You mean there IS a way to save money in AP? Who knew!? Thanks for watching and subscribing, Clint!

Thanks for watching! Yep, it's nice to score a success every now and then amid all of the frustrating events that occur along the way.

HaHa. Best kind of answers. Worse kind of questions. Thanks for watching, Bill!

You speak TRUTH, my friend. People might be in for a ruder awakening if they start out with a hassle-free small reflector and then get hit in the face with the challenges presented by an SCT. Thanks for watching, Kyle!

I went for a Newtonian, and honestly i don't regret it. Because the refractors I've been recommended are now my guide scopes.

Glad you enjoyed it, Antonio!

Thanks for watching! Glad you found it helpful. Good luck with your scope choice.

Thanks, Louis! I know what you mean. I spent so much of my first years with only the SCT. The wide field refractors have really been a pleasant eye-opening surprise. Just imagine how awesome our nights would be if we could see these huge nebula in SHO colors with the naked eye. Oh well. They'll just have to be the astrophotographer's secret I guess. Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching, David! Yeah, you guys have a more difficult time than I do in finding good nights for imaging. Good luck with that!

Thanks for watching, Chris!

Thanks, Ron! There's a lot of stuff up there, we need the right tool for the job. Clear skies!

Thanks, Andrew! For me, it goes in the category of "wish I knew then, what I know now"

Hi Rafael. I agree with you. 1000 mm is a good mas focal length. If you haven't already, see my more recent video that discusses those issues: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fpOTdMV3l5vLk30.html Thanks for watching!

I agree, Dennis! I haven't even scratched the surface with my SCT by going to the Hyperstar system. One day, maybe. Clear skies!

Yep. I always dread “Galaxy Season”. Means more quality time with the SCT. Oh well. If it were easy, everyone would be an astrophotographer!

Excellent, Chunter! I bet it came with a week of cloud cover too. You'll love it. Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching, Chaithu!

Thanks for the kind words! Glad you found it useful.

Welcome to the journey! Clear skies!

Thanks for watching. David! Glad you found it useful. Clear Skies!

Yes. The supply chain is all kinds of messed up. Very frustrating. My new EQ6-R mount just arrived after months on back order. Don’t panic buy something just because it happens to be available when you really want a different product. Astrophotography is all about the long game. Thanks for watching!

@@Aero19612 ~ Hi James, quick question, did you have to prepay for the EQ6-R? Thank you.

@@scottmac2032 Sort of. Bought it from Agena Astroproducts. You have to provide the credit card info when you order, but your card isn't charged until it ships.

Thanks for watching, Robert! And thanks for the kind words!

Thanks for watching, John!

Thanks, Ted! Been a while since I made that video and have added a William Optics GT81 (385 mm focal length) to the lineup and I still stand by my conclusions: the SCT is the most versatile year-around scope, but what a beating… Enjoy the night!

You’re welcome! Glad it helped. Remember to consider the sensor size of your imaging camera as its size affects the apparent field of view. I image with the ZWO ASI1600. If your camera has a larger size, then you will see a larger field than my pictures. If your camera’s sensor is smaller, your image will be clipped. Good luck!

@@Aero19612 That was another thing I learned from your video that I haven’t heard before. Thanks

Patience indeed! Thanks for watching, Donald!

Glad it was helpful, Brent!

Perfect attitude! We astrophotographers must teach our SCTs to play nice with others. In the mean time, we have the Redcat!

Thanks for watching, Nikhil!

Great, Gunjan! Good luck making a choice!

Good luck, Ron! You can’t go wrong. Chances are that which ever one you start out with, you’ll be getting one of the others before too long. Clear skies!

Love the RedCat! Check out this video while you're at it if you're interested in autofocus options: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/e9Fzm62pqs-9mXU.html Thanks for watching, Paul!

Great, Joseph! I started with the SCT. There are plenty of resources to help with issues you will encounter. Welcome to the learning curve.

Great! I hope it’s useful for you. Thanks for watching!

Ha! The video may be 2 years old, but it’s “new” to you! A welcome peace of mind comes over me when I switch back to a refractor. A Redcat 71 is a great choice. You’ll enjoy it for sure. Clear skies!

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching, Ron!

