Are Schmidt-Cassegrain telescopes (SCTs) good for deep-sky?
Yesterday I have received e-mail from Mathew, asking me about usefulness of SCT telescopes for deep-sky astrophotography. He agreed to reply to his question in this post, since this is pretty general question and others may find it useful too. Here’s his message:
“Hi,
My name is Mathew Oehler, and over the past several months I have become more interested in astrophotography, after having general photography as a hobby for about 6 years.
Last year a family friend was gracious enough to give me a 100mm Orion refractor telescope, and I have gotten excellent use out of it in viewing Saturn, Jupiter, and the Orion nebula among other things. More recently I purchased a T-ring that enabled me to connect my Canon Rebel to the telescope, and was disappointed in its capability. I would ideally like something designed to reach deeper, so I can get some clearer shots of nebulas and galaxies. I have heard that Schmidt-Cassegrain telescopes are designed for this purpose, but I’m having trouble finding good information amongst the sea of astrophotography information on the internet. Are SC telescopes good for this, and will a standard one have an equatorial mount that I can put a motor onto?
Thank you in advance for any help you can provide me!”
The answer is not very simple (as always). The main reason why SCTs are so popular telescopes is their portability and compact size. They have a short optical tube because the light goes three times through it before it reaches the focus. The consequence is that they have long focal length comparing to diameter of the primary mirror which means slow optics (high f-ratio) – typically between f/8 and f/12. And here’s the catch! F-ratio is a king at photography because it tells you how many light the optics gathers per pixel. The lower f-ratio means more light, which means lower ISO setting (less noise) and shorter exposition to go deeper. This is the main reason why SCTs are not so good and popular among astrophotographers. In spite the fact they are compact, they have long focal length, small field of view (a lot of nebulas on the sky are larger than the diameter of the Moon) and require long exposition. Usually they come with mounts which are not capable to guide accurate enough to achieve pin-point stars at longer expositions (5min and more). All their characteristics suits for planetary and moon imaging, where longer focal lengths are needed and guiding is not so critical. On good mounts and with company of high detective CCD cameras they are good optical instruments for small planetary nebulas and galaxies, but I would highly dissuade this type of imaging the deep sky from beginners.
Mathew, I suppose that you have an achromatic telescope, because I have heard just good things about 100mm APO Orion refractor and it is good imaging instrument. I suggest you to start imaging at wide angle, since this is the easiest and the cheapest option. DSLR in combination with kit lens is good start point and your first object are star trails (if you don’t have a mount with tracking) or Milky Way (if you have the mount). It’s good to have in mind that you need to “build” your equipment from the ground, that means that first you need a good tripod, then mount and at the end the optics and camera. Note that good mount is astrophotographer’s best friend and it’s worth to buy a good one in the beginning, because you can put on whatever you want (just camera with kit lens or 16 inch RC). Later on you can buy a telephoto lens or APO middle-sized refractor which has many many objects in range (practically all the M catalogue and long list of NGC objects). If you are interested in little smaller objects you may find 8-10 inch f/4-f/6 high-quality Newton good instrument as well. At the end there are more exotic telescopes like SCTs, RCs which cost a fortune and need very expensive and good mounts (in range of 6000+ USD).
I hope I have answered to your question. You are welcome to leave a comment if I haven’t.
And if anyone have a question related to astrophotography just contact me. I’ll try my best to solve your problem …




















At German’s type of the mount we have two axis: one is parallel to the Earth’s rotate axis and another is rectangular to it. This is because when the mount is tracking there is no need to move both axis as the same time but just one. This makes those mounts so popular and useful because in theory you need just one motor to track the moving of the night sky. You also don’t get any other errors like field rotation or similar.
Recent Comments