What type of telescope is more suitable for astrophotography?

Answer 1

There is no one type of telescope best suited for astrophotography; they all have their strengths and weaknesses. If you're going to do deep space photography the most important thing is a solid, driven mount with smooth motions. Go to Yahoo! groups and search on astrophoto; there are several groups where you can find lots of information and advice.

That said, a lot of people start out with a Meade or Celestron SCT on a good mount. The Celestron CGE or Meade LX200 are the best of those, though the lesser mounts like the Meade LX90 will also do fairly well. These are probably the best moderately-priced out-of-the-box astrophotography setups. One big advantage of the SCTs is that they have lots of focus range to accommodate a wide variety of cameras and accessories. The disadvantages include long focal ratios, giving you a narrow field of view and requiring long exposures (reducers are available, though), and long cool-down times.

Answer 2

From the many Astrophotography books I have read the Schimdt Cassegrain Telescope (SCT) has been at the top of the list Astrophotography.
Alone it is a great design and very portable the SCT its great for Prime focus and afocal astrophotography. Offering wide fields of view its a no brainer.
I have just purchased a Celestron C8-SGT on an equatorial mount and I love it so far. Now I am just deciding wether to invest in a DSLR of some kind or just use my 35mm film SLR.
Overall The 8 inch scopes are very popular amongst astrophotographers and amateur astronomers alike. Hope this help you out with your decision
-Matt-

Answer 3

It used to be that the most suitable type of telescope for astronomy was an astrograph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrograph

These could be reflectors or refractors which were made with fast focal ratios and to specific parameters to accomodate built in CCD's.

It used to be that "fast" telescopes, rather than "slow" telescopes were preferable for astrophotography because they required shorter exposure times. A fast telescope is a telescope with a focal ratio less than f/5, for example, f/4.5

However, with more precise tracking technology and computer assisted astrophotography, many "slow" telescopes are being used for astrophotography, and fairly low cost amatuer setups can yield what was once considered observatory like results.

A telescope used for astrophotography should be mounted on either a very sturdy german equatorial mount with tracking abilities, or a very sturdy fork mount with either a wedge or a very good field de-rotator.

If you wish to image double stars then you should consider using a good apochromatic refractor to avoid diffraction spikes that could block companion stars.

While aperture is almost always your friend, very large telescopes are not needed for most astrophotography. A longer exposure time can make up for lack of aperture as long as the telescope has good tracking.

Answer 4

i do alot of astrophotography... it really depends on what you want to photograph. the most important thing you want is an equitorial mount with electronic tracking. if you are trying to photograph really faint objects, you need a large aperature (the bigger the scope the better) however i like using refractor telescopes although they are smaller they make really crisp photos. and even a small scope can capture many deep sky objects. as a matter of fact you could use just an ordinary tripod and digital dslr camera to phtograph constellations, the moon, and some of the brighter planets. you could also photograph the planets and moon through the eyepiece of a cheap $60 telescope. but if you have the money, i would suggest getting a small refractor say about 80mm on a good equitorial mount. good luck!!!!!!!

Answer 5

I think it's more the mount then the scope itself. You need a telescope mount that can track the stars with a motor as the earth turns, because if not then any pictures you take are going to end up horribly motion blurred.

Answer 6

I even have had various telescopes and for the money a reflector sort is relatively sturdy for the amatuer astronomer. yet I do have this suggestion. purchase your self an extremely sturdy set of binoculars. they're great for nebulae or maybe planetary observations. photographs is hard via fact it demands long term exposures and to get them you would be wanting lots of equipment like a clock force and specific mounts. extra money is in contact. in case you purchase a sturdy telescope you will discover that atmospheric aberations take place and seeing any element of planets is hard. there is lots of elegance obtainable which will nicely be seen by binoculars.