Thanks! The Redcat does a nice job. After living in SCT world for all those years, it’s nice to see the “big” picture.

Thanks for watching, Jean-Claude!

Of course, the hyperstar! I have never used that option. But that would turn that slow light collector into a wide-angle light-eating monster. Yeah, my list is not exhaustive-just my experience with what I have in my hands. Gotta do that hyperstar thing though. Thanks for watching, Dave!

Haha. I was commenting on the availability of affordable long focal length refractors for the backyard astronomer. There's a reason why reflectors take over at the long focal lengths

Thanks for watching, Brian!

Any excuse to buy a new telescope...I mean "tool". Thanks for watching, Jason!

Thanks! Truth be told, I’ve got quite a bit of room for improvement. Thanks for watching!

Haha. I have a good excuse: I didn't have the GT81 when I made that video. Thanks for watching.

@@Aero19612 ha ha. Laugh's on me for not following the timelines better 😄

Haha. But it sure is less stressful to use a short focal length! Thanks for watching, and good luck with that long focal length scope!

Yes, seeing is a BIG factor. I think the ~1000 mm is a good target. Thanks for watching!

You're quite right, Quincy. I had some discussion on that but then noticed how long the video was and cut it out. I did mention the camera I'm using, but, of course, for someone just starting out, that info would go in one ear and out the other. Thanks for watching!

Awesome! Thanks for watching!

The SCTs are remarkably versatile, especially when you consider the Hyperstar system - of course, that costs as much as a telescope in its own right. I must say, I do enjoy the portability, image quality, and reliability of the refractors though. Thanks for watching!

Thanks! I hope that the video helps.

@@Aero19612 A little better informed toward an impossible choice 😄

Thanks, John! Yes, someone else mentioned the Hyperstar. That's definitely a hole in my astrophotography game. I looked up the Starizona system, so it's about moving the hole in my game to a hole in my wallet. Still, it makes sense. The small refractor advice for beginners is sound. I just think a beginner would benefit from seeing what scope selection does to your available target list.

James Lamb The entire imaging thing has cost me a fortune! My first scope was 200mm Newtonian which I still have but rarely use. At 1000mm focal length it was great for Lunar and things like M42 or M33. Its just so big to lug around. I think an SCT would have been a better choice but the Newt was so much cheaper. Think if I was starting it now I’d go for a Redcat or one of the 61mm scopes that have launched recently with a OSC like the asi533 and a dual band or Tri band filter. Portable, easy to setup, forgiving of guiding/seeing and not too expensive. Then I’d add an SCT later for lunar/planetary/galaxies etc.

Agreed. That focal length is a good balance between convenience (carrying it around) and target selection. Thanks for watching!

There are some f/3 RASA-like reflectors (Riccardi-Honders), but the prices are rather... astronomical :)

The C11 is a beast! Congratulations! Consider getting a focal reducer for it once you've gotten familiar with it. Thanks for watching, Michael!

oh my god, shut up please

Thanks for watching, Duncan. I, like you, wanted to take images of galaxies. You'll get there. Learn what you can with what you have, and then take a step. All it takes is $$

@@Aero19612 Thank you James. Much appreciated.

Hey Tim. Perhaps a distinction without a difference. I did mention that the glass is the cost driver. Telescope manufacturers, as you say, aim for f/4.5 to f/7. As a result, you get the cost vs focal length chart I show in the video. So, in any real sense as a telescope buyer, you will find cost increases with focal length whatever the underlying trade offs are.

More options than there is money (in my wallet anyway). I’ve never imaged at F2, so can’t imaging the double-takes that’d cause. The AM5-like mounts are intriguing. I must say, not having a counterweight makes me nervous. Not sure if there’s a counterweight option for that mount. Thanks for watching!

Yes, you can add the counterweight if desired, zwo recommends them if payload > 26 lbs. Mount is very portable. F/2 is amazing, most of my subs are 30 secs or less. Thanks again for the video, you have me leaning towards the 8" edge hd.

@@nameisunique Haha. Enjoy the Bin-1, 30-sec exposures from the ASI294MM! Maybe get a sack of external 3TB SSD drives!

Thanks!

Great, Gene! Let me know what you end up with. Thanks for watching!

