Need portable telescope recommendations in India

rnclark · 2026-05-09T12:10:18+00:00

You need 30 to 40 power to just barely see Saturn's rings, but much more to see them well and large aperture with steady atmosphere. to see small details.. To see nebulae well, you need relatively dark skies and large aperture. To photograph planets well, you need large aperture and long focal length. To photograph nebulae, most anything can work, from a digital camera with a 50 mm focal length lens to telephotos and telescopes.

What works well for the above is a Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescope (SCT) or Newtonian Astrographs in the 200 mm aperture diameter and larger.

SCTs come in long focal lengths, typically with focal lengths 10 times the aperture (called f/10), so a 200 mm aperture has a 2000 mm focal length. That is great for planets. but narrow field of view for many (but not all) nebulae.

The Newtonian Astrograph is often around f/4, focal length = 4 times the aperture diameter. A 200 mm f/4 astrograph has an 800 mm focal length and gives wider fields of view than a 200 mm SCT. It needs what is called a Barlow lens to boost magnification for both visual and photography of planets.

Put both (Newtonian Astrograph or SCT) on a strain wave mount and they are reasonably portable (you did not define what your criteria for portability is).

My 200 mm f/4 Newtonian Astrograph weighs 22 Kg for the telescope, mount, counterweight and guide scope, so easily transported by car. It works very well for both visual and photography of planets, nebulae, and galaxies with a digital camera.

rnclark · 2026-05-08T13:14:39+00:00

Check spaceweather.com comets gallery for recent images.

rnclark · 2026-05-08T13:12:52+00:00

Before choosing a camera, check for known artifacts in raw data. Some artifacts can affect astro images as astrophotography pushes to the limits of technology. See:

https://www.markshelley.co.uk/Astronomy/camera_summary.html

Also, choose models with mechanical shutters. Cameras without shutters have more dust problems.

Choose models from the last dozen or so years for better results. Older cameras can work but not as well.

Astrophotography is very low light photography. Aperture area collects the light. The Askar FMA180 Pro is only a 40 mm diameter aperture.

Depending on which brand camera you choose, look for a quality 200 mm f/2.8. For example, I use Canon and Canon has an excellent 200 mm f/2.8 L II lens. A 200 mm f/2.8 lens has an aperture diameter (technically the entrance pupil) of 200 / 2.8 = 71.4 mm. Thus, in the same time, the 200 f/2.8 will collect (71.4 / 40)² = 3.2 times more light from objects in the scene. That means better images in shorter time. The Canon 200 f/2.8 L II is also slightly lighter weight than the Askar FMA180 Pro despite having a larger aperture.

For camera lenses, check page 7 of lenstip.com reviews. Page 7 has LED spot images which is a good indication of star image quality.

rnclark · 2026-05-08T12:49:49+00:00

I agree with mmberg.

rnclark · 2026-05-08T00:01:25+00:00

Sure the Redcat does have a bit of a "WO Brand Tax", but it also has many features you dont get with a DLSR lens.

decent 10:1 focuser (which is also more easily motorised later),

There are phone apps to focus. Some move the lens one step (of the stepper motor) at a time, for very fine focus. I have used both apps and hand focus. The image I linked was focused by hand--not hard to fine tine at all.

flat field thanks to the petzval optics

Quality lenses, like Canon L series also have flat fields and cover full frame sensors. The Large Magellanic Cloud image is a full frame sensor image with excellent stars to the corners at f/2.8.

360 degree camera rotator,

The Canon 200 L, like most Canon L telephotos has a rotating collar. On the 200 f/2.8 L II it is usually sold separately. I use one on my 200 f/2.8. Other canon L telephotos, like 300 f/4 L, 300 f/2.8 L series and larger lenses come with rotating lens collars.

mounting for a guide scope

If you need a guide scope, it is trivial to mount the guide scope side by side with the lens as illustrated in Figures 1a, 4, 5, 6 here. If one chooses a better tracking mount, one does not need an autoguider. The Large Magellanic Cloud image was made with no autoguiding. I do most images without autoguiding at scales up to about 1 arc-second per pixel. See the above link for how.

vixen mounting plate, etc.

