Telescope advice

[LunarOrbit]

So I'm thinking about buying a telescope. I've wanted one pretty much ever since I saw Saturn, the Moon, and even Halley's comet through my neighbour's telescope when I was a kid. But I never know what to look for.

I don't want to buy something too small and be under-whelmed by it, but I also don't want to spend a bunch of money on something that could very well end up collecting dust in my closet (right next to my exercise equipment and VHS cassette collection).

I would like to try astrophotography (at least with the Moon and planets, I know deep space objects require higher end telescopes and cameras). I've got a Canon Rebel DSLR that is several years old... I'm assuming I can get an adapter to attach it to the telescope.

I was originally looking at the Celestron NexStar 127 SLT but I've seen complaints about the mount not being the greatest. It's probably "good enough" for me now, I just don't want to regret it and wish I spent a bit more on something better.

I then started looking at the Celestron NexStar 5SE and 6SE. The 8SE is way out of my price range (even the prices of the other two are a bit more than I want to spend). The 5SE is the same size as the 127 SLT, but I'm not sure if that means they both give the same quality of views. But one of the websites I've looked at has a sale on both SE telescopes that would save me about $120, which would make the 6SE the same price that the 5SE normally is.

The 5SE has a built in "wedge", the 6SE does not. From what I understand, the wedge is only helpful for long exposure photography which I probably won't be doing. But you never know.

So I guess what I'm wondering is: will I see a huge difference between the 6SE and the 5SE (or even the 127 SLT)? Is it worth spending an extra couple hundred dollars to make a blurry image of Jupiter just a little bit less blurry? Should I stop looking at Celestron altogether and look at something else instead?

My biggest fear is that I'll buy a telescope, look through it and say "Meh. That's it?". I'm hoping Hubble hasn't spoiled me.

[ka9q]

That's the big problem. Hubble has spoiled me, which is why I don't use my 200mm Meade very often.

But it was still cool to make my own picture of the last Venus transit of the sun in my lifetime.

If you want to take long-exposure photographs, don't forget you'll probably need a field rotator for your camera. These weren't needed when telescopes all had equatorial mounts (with one axis aligned parallel to the earth's axis), but most modern computer-controlled telescopes have azimuth/elevation mounts (the azimuth axis is aligned to the local vertical). While easier to set up, they have the drawback that the image will rotate as the scope tracks the earth's rotation. A rotator is driven by the computer to compensate for this effect.

[Zakalwe]

Lunar/planetary photography requires decent aperture and a long focal length. The 127 SLT is a Maksutov design which has a slightly longer focal length than the other two (which are Schmidt Cassegrains) If I was making that choice I would personally go for the 6" though.

Don't bother with the Canon...if you want to do planetary then you will need a camera that can record movie files. The resulting file is then stacked in a program such as Autostakkert, which selects the sharpest part of each frame and stacks them to reduce noise. The resulting image can then be sharpened using Unsharp Mask in Photoshop or (better) wavelet sharpening something like Registax.
You can start very cheaply by modifying a cheap webcam. Rip the lens off it, mount it in a 35mm film canister and off you go.
http://www.universetoday.com/108692/from-webcam-to-planetcam-planetary-imaging-on-the-cheap/
http://www.astronomyhints.com/webcam_make.html
http://dslrmodifications.com/lifecam/lifecam1.html
You will probably also need a IR/UV cut filter to prevent the infra-red wavelengths from swamping the sensor.

Deep Sky Astrophotography is a completely different kettle of fish. I wouldn't recommend a de-rotator. They are expensive, not very common and a poor solution at this level. A German equatorial mount will be required rather than the alt-az mounts on the scopes that you have linked to. Also, DSO photography requires a different type of telescope- focal speed is king. You would be making it as difficult as possible by using a f10 or f12 telescope. I would recommend a small fast refractor on a decent EQ mount to start with- something like a 80mm refractor on a HEQ5 mount. Budget for software too. And I'd recommend geting into autoguiding as soon as possible....a modified finerscope makes a great guide scope (see how the costs start to climb!)
DSO photography is a lot more expensive once you start chasing deeper images...it really can be a bottomless money-pit. However, you can get great shots by using a fast camera lens and an ordinary tripod....look here for examples and tutorials:
www.lonelyspeck.com

Feel free to PM me here or via my website if you want any further advice.

