Telescope and a 400D
Discussion
Without trying to break the bank any thoughts on a 'sensibly priced' telescope to do the job. It would mate to my 400D for moon and general star shots. A quick note on any experiences and photos would be welcome and if I were to put a budget on this, I would think a few hundred pounds max.
Cheers
Martin
Cheers
Martin
Define sensibly priced. My OH has one of those 4" Russian reflector telescopes, and I can get better moon photos using a 500mm lens and a 2x converter. Can't remember how much the telescope cost, though it is at the cheap end of the market.
Not sure what sort of results you would get with one of those really cheap things from Argos and the like, but from my own experience, if it's only the moon you are interested in, you'd be better off with a decent camera lens, which has the advantage of being useful for other applications.
Not sure what sort of results you would get with one of those really cheap things from Argos and the like, but from my own experience, if it's only the moon you are interested in, you'd be better off with a decent camera lens, which has the advantage of being useful for other applications.
Typical result from £49.99 Lidl telescope mated to Nikon D40. The D40 is only 6 Megapixel, so you'd probably be able to pick out more detail from a Canon 400D.
While the telescope is "cheap" it is actually made by Bresser (a subsidiary of Meade AFAIK) has a german equatorial mount and a sturdy tripod so its pretty stable. Lidl sell these every so often, so keep an eye on their special offers if you want one, I would say its exceptional value for what it is.
As DIW35 says, good results can be obtained from a long focal length lens and decent camera. See Hawkeye's shot in the "moon pics" thread for another example.
While the telescope is "cheap" it is actually made by Bresser (a subsidiary of Meade AFAIK) has a german equatorial mount and a sturdy tripod so its pretty stable. Lidl sell these every so often, so keep an eye on their special offers if you want one, I would say its exceptional value for what it is.
As DIW35 says, good results can be obtained from a long focal length lens and decent camera. See Hawkeye's shot in the "moon pics" thread for another example.
I suppose by sensibly priced I mean a few hundred quid.
I already have a 70-200 2.8 L IS + 1.4II and a 70-300 Sigma DG with x 2 converter but just can't get the shots. Even have a really sh!te and shocking 650-1300 that I bought off fleabay from the states but that thing is not worth looking through!
Not sure if I need to go down this route, but I'm sure there are a few who use a scope for the stars rather than a lens.
I already have a 70-200 2.8 L IS + 1.4II and a 70-300 Sigma DG with x 2 converter but just can't get the shots. Even have a really sh!te and shocking 650-1300 that I bought off fleabay from the states but that thing is not worth looking through!
Not sure if I need to go down this route, but I'm sure there are a few who use a scope for the stars rather than a lens.
Moon, fairly simple. Very sturdy tripod (to be able to focus) and decent focal length and you're away. Remember the lunar side real rate is quite high, so motion blur can be a problem, depending on magnification.
Planets, again very sturdy tripod (mount), webcam at high frame rate and lots of focal length.
Stars and "Deep sky" - this is where it gets interesting! The mount is everything here, it must be solid, it must be set up correctly and must track accurately. However, as you don't need much magnification you can probably use your 70-200 for the bigger stuff. Something like the andromeda galazy will fill the frame quite nicely, and the shorter focal length means teh mount doesn't have to track as accurately.
Pop over to UKastroimaging and have a look round the forums before you buy anything. Decide what you want to image, then pick the kit to match. Be aware it is a VERY expensive game to do right, and IMO easily the hardest form of photography. It may take an hour of setup, 4 hours of capture time and 3 hours of processing to get one image. And even then it's probably out of focus/got star trailing/very faint etc.
Just trying to warn you! I guess something good to start with would be something like a skywatcher 6" reflector on a good mount (EQ5 at least, with motors). Ignore all the tat on ebay. Most of it is pretty useless beyond looking at the moon. And check with the guys on UKAI that the scope you buy will be able to backfocus with the 400D (many won't). DOn't forget to budget for the extras- power supplies, t-ring adapter, light pollution filter, star charts etc. If you get REALLY bored my pathetic attempts are here:
http://www.pbase.com/duncan_c/astro
Planets, again very sturdy tripod (mount), webcam at high frame rate and lots of focal length.
Stars and "Deep sky" - this is where it gets interesting! The mount is everything here, it must be solid, it must be set up correctly and must track accurately. However, as you don't need much magnification you can probably use your 70-200 for the bigger stuff. Something like the andromeda galazy will fill the frame quite nicely, and the shorter focal length means teh mount doesn't have to track as accurately.
Pop over to UKastroimaging and have a look round the forums before you buy anything. Decide what you want to image, then pick the kit to match. Be aware it is a VERY expensive game to do right, and IMO easily the hardest form of photography. It may take an hour of setup, 4 hours of capture time and 3 hours of processing to get one image. And even then it's probably out of focus/got star trailing/very faint etc.
