Alright, here are are my responses to some of your questions. Hope that it is helpful
thlightbrigade wrote:Why do you think it's best to start with wide field? Not that I will because I am stubborn but I would like to understand why!
It is best to start with a wider field because it places less demands on the accuracy of the mount's tracking. The higher to focal length, the more magnified tracking errors are. You'll find that one of the most difficult and time consuming things in the data acquisition (shooting) stage of astrophotography is keeping stars pinpoint and not trailed. Shooting at a shorter focal length makes that easier. Also, because many deep sky objects have a large angular (apparent) size in the night sky, you do not need a long focal length to capture them in their entirety. In fact, having too narrow of a field may result in it being impossible to capture certain objects in a single frame.
thlightbrigade wrote:You're saying I don't NEED a DSLR to start astrophotography... but how? I do NEED a mount and telescope tho?
It really depends on what you intend to do. I'd say that a DSLR is nearly essential in beginning astrophotography, even if in theory one could shoot with a point and shoot (or even a camera phone). It arguably gives the greatest benefit per dollar spent in terms of camera choice.
After the camera, the next most important piece of equipment is a motorised german equatorial mount. Once again, you could in theory shoot without a mount, but your exposures will be severely limited. As for the telescope, it would be nice to have one, although in this case there exists a greater substitutability as telephoto lenses can also be used in lieu. The primary motivation for purchasing a telescope is often cost, because good telephotos capable of achieving the optical requirements of astroimaging often cost more than a telescope of similar specifications.
thlightbrigade wrote:The focal ratio and aperture are details are that of a telescope, right? From my simple understanding, for the camera, only the body is used and then it will be... fixed onto the telescope and the telescope works as its lens? Am I right or completely crazy wrong?
You are absolutely right. At prime focus, in which a DSLR body is coupled to a telescope tube, the telescope acts as a long focal length lens. The optical attributes (aperture, focal speed) are directly translatable from photography lingua franca.
thlightbrigade wrote:Still don't know where to START hahaha I'm so impatient, I want to start now lol. Been looking at cloudynights' classifieds... I don't even know what's a good deal. Would suck to spend and be like oh dear I was scammed D: Like for example, is "1.5 year old 60Da body with less than 500 shutter clicks." for USD1100 a good deal?
I'd say (in my humble opinion) that the Canon 60Da isn't worth the money. A modified used DSLR will outperform it and cost less. Understandably, it is often difficult in specific cases to distinguish a good deal from a bad one. Like antares2063 mentioned above, you might want to head down to EF2015 and speak directly to the astrophotographers there.
Cheers,
Ivan