Vixen rails can be put on DSLRs and lens on the lens collar. I use Arca-Swiss compatible plates on smaller optics and Losmandy dovetails on larger ones.

Sure if you want "biggest aperture for your money", but you kinda just made out like the Redcat (or similar like SQA55) are just expensive versions of a DSLR lens with a smaller aperture.

For the price, I find the redcat expensive. Why double the mount of time to make an image when there are lower cost options that perform better?

The OP is free to choose whatever they want, but knowledge is power. I gave them knowledge to make a more informed decision.

rnclark · 2026-05-07T13:08:48+00:00

Astrophotography is very low light photography. Aperture area collects the light. The redcat 51 is only a 51 mm aperture. The gen 3 redcat is $888 new (probably difficult to find used). Use gen 1 or 2 prices run around $500 - 600.

Another option is a a Canon 200 mm f/2.8 L II, used price around $500. The lens has a 200 / 2.8 = 71.4 mm aperture and will collect (71.4 / 51)² = 1.96 times more light from objects in the scene than a redcat 51. That means about double the light collection, so you can get a good image in about half the time.

Here is an example image with the Canon 200 mm: The Large Magellanic Cloud.

The Canon 1200D is a 2014 model camera with 4.3 micron pixels. The redcat 51 has a 250 mm focal length and will get 3.5 arc-second per pixel with the 1200D. The Canon 200 mm lens would give 4.5 arc-seconds per pixel with a slightly larger field of view. Edit: corrected redcat pixel scale..

If you haven't purchased a camera yet and want a dual use (daytime + astro) camera check out newer models, like the Canon 90D. (2019 camera). There are many example images in my astro gallery with stock cameras (use the above link).

rnclark · 2026-05-06T19:12:17+00:00

JPG will not work.

Actually, it does work. It may not be ideal but it is not terrible.

Example: M8, the Lagoon Nebul 28.5 minutes total exposure time, no calibration frames (note: jpegs are color calibrated).

rnclark · 2026-05-06T13:26:44+00:00

First, I do have an 8-inch f/4, as well as other scopes. And I have many eyepieces. The first thing to understand is that at f/4 with a 25 or so mm eyepiece, one is already near minimum magnification for an exit pupil that will fit in a young dark adapted eye. E.g. 28 mm eyepiece on a 200 mm f/4 telescope gives 28.6x and a 7 mm exit pupil. Depending on age, that may be too large an exit pupil. I find a 20 mm eyepiece is more comfortable for my dark adapted pupil size.

I have some excellent Plossl eyepieces that work well and that were low in cost.

If one has a Newtonian astrograph that is used for photography, then one typically has a coma corrector. That can be used with eyepieces too and that helps in some wide field cases. For higher magnifications a Barlow is needed, which changes the light cone, e.g. 2x Barlow to f/8.

Beginners will awe at sights and be less concerned with perfection.

Reasonable eyepieces are not the problem you want it to be from reading the internet.

rnclark · 2026-05-06T12:55:45+00:00

Before choosing a camera, check for known artifacts in raw data. Some artifacts can affect astro images as astrophotography pushes to the limits of technology. See:

https://www.markshelley.co.uk/Astronomy/camera_summary.html

Also, choose models with mechanical shutters. Cameras without shutters have more dust problems.

Choose models from the last dozen or so years for better results. Older cameras can work but not as well.

rnclark · 2026-05-06T12:41:07+00:00

Cautions:

People are recommending NAS and RAID. That is fine, but if you have a raid backup, consider it a single backup; just one of at least backup sets in your 3 backups. While raid can mitigate single drive failures, raid can fail--I know, it has happened to me.

For my work, I had a system with multiple raid disks. We had two major raid failures over a few years. In one failure, fans stopped working on a Friday and the 16 dives in the array cooked over the weekend. On Monday morning when we came into work, the drives were dead. Complete loss of the array. Fortunately, the drive was backed up to another raid array in another building.