@@Aero19612 My current thinking is to go with a 180mm Mak-Cass on an Orion Atlas II mount. I'm avoiding astrophotography until I learn more but I want the option in the future. This will give me great solar system views as well as galaxies.

Glad you found it useful, Andrew! Thanks for watching

Yep. Good choices. Wait. Are there bad choices? Thanks for watching!

VERY good and interesting question! Answer: I don't know. I agree that narrowband will show less color separation because Ha and S2 are in the red and O3 is kind of middle of the road in the blue/green. Plus, the nature of the target (gaseous nebula) is more forgiving to color separation I suspect. I certainly don't have expertise/experience to give you a definitive answer, but you have a very good point that could save you big $$. Thanks for watching, Steve!

I like your thinking here. I have the WO ZS126 and have minimal chromatic aberration even with OSC on all but the very brightest of objects like moon and planets.

Good approach. Good selection of a scope. I'm still trying to put my info together for a video review of the 4 or 5 targets I shot with the GT81. No complaints. Love the scope. Here's the things you should give some thought to: The DSLR is a great camera to start with. If you decide astrophotography is not that fun (or you don't have enough cuss words in your vocabulary), you have a DSLR you can still use. Bonus! BUT: that scope is best suited for wide angle targets like nebulae (most galaxies will be very small in your field of view). Many nebulae are "emission"-type which means you really need narrowband filters to capture the colors that are emitted (Hydrogen-alpha = red/orange, Sulfer-2 = red, and Oxygen-3 = teal). A DSLR captures in broad red, broad blue, and broad green so it won't see these colors very easily--your pictures will generally be red. There are single filters that have narrow passbands at those colors, but they're about $1000ish (I don't shoot one-shot-color images anymore, so research this issue a bit). If you do use one of those filters, you'll want to (need to?) expose for a long time, say, 5 min long. But a tracking mount is only good enough for a 30-sec exposure because star streaks will start to show up. You can take lots of 30-sec exposures, but they'll take up 32MB per image and about 64MB once you start the processing. You'll need lots of hard disk space, but that's easy now a days. Welcome to the slippery slope of astrophotography. All of that said, plenty of people take your approach and get great results. Then, as you say, you can decide which way you want to go. Good luck! It's a great hobby. I know many cuss words.

@@Aero19612 Thanks. I'm thinking DSLR for now because that's what I have on hand. It's my wife's camera, a little old, nothing fancy, but something to start with (Canon Eos Rebel something or other). With the price of something like the Canon EOS Ra (filters adjusted for AP) being around $2,500, I can't justify buying another DSLR at that price. Perhaps I would just go to a dedicated AP camera after fooling around with my old DSLR. Any beginner-oriented suggestions along those lines? Thanks again!

I would (and did) cut your teeth with your DSLR. I wanted to shoot galaxies when I got in so I got my C9.25 SCT and a Canon T3i. Worked great for an intro system. I got tired of using a non-cooled camera in Texas and that's what led me to a dedicated cooled DSO monochrome camera. For the $2,500, you can set yourself up pretty nice with a very versatile mono camera and filters. You've set yourself a good course there.

Thanks for watching!

Yep. A larger sensor camera (I'm using the ASI1600) would likely give you a nice view of both. Your APS-C might just do the trick. With your focal reducer, you'll get about 270 mm. May take some careful framing. Thanks for watching and good luck!

Short focal length scopes are so easy to use. I doubt that you can image at 1000 mm without guiding. 1000 mm is a good focal length to have, but your problems get bigger. Good luck!

@@Aero19612 this hoby is money furnace. I just burn little money for guiding. It will arive soon but still need to change tge focuser and it cost as much as guiding. Tgank you. Clear skys.

Thanks for watching! Yes. At that time, I had the Explore Scientific field flattener (not reducer) but have since switched to the Hotech flattener (also not a reducer).

@@Aero19612 Thanks! I was shopping for a wide field scope and wondering if I should factor focal length reduction into the views you portrayed.

Thanks for watching, Simon!

