exposure as 7 minutes at 1600 at f/6. So you can use the gear you have. You'll get a little movement at 85mm, but sharpness just isn't the same on astro. For one thing you can spend, IIRC, $3k for a dedicated astro camera that only has 720 pixels long dimension. And you're often taking 5+ min exposures, and who gets polar alignment perfect?
AmbientMike wrote:
You can get trackers, iOptron had one when I looked, that will work for lighter 50/1.8 & 70-210/4 lenses. But I'm not sure if they'd be able to handle the 70-200/2.8 or not. I was going to use an alt 300/2.8, and the CG-5 could handle that easily and generally considered a good place to start. Other mounts having a 5 probably similar capacity. You might be better off getting something like that, to get started, as opposed to an astro setup like the CG-5.
Your 50-500 is 79mm front aperture. Aperture is a lot more important, FL is more secondary in astronomy. So many people using 70mm, so yours is basically bigger. Unless it's zooming on its own or some other issue you may not need to buy anything. I think it's just a matter of calling OPT or Orion or someone and getting an adapter for ~$40 or so to use it on a mount for astronomy. You might take a look at their sites.
A lot of people use f/6 or so telescopes for astro. 6 sec at 6400 at 1.4 is about the same exposure as 7 minutes at 1600 at f/6. So you can use the gear you have. You'll get a little movement at 85mm, but sharpness just isn't the same on astro. For one thing you can spend, IIRC, $3k for a dedicated astro camera that only has 720 pixels long dimension. And you're often taking 5+ min exposures, and who gets polar alignment perfect? ...Show more →
These days you absolutely don't have to spend 3K for a CCD camera with a tiny sensor and abysmal resolution. For 3K you will get a top of the line 26mpix MONO CMOS camera from QHY or ZWO (basically the same sensor and features), filter wheel and even a set of LRGB filters from say Baader Planetarium. You can get an excellent and proven camera like ZWO 294 MC Pro for around 1000 USD, ZWO 533 MC Pro with smaller but excellent square sensor for less than that and you can regularly find QHY 168C, which is what we got, for around 1400 USD that has an APS-C sensor and 16mpix.
Polar alignment should be easy with QHY Polemaster and a bit of practice, there is also a way to do that with pro version of acquisition software Sequence generator pro.
You are also not entirely correct about your exposure calculations. It is definitely better to take longer exposures because you want to "swamp the read noise" of your sensor. Also stacking 50 5-minute exposures is much less tolling on computing power and harddrive space than 1000+ 2 second exsposures.
Milan Hutera wrote:
These days you absolutely don't have to spend 3K for a CCD camera with a tiny sensor and abysmal resolution. For 3K you will get a top of the line 26mpix MONO CMOS camera from QHY or ZWO (basically the same sensor and features), filter wheel and even a set of LRGB filters from say Baader Planetarium. You can get an excellent and proven camera like ZWO 294 MC Pro for around 1000 USD, ZWO 533 MC Pro with smaller but excellent square sensor for less than that and you can regularly find QHY 168C, which is what we got, for around 1400 USD that has an APS-C sensor and 16mpix.
Polar alignment should be easy with QHY Polemaster and a bit of practice, there is also a way to do that with pro version of acquisition software Sequence generator pro.
You are also not entirely correct about your exposure calculations. It is definitely better to take longer exposures because you want to "swamp the read noise" of your sensor. Also stacking 50 5-minute exposures is much less tolling on computing power and harddrive space than 1000+ 2 second exsposures.
6 sec at ISO 6400 and f/1.4 delivers roughly the same exposure as 7 min. at f/6 and ISO 1600, though. So you can do stuff using a tripod, high ISO, & a fast lens.
It looks like resolution has gone up since I looked ~5 years ago, but I mean here's an 8mp monochrome (for color images, I'd think) 4/3 size up to 40° ( C ?) cooled sensor camera for ~$2000.
AmbientMike wrote:
6 sec at ISO 6400 and f/1.4 delivers the same exposure as 7 min. at f/6 and ISO 1600, though. So you can do stuff using a tripod, high ISO, & a fast lens.
It looks like resolution has gone up since I looked ~5 years ago, but I mean here's an 8mp monochrome (for color images, I'd think) 4/3 size up to 40° ( C ?) cooled sensor camera for ~$2000.
It does not work quite that way... Also you have to take other things into consideration, like dynamic range.
I've actually used an Atik Monochrome camera (still have it as I didn't have the time to return it to its owner yet) and I'm telling you once again, you are looking at wrong cameras. ZWO 1600mm is a FAR FAR more popular mono camera that happens to have 16 mpix and is currently discounted from 1280 USD. https://optcorp.com/products/zwo-asi1600mm-pro-cooled . This is however last gen, as the sensor in it is only 12 bit.