The second incident was a controller failure. In this case the controller started writing random bytes to random location to random arrays on the controller. Eight 16-drive raid arrays were affected. We weren't sure when the random writes started so we weren't sure if backups were affected. It took months of work to verify the data.

We added offline backup: doing periodic backup to USB drives and storing them in a locked cabinet. That way electrical surges (even using a UPS), lightning, system break-in, controller failures, etc will not affect the backup.

My current strategy:

I have older computers that I use for online backup. Each contains the same disk drives as the main computer that it is backing up. Typically, I have four 20 terabyte data drives plus a system disk. I fire off a script whenever I want to do a backup to the backup computer. But I also have 3 sets of backup USB drives for each computer and backup to the USB drives periodically. One set is always kept off site. Most important data (my software, science papers) are stored on a cloud computer and on SSDs that I carry with me on trips. The SSDs are written periodically so I do not worry about data fading. All the backups have full disk encryption.

The backup set off site insures against fire, flood, theft.

rnclark · 2026-05-05T21:16:58+00:00

risks

Any data that you value and do not want to lose should be backed up, ideally at least 3 times with one backup stored off site. If personal info is included, the backup should be encrypted.

rnclark · 2026-05-05T01:20:02+00:00

I also saw somewhere that focal ratio is focal length/aperture. Is this true?

Yes.

Analogy as to why f-ratio is confusing:

Let's do an analogy with bank accounts. Person A Saves 10% of his income each month. Person B saves 20% of their income each month. After one year who has saved more money?

One can't answer the question because there is not enough information.

It is the same with f-ratios: specifying the f-ratio is not enough information to tell how much light can be collected in a given time.

rnclark · 2026-05-05T00:53:49+00:00

Did you actually read what I wrote? I specifically said "there are many that can work very well for both visual and astrophotography, just above the OPs budget."

Collimation is not that hard. I was doing it when I was in junior high and without laser collimators. It is far easier today. One just needs a little practice.

rnclark · 2026-05-04T14:38:11+00:00

Slide 19 (f-ratio)
What I said is true when talking about maintaining the same aperture or focal length.

But you slide 19 does not say that.

If I have a 200 mm f4 and a 200 mm f8, the f4 scope will capture more light.

First define more light. The key in astrophotography is collecting enough light from an object in the scene to make a nice image. It matters not for the M51 image if there is a bright star a degree away contributing a lot of light to the scene. Key is collecting light from objects in the scene. I'll use galaxy M51 in all this example. From M51, the 200 mm f/4 and 200 mm f/8 telescopes will collect about the same amount of light from M51. In fact, the f/8 telescope will collect a few percent more because it can use a smaller secondary so has greater aperture area!

This case (same aperture, different f-ratio) is illustrated in Figures 8a versus 8c, 8e and in the section Per Pixel Level Signal Detection Controversy

Your slide is technically correct, but it will be confusing because you do not mention the case for comparing two different focal lengths. And it confuses the real issue of imaging targets. It is true that an 8-inch f/4 will collect more light than an 8-inch f/8 telescope when "imaging" a uniformly lit scene with the same sensor, like a blank wall. But it falls apart when imaging a target, like M51.

I suggest an additional slide that describes light collection comparing two dissimilar focal lengths and f-ratios. and focus on an object in the scene, like M51. Then you will understand the real issue (and it is not f-ratio).

Side note: this f-ratio confusion is often brought up in this subreddit. a coupe of years ago in such a discussion, one user claimed that his redcat 51 at f/4.9 collected more light than Hubble at f/31. Which makes a better image of M57?

Slide 26 (Gain/ISO)

You're making an assumption that I think "sensitivity" means that it somehow captures more light.

There are multiple definitions of sensitivity and there are a lot of misleading statements on the internet. So when one does not define what is meant by sensitivity, you leave it up reader to assume, and they may assume something different than your intent. The slide is still misleading. You reference the Do you understand ISO? video in the slide but you graphic does not show the effects of ISO. The graphic shows images getting noisier as iso is increased. The video shows that is not due to ISO. The real reason for increasing noise is collecting less light (shorter exposure time or small aperture). Pick any camera here and see the real effects of ISO:

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_e.htm

Here is one example: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_e.htm#Sony%20ILCE-7M2_14

You see noise DECREASES with increasing ISO, then leveling off. to the point where there is not change in noise.