Hey, Joseph. That is ABSOLUTELY not a dumb question. You know exactly what experience you want your hobby to take. Perfect. Here's an obvious statement: "There's a lot of stuff up there." Most of the targets are small and require magnification (e.g., galaxies and planets in our solar system). That said, there's a "cost" (i don't mean just money, I mean frustration, setbacks, complications) to imaging at high focal length. Based on what you say, I would suggest staying between 80 mm to 100 mm aperture. In more recent videos, you'll see me talk about the William Optics GT81 (385 mm focal length). It's a great size (physical and aperture/focal length). I didn't have this scope when I made the video, but it's a great size for what you're talking about. The 700 mm (102 mm aperture) scope in the video is very good but a bit larger to handle-probably on the high end of the scopes you'll want to consider. There are scopes with 90 mm apertures. My 2 cents: consider scopes in the 80 mm to 90 mm aperture range. Get some good detail in larger nebulae, be able to fit smaller nebulae in the field of view, and still be able to get decent images of larger galaxies. Thanks for watching!

@@Aero19612 Thanks for responding so soon. I recognize what you say and agree but at 70, before I shell out the dollars for something like the Williams Optics scope I think I'm going to scale down even further. I purchased a SkyWatcher ED50 nearly a year ago for much cheaper that they are now. Yeah, It's only a doublet without much back focus and a helical focuser and very small aperture. Got a field flattener. Have an inexpensive tracking mount. Am going to pair it with a ZWO ASI120, 178 or 224 uncooled color. I'm gambling the limitation of the tracking mount will hopefully be offset to a degree by live stacking of several short frames over a short period of time for a quasi-live image. I know aperture may limit fainter objects and this method may miss some of the detail reached with a cooled mono filter setup but that sort of quality/perfection is the province of more serious astrophotographers. If I begin to conquer the learning curve of my more humble goals I might then upgrade the scope into that 80-90mm range which will force me to also upgrade my mount, I'll decide then if I want to invest that deeply. For now a more humble attempt at EAA to challenge my brain and maybe introduce my granddaughter to the wonders of the night sky in a shorter, easier to address format might have a better success rate enhancing her access to STEM learning. Young learners would be lost in long capture and post editing sessions. I think my start will better serve my goals with enough targets to guage my success. Again, thanks for your feedback.

Right. I'm not advocating William Optics so much as am pointing to an aperture/focal length range for you to consider. You might also consider a doublet design instead of a triplet as the triplets are designed for maximum color correction (required to get all colors focused at the same point). Good luck!

@@Aero19612 The Skywatcher ED50 is an FPL53/air spaced crownflint doublet that was introduced/intended as a spotting scope but some have theorized could be used in a minimalist way for astrophotography in very lightweight, quick setup approximations of visual "grab and go" systems. It may be the least expensive way to start in AP at the low end with some better quality glass. Because of back focus limitations not allowing for a diagonal my scope would be a neck breaker for visual astronomy. For me it is a way to (hopefully) get around my post cataract surgery uncorrected astigmatism and the issues of short focal length eyepieces and wearing eyeglasses. The ability to help me personally and in real-time or nearly so share images to more individuals without limiting their time having to share a single eyepiece interests the retired educator in me. If I hook them they can then decide if they wish to enjoy the less complicated grab and go or more intense/expensive larger aperature visual route or eventually go (if they can afford it) into the wonders of dedicated AP. My limitations are money, eyeball acuity and time (including end of life, LOL!). I'm mostly a visual guy so flat, dark, calibration frames are beyond my focus/interest limitations. But the educator in me likes the idea of sharing and sparking the wonders of sky science in others as it did a 13 year old me nearly six decades ago. My original questions to you were to help me better understand your explanation that targeted those already more experienced in your specific area of interest but over the head of those less experienced like myself. Your responses have been helpful in getting my head wrapped around things to determine if my path is possible. Thank you again. Look forward to future posts.

Agreed. When you consider the baseline scope, the f/6.3 focal reducer, and Hyperstar, it's really the multi-tool of telescopes. Thanks for the focuser comment. I may look into the Microtouch. Also, ZWO is coming out with an adapter for their focuser and SCTs. Thanks for watching!

Welcome to the hobby. Challenging, but rewarding. Oh, and expensive. Clear Skies!