This is the generation you want to look at in 2021 if you're already decided on getting serious: https://optcorp.com/products/zwo-asi2600mm-pro-cooled-mono-astronomy-camera This will cover you for a LONG LONG time in astrophotography. Again forget low res CCD's with tiny sensors for amateur use (as in "I want nice pictures that I want to print"). They are a thing of the past. Pro CCD's still have their place in scientific research but it would be extremely foolish to spend crazy money on CCD's with larger sensors if you just want to take pictures at home.
Milan Hutera wrote:
It does not work quite that way... Also you have to take other things into consideration, like dynamic range.
I've actually used an Atik Monochrome camera (still have it as I didn't have the time to return it to its owner yet) and I'm telling you once again, you are looking at wrong cameras. ZWO 1600mm is a FAR FAR more popular mono camera that happens to have 16 mpix and is currently discounted from 1280 USD. https://optcorp.com/products/zwo-asi1600mm-pro-cooled . This is however last gen, as the sensor in it is only 12 bit.
This is the generation you want to look at in 2021 if you're already decided on getting serious: https://optcorp.com/products/zwo-asi2600mm-pro-cooled-mono-astronomy-camera This will cover you for a LONG LONG time in astrophotography. Again forget low res CCD's with tiny sensors for amateur use (as in "I want nice pictures that I want to print"). They are a thing of the past. Pro CCD's still have their place in scientific research but it would be extremely foolish to spend crazy money on CCD's with larger sensors if you just want to take pictures at home. ...Show more →
OK, so you likw a different camera, but I mean, the camera you posted a link to has a 16mp m4/3 size sensor. The link I posted 8mp m4/3 size sensor. Double the pixels might not be a huge difference. I may upgrade to a 16mp m4/3 regular camera, need to upgrade, but those might be close to a decade old now.
1.4 at ISO 6400, 6 second exposure, gives the same exposure as 6 min 40 sec at 5.6 and 1600. Sure, might be other considerations, I'd be interested in an explanation, but I've had this discussion before. People try to tell me no, it's different, then the older gentleman posted photos using 1.2 on film. And I feel like I've gotten good results using the settings above.
AmbientMike wrote:
OK, so you likw a different camera, but I mean, the camera you posted a link to has a 16mp m4/3 size sensor. The link I posted 8mp m4/3 size sensor. Double the pixels might not be a huge difference. I may upgrade to a 16mp m4/3 regular camera, need to upgrade, but those might be close to a decade old now.
1.4 at ISO 6400, 6 second exposure, gives the same exposure as 6 min 40 sec at 5.6 and 1600. Sure, might be other considerations, I'd be interested in an explanation, but I've had this discussion before. People try to tell me no, it's different, then the older gentleman posted photos using 1.2 on film. And I feel like I've gotten good results using the settings above. ...Show more →
This: and this: will have you covered. Beware though, Dylan is an Australian with a type of humor that might be offensive to some people. The difference in short vs long exposure is clearly visible on both videos.
8 and 16 mpix is a noticeable difference. m4/3 is still a standard sensor size in AP and APS-C is slowly creeping in.
No, I'm not talking about multiple short exposures adding up. I'll look at these later but my understanding is that's no good, wamted to make that clear. I am saying if you work it out, 6400, 1.4, and 6 sec is the same exposure as 5.6 at 1600 and 6 min 40 sec.
6 sec at 1.4 is the same exposure as 25 sec at 2.8 and 100 sec at 5.6. Then 2 stops more from 6400 to 1600 goes to 400 sec, 6 min 40 sec.
Also there seems to be a lot of cropping. Talked to a guy, I believe he shot M51 + companion (nice shot of that above BTW is the elliptical m94 ?) on aps using a shorrter FL than you did, and had to be cropped quite a bit. Even using 11", one might need to crop a large sensor on herschel 400 list a lot and other dim galaxies . Probably had something to do with 720 pixel sensors. I'd definitely prefer 2x the pixels of 5DsR vs 6D2, on regular photography. But it's probably not as big as people, myself included, like to think, either.
is the elliptical m94 ?) on aps using a shorrter FL than you did, and had to be cropped quite a bit. Even using 11", one might need to crop a large sensor on herschel 400 list a lot and other dim galaxies . Probably had something to do with 720 pixel sensors. I'd definitely prefer 2x the pixels of 5DsR vs 6D2, on regular photography. But it's probably not as big as people, myself included, like to think, either.