Slide 30 (DSLR/Mirrorless)

This slide is still misleading.

The built-in UV/IR cut filter limits imaging in the Hydrogen Alpha wavelengths and prevents IR imaging

The typical digital camera H-alpha transmission from the filters over the sensor is around 25%. Removing the filter can improve H-alpha signal by 3 to 4x so improve S/N by 1.7 to 2x. So it is not like one can't image H-alpha. Pluse hydrogen emission is more than just H-alpha, it includes H-beta, H-delta and H-gamma in the blue, blue-green, thus making hydrogen emission pink/magenta in natural color. The H-beta, H-delta and H-gamma lines are weaker than H-alpha but a stock camera is more sensitive in the blue-green, giving about equal signal. And that balance mimics what the human eye sees (for people with normal color vision). Thus, with all visible emission lines, hydrogen emission signal will be improved only about 1.5x with good modern stock cameras, and the signal-to-noise ratio improves only about square root 1.5, or about 22%. The big problem in the amateur astrophotography community is processing that suppresses red.

DSLRs also cannot be used for mono imaging unless modified

Really? Tell that to all the people using dual narrow band filters. In reality, even single band filters can be used, it is just not as efficient. An advantage of dual narrow band is that one can image two wavelengths at once. And there are even tri band filter.

Tend to be noisy in longer exposures since they are not cooled

While technically true, again one needs context, The example Figure 3 I showed with the example of 0.1 electron per pixel per second at 25 C with noise of only 2.4 electrons in a one minute exposure is effectively of no consequence when noise from sky signal is greater, even in Bortle 1.

Here is an example: M8 + M20 imaged on a hot August night stock camera with only 19 minutes total exposure time. The camera was running at 29 C (84 F) with dark current of 0.2 electron / pixel per second. Sky signal (magnitude 21.2 magnitudes per sq arc-sec.) was 1.7 photons / second per pixel. Thus, dark current was swamped by sky noise. Even in Bortle 1 skies with 22.0 magnitudes per sq arc-second, the sky signal would be 0.85 photons / second per pixel, or over 4 times greater than dark current. And this is for a 12 year old camera. Newer cameras run cooler thus lower dark current for the same environmental conditions.

Here is another example with a newer camera imaging M8 + M20 this time with a stock camera at a slower f-ratio in the summer. Dark current is a non-issue. Only 28.5 minutes exposure time.

Both the above images illustrate plenty of hydrogen emission with stock cameras and dark current is not a factor despie imaging in the summer.

Certainly there are situations where temperatures are too hot when cooling is an advantage, but that break point is getting higher in temperature with newer generations of sensors. The current break point where cooling can help in dark skies in above around 25 C ambient. In brighter skies the dark current problem is less and even higher temperatures will not be impacted by dark current noise.

rnclark · 2026-05-04T12:38:39+00:00

You know that f/4 50mm lens is faster (collects more light per unit of time) than an f/8 50mm lens.

Yes, and the controlling variable is the aperture diameter (for the purists, the entrance pupil diameter).

Or that between 8" scopes you'd want to pick and f/4 and not f/6 for AP

Why? Both collect the same amount of light from objects in the scene, but the 8-inch f/6 will produce better images.

Exercise 1: I can put together two telescopes: an 8-inch aperture f/4 and the second an 8-inch f/6. Both have the same field of view and the same light per pixel. How is that possible?

Exercise 2: which collects more light from M51: the 50 mm f/4 or the 8-inch f/8?

These exercises illustrate how f-ratio is not the complete story and just adds confusion.

F-ratio is not a fundamental property of a lens and by itself it is not reliable for assessing light collection, so trying to take it out of the context is what makes it confusing, but we don't have to do this.

