Purchasing a full astrophotography setup allows for hands-on observation and usage, giving a tangible sense of ownership. The trade-off is the substantial initial financial investment and the physical effort required to transport heavy equipment to dark sky locations, which also demands time and energy. However, for those with a private observatory or a suitable backyard, the hassle of travel can be avoided, and efficiency can be high. In such cases, the only limiting factors are likely to be the clear sky rates, seeing, and SQM(how dark the sky background is).
On the other hand, renting remote telescopes has its advantages. You naturally benefit from the best shooting environments since observatories are often located in areas with minimal light pollution, high clear sky rates, and excellent atmospheric stability. At night, you can simply turn on your computer or even your smartphone to capture images, saving the travel time. Within the same timeframe, you can spend more time imaging, potentially increasing your output of work. The downside is that you don't "own" the telescope—you're renting it.
Some people prefer the feeling of ownership, considering the economic perspective that if they lose interest in astrophotography, they can resell the equipment and recoup some funds. Others value the acquisition of more data in a dark, stable environment, allowing for higher quality DSO (Deep Sky Object) captures, especially when adding details to previous works to enhance their quality. Purchasing an equivalent full set of equipment can be too costly and inefficient if usage is low.
Another approach is to have your own equipment hosted at an observatory, which saves the time and effort of traveling to dark sites and improves shooting efficiency with optimal conditions. The economic downside is the initial investment in the equipment plus the annual fees for hosting it at the observatory.
Which approach do you like better?
Specification
Specification
800 US dollars
800 US dollars
500 US dollars
1,500 US dollars