[LunarOrbit]

That's the big problem. Hubble has spoiled me, which is why I don't use my 200mm Meade very often.

But it was still cool to make my own picture of the last Venus transit of the sun in my lifetime.

If you want to take long-exposure photographs, don't forget you'll probably need a field rotator for your camera. These weren't needed when telescopes all had equatorial mounts (with one axis aligned parallel to the earth's axis), but most modern computer-controlled telescopes have azimuth/elevation mounts (the azimuth axis is aligned to the local vertical). While easier to set up, they have the drawback that the image will rotate as the scope tracks the earth's rotation. A rotator is driven by the computer to compensate for this effect.

The possibility that I won't use the telescope often enough to justify buying one is my main concern. I can look at better quality images on my computer without having to leave my home, but there is something to be said about seeing it with my own eyes in real-time.

I witnessed the Venus transit too. A local astronomy group had a public viewing at the University. That was impressive.

I thought the "wedge" that the Celestron 5SE has installed in the tripod was meant to compensate for the Earth's rotation. Would I still need the field rotator that you mentioned? I'll probably stick to photographing the Moon, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Am I right that those would require short exposures so the rotation isn't an issue?

[LunarOrbit]

Thanks for the advice Zakalwe. I think I'll steer clear of trying to photograph DSO, it sounds a bit too advanced (and expensive) for me. I might give modifying a webcam a try though... Celestron sells their own camera that is basically just a webcam without a lens, but it's $300.

[Zakalwe]

The possibility that I won't use the telescope often enough to justify buying one is my main concern. I can look at better quality images on my computer without having to leave my home, but there is something to be said about seeing it with my own eyes in real-time.

Don't expect to see anything like the images that you see on webpages. Your eyes will not see any colour and at best, even "bright" galaxies and nebulae appear as fuzzy blobs. They don't call them "faint fuzzies" for nothing, y'hear!

Here's an excellent intro to what you should expect to see:
http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/196278-what-can-i-expect-to-see/
It might be worth investigating video astronomy. That uses a camera (often a modified security camera) to "stack" images in real-time. A heck of a lot more is visible:
http://www.mallincam.net/what-is-video-astronomy.html

I thought the "wedge" that the Celestron 5SE has installed in the tripod was meant to compensate for the Earth's rotation. Would I still need the field rotator that you mentioned?

Wedges will help to counter the effects of field rotation, but the included wedge is very wobbly. Plus, using a long focal length SCT or Mak for DSO photography is anything but easy. Take it from me- the WORST possible telescope system to use for DSO photography is an alt-az mounted SCT.
If you really want to explore DSO photography, then this book is highly recommended:
http://www.nightskyimages.co.uk/making_every_photon_count.htm

Again, I wouldn't touch a field rotator with a barge-pole. DSO photography is difficult (very difficult in fact). I would ALWAYS recommend trying to make it as easy as possible, otherwise you will probably get frustrated and sack the whole enterprise off. A short focal length refractor, on a decent EQ mount is probably the easiest way to start. Then start autoguiding as soon as possible. From there, my next step would be to get into using a dedicated astro CCD camera as early as possible. The costs will soon mount though.

Am I right that those would require short exposures so the rotation isn't an issue?

Lunar, planetary and solar imaging uses a high frame-rate camera to record hundred (or thousands) of frames in a movie. This movie is then chopped up into individual frames, sorted by quality and stacked. The movie lengths are usually seconds long. I use a camera that can run at 300 frames per second, which gives me thousands of frames in a very short time. Field rotation won't come into it. If you are a glutton for punishment you could even use a non-driven scope on a Dobsonain mount, though that would become tedious once you start using Barlows to increase the focal length.

I might give modifying a webcam a try though... Celestron sells their own camera that is basically just a webcam without a lens, but it's $300.

Thats probably the Neximage camera? Its a bit unfair to call it a "webcam without a lens" as it has a 1260x960 Aptina sensor.  Personally I think that the Celestron cameras are over-priced..the QHY or ZWO range offers more bangs per buck and are probably better specified.