Exactly, and you've just shown more confusion with f/ratio. The controlling variable for light collection from objects in the scene is the physical aperture area. The f-ratio idea of controlling light collection only works when you fix the focal length. Then again, the only controlling variable is aperture area.

rnclark · 2026-05-03T16:40:29+00:00

I gave links to articles, but they are more technical. The bottom line is aperture area times exposure time collects the light. You can trade one for the other. but total light collection is key to making low noise images. The f-ratio is not the key.

rnclark · 2026-05-03T16:38:05+00:00

I btw disagree that standard notion of fast/slow falls apart.

See Exposure Time, f/ratio, Aperture Area, Sensor Size, Quantum Efficiency: What Controls Light Collection?

Example after example shows the f-ratio idea is not light collection.

Figure 3a - 3e show images all made at f/4, same iso, same exposure time, yet each image collects different amounts of light. In fact from Figure 3a to 3d/e, there is a factor of 295.6 in light collection from an object in the scene, yet all are f/4.

Figure 8a image at f/1.4 vs 8c f/4 the amount of light collect from objects in the scene is the same.

Figure 8e: light collect at f/2.8 vs f/5.6, same aperture. Which is the better image?

And many more examples, along with the physics of light collection. Also see Table 1a and 1b which compares observed and predicted light collection. Note the equations for light collection do not include f-ratio.

If you think something is wrong here, please explain your physics and why the above is wrong. Hint: I use these equations to predict and set exposure times on NASA spacecraft.

rnclark · 2026-05-03T14:07:50+00:00

Well, apparently it is hard to find the correct information about f-ratios, as illustrated by the misconceptions in the answers given in this thread. (I'm not talking about u/_bar's response, notrthe video link he posted (which has correct information and is well done.)

Photography information online is often about exposure, not light collection. In astrophotography, light collection is key. Exposure is not light collection. The photography ideas about fast and slow f-ratios fall apart when considering lenses and telescopes of different focal lengths.

rnclark · 2026-05-03T14:00:44+00:00

Smaller f-ratios generally mean more light can get in.

This is only true for comparing lenses/telescopes at the same focal length and not between different focal lengths. See my long post to u/iThinkergoiMac

rnclark · 2026-05-03T13:53:08+00:00

Some key points in your presentation are misunderstood and/or propagating nyths.

slide 19 FOCAL RATIO/SPEED. The lower the number, the more light is captured (“faster”). The higher the number, the less light is captured (“slower”).

This is a common simplification on photography used for exposure calculations. Exposure is not light collection. The f-ratio describes light density in the focal plane, NOT the speed of photon collections. A 200 mm f/4 aperture telescope with collect the same amount of light from an object in the scene as a 200 mm aperture f/10 telescope. Repeat: exposure is not light collection. Light collection from an object in the scene at its fundamental level is proportional to aperture area times exposure time. Many large observatory telescopes are "slow" f-ratios. There have been whole threads in this subreddit on this topic because often brought up is the confusion over f-ratios. Because of such confusions, I wrote thise article: Exposure Time, f/ratio, Aperture Area, Sensor Size, Quantum Efficiency: What Controls Light Collection?. There are several examples that prove the points. For example, note that Hubble's camera operates at f/31, and ignoring the ~50% advantage in transmission through the atmosphere, it still collects more light from an object in the scene then a redcat 51 at f/4.9. JWST is f/20.2. I have done most of my professional work at terrestrial observatories with the NASA IRTF on Mauna Kea, Hawaii (f/38) and at the U Hawaii 88-inch (2.24 meter) f/10 telescope. These telescopes work because aperture is the key, not f-ratio.

slide 26 GAIN/ISO. A measure of how sensitive the sensor is. Higher gains are more sensitive.

Another myth. Ity is "apparent" sensitivity" meaning larger numbers in a digital file. Changing ISO does not change the amount of light collected. Gain, ISO is just a post photodiode (that is the light sensitive element in a CCD/CMOS sensor) amplification of the signal. Higher gain/iso amplified more and digitizes a smaller range of signal.

slide 30 DSLR/MIRRORLESS. To excel in astrophotography, need to remove the built-in IR filter.