@@Aero19612 I now own 11 optical tubes. I have found, thus far, that my most versatile kit I have is my Celestron 6" Schmidt Cassegrain with a 0.63 reducer/corrector and a Hyperstar 6 v4 on a Sky-Watcher Star Adventurer GTi. 1) Inexpensive. Total cost with asi294 camera is only $2700. 2) More difficult than a refractor and less than a Newtonian. Entire rig with a asi2400 camera is only 16 pounds plus counter weights. 3) Can shoot at 1500mm (f/10), 945mm (f/6.3) and 300mm (f/2). Just subscribed.

The 127mm focal length is a good scope. Without the reducer, you can get good pics of small galaxies and not have to worry about the non-flat field in the corners. For galaxy clusters and some nebulae, you can use the focal reducer/corrector and get good star shapes out to the corners.

Thanks, Simon! I've got my eye on the EQ6R Pro as my next mount (in my preferred price range). Meade makes good scopes, no doubt. And, I imagine the quad will give you a flat field. Can you get a focal length long enough for galaxy imaging in a quad?

@@Aero19612 Hi James, No I don't I of any, more the Quad ( I should be clearer) for Wide Field and the 8 inch SCT for galaxies. So, really any other APO's do you recommend other the MEADE ? :-) Thanks!

Oops! My bad. Well, I've been very happy with the two William Optics scopes and the one Explore Scientific scope I have. I would not go so far as to say they are "better" than the Meade. I doubt that is the case. If they are at the same price point, they are probably on par with each other. I will say that I'm very happy with the WO GT81iv + Flat6Aiii (field flattener and focal reducer) because: 1. The adjustable field flattener is easy to set so as to flatten the field-I'm still having issues getting a flat field with the non-adjustable field flattener I have for the Explore Scientific. You probably won't have to deal with this if you get a quad design. 2. The GT81 has a standard knob/rack and pinion focuser that pairs well with established auto-focusers on the market like the Pegasus Astro and ZWO EAF. My Redcat has a helical focuser and while there are focusers out there, I just don't trust them as much (belt drive vs direct mechanical connection). 3. I think the 385 mm I end up with is a good focal length for larger DSOs You can't go wrong! Let me know what you finally end up with.

@@Aero19612 James thank you so much for taking the time to help me. I am looking at a few APO ED FLP 53 types ranging from Doublets & Triplets second hand which is about 50% of the new price listed so, I can learn more from the scopes and increase my "training" in the Astrophotography arts. I have the funds to buy a Meade 70 mm Quad and new EQ6 R but think I will not learn anything from this (other than my wife saying I told you so, which would hurt more) :-) so I think a second hand APO, EQ3 and a Mirrorless DLSR (Canon as I have a Nikon DX40) to get me off training. I will of course let you know. I have been taking star trails using Go Pros, my little ETX stacking Orion and moon pictures, Webcam on Mars, Jupiter and Saturn with my 8 inch SCT so very familiar with the hurt, pain and patience learnt so far :-) thanks again James for your time ! Regards Simon

Welcome to the hobby. I started out with a Cannon 550D (T2i). I used Backyard EoS to control the camera. But there's a Nikon version now too. It used to be that people would recommend Cannons because of the live view functionality but I'm not sure if other manufacturers have included that as well. Good luck, Rick!

Thanks for watching, Roger! The Taks are amazing scopes. I don't think I could swallow the cost though. With my luck, the perfection of the scope would reveal all of the imperfections in my other equipment and I would have to start buying all new stuff. Good luck!

Ha. Or a short focal length telescope with a 1 billion pixel camera so you can crop down to the galaxy and still have enough pixel resolution.

@@Aero19612 thanks for sharing your knowledge. Once it makes more sense, I'll thank you again ;)

You're correct. I mentioned the camera I used when I first showed the images from the Redcat 51. I had planned to include discussion of the role that the sensor size has on the images but after I recorded the image presentation part, the video was 30 min long, so I went on a slash and burn editing rampage to cut the length down. Yeah, and I thought about adding the focal length to the final image montage, but I took the lazy path instead since the focal length is presented earlier with the picture of the scope. Thanks for watching, Daniel!

