I'm at nothing with a 350D and a Skylux - my options?

I put together the Skylux on its own mount, motorised, with the Canon 350D at prime focus, on Sunday night. Shots with the Moon were fine, albeit small. The Skylux in effect is acting as a 700mm lens for the Canon, right? STill, when I turned my attention to Saturn, nothing impressive at all.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't expecting anything great at all. But, I think I realise now that I am at nothing using small aperture refractors for astrophotography.

So, what do I do? Do I sell my current small scopes and mounts, and buy a sturdier GoTo, with which I can finish building my (third) 8 inch Newt, or buy a larger aperture instrument again? Or buy a further adapter for the Canon to use an eyepiece (for projection) with it?

I know that to really get into astrophotography, I need to improve my capturing instruments (camera, etc). But that is not a target. For now, I am just dabbling into it as a side-hobby to the actual astronomical hobby.

Suggestions etc welcomed.

Seanie.

Funny Seanie, I tried the motorised Skylux approach though found it to be of limited use.

From where you are now I'd be inclined to use the Canon for widefield, static stuff - get a 50mm f1.8/f1.4 lens for it - and try imaging through the Skylux with a webcam - assuming you have a laptop with which to drive it. That should get you some interesting Moon and Planet images. The combination of approximate Polar Alignment and RA drive you'll get with this will combine with Registax's built in tracking to allow some long sequences - should make for reasonable images.

Then a decent GoTo mount such as an LXD75 would make a great platform for an 8" Newt which is also just what the Dr ordered for deep sky imaging! If you have more money then an EQ6 is beefier and will take an even bigger scope.

And as it happens, I have one more LXD75 mount than I need at the moment!

And as it happens, I have one more LXD75 mount than I need at the moment!

Handy to know Paul, what are you doing with it?

Thanks for your feedback above. I have a couple of lenses that would suit widefields, and I have taken many of them already alright. I also have a laptop with which to think about webcam imaging.

Seanie.

Seanie,
You literally work for the ground up, you first need a decent mount and then an aperture of at least 8 inches (IMHO) or bigger if possible, the Canon can do a good job on alot deepsky objects but it does need aperture.
Forget the planets with any scope and the canon, you need a toucam/luminera/skynix camera for those.

Yes, I agree with Dave.
Order of priority as generally recommended in several astrophotography textbooks:
1) Mount - probably the least mentioned item when discussing images but probably the most important.
2) Telescope
3) Camera.
You already have a decent camera, so don't worry about that.
You need a mount which can be easily polar aligned and track accurately.
You then need eally good quality glass or a mirror system in a telescope to avoid having loads of chromatic aberrations (blue stars) inyour images.
Start off a small but really good quality camera lens and take it from there. If you find the skylux mount is not up to the job, then get a new one as it doesn't matter what camera or glass you have, if the mount doesn't track properly, it's all for nothing.
Just my 2 cent.

Cheers guys.

Mike,
the Skylux mount is fine. Aye, it doesn't have GoTo or 2-star allignment which would make tracking more accurate. However, my 'problem' I think is aperture. A small refractor (I have 2 in my possession, 70mm and 80mm) just doesn't make me excited to continue with acquiring stills and stacking. I have been offered an LXD-75 mount-only, so that will allow an 8 inch Newt, or bigger if I can get one (weight restrictions, I must check those).

Another consideration I didn't mention in my options in my first post was that I could make a larger aperture scope to suit a larger mount full-stop. Hobby-wise, I have always wanted to build something like the Obsessionator, perhaps having it equatorial somehow. I have barely seen through that one, and yet, just by looking at it, I get aperture fever!

Seanie.