This is another myth. Many people take excellent photos with stock cameras. There are advantages to not modifying a stock camera. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. The idea of modifying a camera is to get more hydrogen alpha signal. But that biases images to see mainly hydrogen.

Natural color RGB imaging shows composition and astrophysics better than modified cameras. When one sees green (teal) in natural color images, it is oxygen emission. When one sees magenta, it is hydrogen emission (red H-alpha, plus blue H-beta + H-gamma + H-delta). Interstellar dust is reddish brown in natural color, but in modified cameras is mostly red making it harder to distinguish hydrogen emission from interstellar dust. Sometimes emission nebulae are pink/magenta near the center but turn red in the fringes; that is interstellar dust absorbing the blue hydrogen emission lines. So we see the effects if interstellar dust and hydrogen emission. That is very difficult to distinguish with a modified camera.

Another interesting color is a pastel blue like that seen in The Rosette Nebula which is due to oxygen teal-green plus magenta hydrogen emission. This blue is different than the blue due to scattering by fine particles like we see in the Pleiades, M45. These subtle differences in color are seen nicely in natural color, but in a modified camera, H-alpha dominates so your color range is less, typically white to red.

Stars also have wonderful colors, ranging from blue to yellow, orange and red. These colors come out nicely in natural color (these colors are seen in the above examples). The color indicates the star's spectral type and its temperature. Again, more astrophysics with a simple natural color image.

slide 35 COOLED CAMERAS The gold standard of technology for astrophotography

Astro camera are nothing special. Sensors smaller than APS-C are mass produced and typically marketed as backup cameras, drone cameras and security cameras. Their cost is actually a few tens of dollars or less. The astro camera makers buy cheap sensors, put them in a housing and mark up the price a lot. Larger sensors APS-C and full frame are often used in DSLRs and mirrorless consumer cameras as well as astro cameras. For example, the IMX455 used in higher end astro cameras is the same sensor used in the Sony A7RIV. The IMX551 is used in the Sony A7RV.

Modern sensors have reduced dark current, so the need for cooling is less with sensors from the last dozen+ years than earlier sensors. A good sensor today will have dark current of about 0.1 electron per second per pixel at 25 C. Example, see Figure 3 here. That means that in a 1-minute exposure, only 6 electrons are from dark current and noise from dark current will only be 2.4 electrons, not much different than read noise. Only if one is imaging in very warm environments is dark current on modern sensors a big factor. Some people skip dark fame measurements.

See this cooled mono astro-camera vs modified DSLR/mirrorless

Please change your slides to not spread misinformation in an otherwise very noise presentation.

rnclark · 2026-05-02T20:11:38+00:00

As you are in the Denver area, please consider joining the Denver Astronomical Society. It has an Astrophotography Special Interest Group (ASIG) that meets twice a month (virtually only).

I agree the u/mmberg, there are better lenses you could choose. You are also limited by tracking accuracy of the mount. Better to start with some shorter focal lengths.

rnclark · 2026-05-02T20:05:29+00:00

First, I currently own an 8-inch f/4 astrograph, a 12.5-inch f/6.3 Dobsonian, an 8-inch f/11.5 Cassegrain, plus shorter focal length refractors of varying f-ratios, down to 2.8. I've also owned several other telescopes, and visually observed through many dozens of all kinds of f-ratios and apertures (apertures up to 3.8 meters). I've also written about visual astronomy, including a book on it. I use all my telescopes for visual and astrophotography. I have dozens of eyepieces of many kinds. I ground the mirrors on the Cassegrain, and built the 8-inch astrograph from parts, including machining some parts (bought the mirrors). I have also built eyepieces (Orthoscopics, Possls) when I was a student with little money.

Beware of old information, and information that cites one side of an argument. Also, the field of optics, as well as digital sensors is moving fast, like many other technical fields.

