Whar does it take to get started with imaging?

I'm a die-hard visual observer. However, I'm greatly impressed by the achievements of amateurs with modern imaging equipment. I don't know if I'm going to attempt imaging myself, but it would be very interesting for me to know what equipment is needed to start making decent images.

My personal telescope is a Portaball without an equatorial platform, and not suited for making photos.

Assume that I want to purchase a system for imaging - say something in the 100mm aperture class - including telescope with mounting and drive, camera, guiding system, necessary software etc. Which items would you recommend, and what is the likely cost for such a system?

I'm aware that there may be hundreds of different answers to this question. Therefore a couple of good examples will do for me.

Inge S

Mark has given good advice. The mount is the most important part of the imaging setup really. It can make or break your photos. Get one that will handle more load than you expect, because it will then allow you to use more equipment later.

Then the scope is next in my opinion. It is said that there is no replacement for good glass. A triplet APO of 80-100mm is my recommendation and a fast one f/5-f/7 for your first one. Wide field is much more forgiving and you will get more personal satisfaction from getting good photos at first.
Later you can get a longer f/l scope and attempt to do higher res photos when you have more experience.

Then there is the camera. You can start with a less expensive camera, like the DSI III cameras that Anacortes has on sale right now. At $700, $799 with filters, they are a great deal and they are easy to use. I would suggest a Mono, but the one shot color ($700) will work well and can make it easier on the beginning photographer.

There are better cameras to be sure, but you can build on your equipment as time goes on while gaining experience and knowledge so that you will be better able to choose the right one. You can buy a good one right off too, if you do some research to help you decide, but they are not cheap!

You can get great prices here on used stuff and I have gotten most of mine this way. Shop and buy at the right price and you will stretch your budget.

Inge,

You need a lot of green bucks and more time than the Norwegian weather is ready to provide.

Dmitri

Inge,

I am by no means one of the decent images here but I just snagged one of these on the used market. All you need is a camera. Should be great for the wide field stuff. Compact and very portable, no scope either. Some links that you may find interesting, maybe not either.

http://www.mindex.be/astronomy/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=4&pos=1

http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=1591

http://www.pbase.com/lumodomo/lens_telescope&page=all

-JW:

Attached Image:

Inge: I am also a visual observer but I love to play with the photos (nothing serious like some of the masters whose stuff you see around here). I have a Losmandy G8, a WO 66, a used DSI ProI and a Canon DSLR with old but nice Zuiko 35mm slr lenses (none over $75). I set up my Losmandy, carefully aligning, put the Canon on the WO66 and shoot a bunch of 2-5 minute shots (bunch = 30 or more). If its the 200mm telephoto, I guide for longer exposures (2 minutes is usually OK unguided), if its the 28mm widefield I don't guide. I can also use the WO66 and use the DSI and a telephoto lens to guide. I also have a 6"SN, but haven't tried that yet.

While the pictures are being taken I check in from time to time, but mostly I am using my dob to see stuff. Watching photos being taken, for me, is about as exciting as watching grass grow once everything is setup correctly.

Most important: A good mount. Mine is good but I keep the load very light. Minimum investment: once you get a good used mount the rest is relatively painless.

Minimum-minimum: A tripod and digital camera at something like 28mm, point at Cassiopeia and take a 30 second shot. Amazing what you can see. The try the same thing at M45. There will be trailing, but the effect is kind of nice. Hooked me!

Ed