24
Which telescope setup gave better deep sky photos: a cheap refractor with a flimsy mount or a used Dobsonian with a phone adapter?
I spent last summer comparing two approaches for photographing galaxies and nebulas. First I tried a $200 refractor on a lightweight tripod mount and got wobbly, blurry shots of Andromeda every time. Then I picked up a used 8-inch Dobsonian for $300 and just held my phone up to the eyepiece with a cheap adapter. The Dobsonian shots were way sharper even from my light polluted yard in Phoenix. Has anyone else found that a solid mount matters more than the telescope itself for getting decent photos?
3 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In3 Comments
william_craig711d ago
I gotta push back a bit on that "mount is 80%" idea. @robin896, tracking matters way more than stability once you hit longer exposures, and a Dob with no tracking will smear stars way faster than a flimsy tripod on a short focal length.
10
ruby_bell4711d ago
Oh man, I totally get where you're coming from with the mount thing! I actually watched a YouTube video from this guy who rebuilds old telescopes and he said the mount is basically 80% of the battle for photos. He had this beat up 60mm refractor from the 1970s but put it on a solid equatorial mount and his shots of the Orion Nebula were incredible compared to someone with a fancy apo refractor on a wobbly tripod. So yeah, you're not imagining things. That Dobsonian's base is just way more stable than those cheap tripods that shake if you breathe near them. And honestly, even handheld phone shots through a decent eyepiece can look better than a blurry mess from a proper camera setup if the tracking is all over the place.
5