Ah yes the asi1600 - 4/3" 17.7 X 13.4mm this is still a great presentation as many beginning astrophotographers (i include myself here) don't grasp the overall framing and choosing the right focal lenth in combination with sensor size to create the best presentation of their chosen subject. And then throw in the change of scale when adding a reducer flattener into the optical train. There is a number of great preplanning software programs out now to plug in your scope/camera/reducer info then use the created frame tool to see how objects fit the frame and camera rotation. Your presentation is great. Really shows framing perspective. Thank you for taking the time to present this video, I know it is a lot of work.

Thanks for watching, Mark! No, the SCT was my first telescope and its selection came down to two points: 1. A friend had the 8" version and I liked his pictures 2. I bought the SCT, the CGEM mount, a guide scope, a guide camera, and other gadgets all at once and wanted to keep costs "down". I never even considered the HD, assuming it was out then (2014ish}. Your question is a good one and maybe even more complicated than just comparing optical quality of the two scopes. One should also consider seeing conditions where you will image from and the quality of the mount with respect to guiding (DEC backlash and RA gear noise). The best optical system can be brought to its knees by other contributors. Mind you, I have no magical means of balancing those issues so I'm of no help whatsoever. Compare the specs and the cost difference and if it sounds fair, go with the HD version if you're thinking of jumping in the SCT pool (assuming you're not in it already).

I just have the standard Celestron tripod that comes with the CGEM mount. I have 1x11-lb counterweight and 1x17-lb counterweight. I need both counterweights to balance the C9.25, just the 17-lb weight for the ED102 and the Redcat. Thanks for watching, Bruce!

Timely comment, Rob. My CGEM has an issue with an encoder (happened once before). The motors work, but it doesn't move to the right place. So I may be down for a while. I must say, I do think the C9.25 does a decent job. I wonder how much better the Edge HD series is? People talk about the RASA, but I've never seriously looked into it. Maybe I'm afraid I'll buy one if I do.

@@Aero19612 Bummer, sorry if I put the hex on it :) Don't throw good money after bad is my advise. I assume they are still pushing the Mission Impossible (the TV series) line with the focuser adapter ring

Agree about good money after bad. As it turned out, I had to drive down to the Texas coast for work this week and passed through Houston where there is one of the few remaining brick and mortar telescope shops (Land Sea & Sky). They don't make a point of mount repair, but I left the mount with them anyway. They tightened some loose screws, re-meshed the gears, and cleaned the electrical connectors. I picked up the mount on my way back through. Not sure if anything is fixed or not but will test it in a few days when the weather clears. Next time, I will open up the mount and check things out myself. Want to avoid Celestron Service at all costs.

Must be the C6 for $600

Thanks, Rick!

Hey Cleston. I don't have experience with a refractor at that focal length. I have a very good opinion of Explore Scientific and William Optics scopes. Of course, Takahashi is top of of line, but VERY expensive. Take a close look at the weight of the scope compared to what your mount can handle too. Carbon fiber tubes cut way down on the weight, but at a cost (of course). Good luck!

Haha. But what a pain.

Haha. Maybe. Or did I just convince people they need three telescopes and not just one? Thanks for watching!

If you stick with that mount, you’ll want to stay on the shorter end of the focal length scale that is more tolerant of guiding/tracking errors. I’d suggest an upper limit on aperture of about 80mm (

@@Aero19612 thanks for the reply! Really appreciate it! I’ve been able to get decent 60-90s subs at 200mm with my current setup in a bortle 6 city backyard. I feel like I do a really good job of polar aligning and balancing lol Next clear night I’m going to try with my 70mm and see if I can do even longer subs while keeping good star shape (…realizing now you said 80mn aperture lol sorry still learning coming from 15+ years as a photographer)

Thanks, Sean. And thanks for Watching!

Absolutely! You did a really great job with this. I'm mentoring a few people and your video saved me from a bunch of emails and texts. I just said "Go watch this. It explains all that I'm trying to get over to you!" Appreciate it! Sean

Thanks for watching! and subscribing!

Yes. I have the 0.63 focal reducer/corrector for the SCT that knocks the focal length down to 1400 mm, which is really good for M101, Leo Triplet, and the M81/M82 pair. I don’t use it as much as I should. Thanks for watching!

I live north of Dallas. The LP is between Bortle 7 and 8