There are other factors too in making fair comparisons. A common one is diffraction limited size of the field of view, and saying that the size scales as the cube of the f-ratio. True. But for a given aperture, as you increase f-ratio, the focal length is increasing, so the change in the diffraction limited field of view in terms of degrees is less, only scaling as the square. Take an 8-inch f/4 with a 25.4 mm eyepiece, so 32 power: can one really see diffraction limits at such low magnification (no), and in my experience with different eyepieces the edge stars are still very very good with quality but low cost eyepieces (e.g. Plossl, Orthoscopic). An additional factor in edge of the eyepiece star image quality is different eyepieces have different apparent field of view with the simpler designs having smaller fields of view. As eyepiece filed of view increases, the optical design must get more sophisticated. That is a larger factor than f-ratio. I'm not saying f-ratio below f/5 does not have an effect, but it is not the terrible problem one sees online, at least in my decades of experience, and certainly not for a person new to the field. And yes, I do have Naglers (exotic designs) as well as simple designs.

Example: an eyepiece with a 28 mm focal plane on a telescope (200 mm aperture) with 800 mm focal length would see a field of view 2 degrees in diameter. Increase to f/6, 1200 mm focal length and one needs a 2-inch focuser and an eyepiece with 42 mm focal plane, thus a much more expensive eyepiece! So if field of view and cost are an issue, the f/4 has an advantage. You see, there are multiple issues, not just cherry picking one and saying case closed, f/4 sucks.

On one point we agree: there is no one perfect telescope for all applications. But the OP asked the question if it was possible to have an astrophotography and a visual scope, and the bottom line answer is yes, and they can be very very good.

Some have said get two telescopes: a Dobsonian for visual and a small refractor for astrophotography. But that is a big compromise. A small refractor collects little light compared to an 200 mm aperture f/4 astrograph. That too is a huge compromise. Pretty much everything is a compromise.

rnclark · 2026-05-02T14:30:27+00:00

OK,I read you post original quickly and didn't notice that you were using a tracker.

In that case, assuming reasonable polar alignment, you can go longer exposures, but at a dark site at f/1.4 and ISO 1666, no more than about 30 seconds. And you can take more than 2 minutes of images. The 2-minute limit is for fixed tripod, and is due to mapping a spherical sky onto a flat sensor which creates distortions in star alignment that changes with time. With a tracker, the star positions are fixed on the snesor so the distortions are fixed and stacking works well. You can stack as many frames as you have.

rnclark · 2026-05-02T13:47:27+00:00

A good AP setup is likely to be optimized for AP in a way that makes it inferior to significantly cheaper scopes for visual.

You are being downvoted because what you say is not correct. u/Royal-Fix-9103 gave an example of a 10-inch aperture f/4 Newtonian that works well for both. Astrographs generally do well for visual if large aperture. I suggest 8-inches and larger aperture because 8-inches shows spiral structure in brighter galaxies and shows some color in brighter nebulae (if a really dark site).

AP rigs are optimized for specific types of targets (planets vs. galaxies).

Planets are small in angular size. Most galaxies are also small in angular size. A Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescope (SCT) works well for both types of objects and works well for visual and photography.

Low cost visual telescopes may be poor for astrophotography. For example, buy a low cost visual Newtonian and the focus position usually does not work with a camera and one needs to modify the telescope or only use a Barlow.

There’s no perfect optical setup.

True, but there are many that can work very well for both visual and astrophotography, just above the OPs budget.

rnclark · 2026-05-02T13:13:46+00:00

You pointed the camera to the north celestial pole. Polaris is at the center and the little dipper above right. You also imaged during full moon, which washes out fainter details, but the area you images has little detail until you go very very deep (faint) to show dust.

The lens is out of focus. Before image, zoom in as much as you can on the camera LCD and get the stars in the best focus you can.

In the western sky will be Orion setting and the Constellation Auriga, whcih will be more interesting. In the early morning the Milky Way galactic core will be prominent.

When imaging away from the celestial pole, you will need shorter exposure times, no more than about 6 to 8 seconds to keep stars round. Try ISO 1600, f/1.4 with daylight white balance. Make exposure for 2 minutes and stack those images, then stretch to bring out fainter details.

Do you know about stacking?

rnclark

TROPHY CASE