Just trying to warn you! I guess something good to start with would be something like a skywatcher 6" reflector on a good mount (EQ5 at least, with motors). Ignore all the tat on ebay. Most of it is pretty useless beyond looking at the moon. And check with the guys on UKAI that the scope you buy will be able to backfocus with the 400D (many won't). DOn't forget to budget for the extras- power supplies, t-ring adapter, light pollution filter, star charts etc. If you get REALLY bored my pathetic attempts are here:
http://www.pbase.com/duncan_c/astro
heres my attempt at astroimaging using my Canon 300D and a T-adapter (remove the canons lense and the telescopes eye piece and lock the canon inplace, focus and take the shot)http://s6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/paulj1969/telescope/
this is with my skywatcher 200mm (8 inch) with a HEQ5 goto mount (£900 all in, they did tell you it was expensive didn't they?.
if you want to take shots that any good then an 8inch with a tracking (goto) mount is a must, it MUST be polar aligned if you want to take a shot of anything more than 1 minute.
read Vxduncans reply and goto those sites....only if you're prepared to spend lots of money, expect to freeze your nads off and expect to stay awake until the early hours of the morning.
it's addictve too.
Paul
this is with my skywatcher 200mm (8 inch) with a HEQ5 goto mount (£900 all in, they did tell you it was expensive didn't they?.
if you want to take shots that any good then an 8inch with a tracking (goto) mount is a must, it MUST be polar aligned if you want to take a shot of anything more than 1 minute.
read Vxduncans reply and goto those sites....only if you're prepared to spend lots of money, expect to freeze your nads off and expect to stay awake until the early hours of the morning.
it's addictve too.
Paul
S6PNJ said:
I don't want to hijack, but my question is on a similar vein. I have a 400D hooked up through a T adaptor to my 150mm Skywatch telescope but how do I change the zoom/magnification? I can take photos (aperture reports as 0) and focus through the telescope, but how to magnify?
In its simplest form, you can't. The telescope has fixed focal length, like a prime lens. There's no Zoom. If you need more magnification then you need to add something to the imaging train, either by adding a teleconverter (if you have one), a barlow lens in the eyepiece holder (though I'm guessing if you're using a skywatcher your t-ring is connected directly to the focuser) or by using Eyepiece projection. Eyepiece projection involves using a special adapter that holds the eypiece in between you camera and the focuser, and can be moving in and out to adjust the mag. But with all of these things the same things happen - effective focal length increases (startrailing more likely), it's far harder to focus (image is dimmer, and depth of field reduces), chomatic abberations increase.Personally I'd stick with the magnification you have. If you want to shoot planets, use a webcam and barlow. LOTS of info on UKAI.
You should also be prepared that there's a massive learning curve. It's a very complex hobby and to take images anywhere near as good as those above you'll need to master:
- Focusing (trickier than you think, imagine trying to focus a 1000mm lens on a speck of dust in the pitch black)
- Polar alignment and drift alignment (the process of aligning the mounts axis to the earths rotation, accounting for latitude, time, date etc)
- Mastering the use of the mount to find the objects you want to image and putting them in the field of view. (not easy through an slr focusing screen!)
- Processing the RAW images you've captured. I'd been using PS for 8 years when I started - yet I realised I knew nothing compared to the astroimaging guys. Typically we're talking Stacking 20 or so RAW images, subtracking dark frames, pushing the difference between a couple of rgb levels, etc, etc.
It fries the brain!
- Focusing (trickier than you think, imagine trying to focus a 1000mm lens on a speck of dust in the pitch black)
- Polar alignment and drift alignment (the process of aligning the mounts axis to the earths rotation, accounting for latitude, time, date etc)
- Mastering the use of the mount to find the objects you want to image and putting them in the field of view. (not easy through an slr focusing screen!)
- Processing the RAW images you've captured. I'd been using PS for 8 years when I started - yet I realised I knew nothing compared to the astroimaging guys. Typically we're talking Stacking 20 or so RAW images, subtracking dark frames, pushing the difference between a couple of rgb levels, etc, etc.
It fries the brain!
VxDuncan said:
You should also be prepared that there's a massive learning curve. It's a very complex hobby and to take images anywhere near as good as those above you'll need to master:
- Focusing (trickier than you think, imagine trying to focus a 1000mm lens on a speck of dust in the pitch black)
- Polar alignment and drift alignment (the process of aligning the mounts axis to the earths rotation, accounting for latitude, time, date etc)
- Mastering the use of the mount to find the objects you want to image and putting them in the field of view. (not easy through an slr focusing screen!)
- Processing the RAW images you've captured. I'd been using PS for 8 years when I started - yet I realised I knew nothing compared to the astroimaging guys. Typically we're talking Stacking 20 or so RAW images, subtracking dark frames, pushing the difference between a couple of rgb levels, etc, etc.
It fries the brain!
Thanks Duncan, that makes me feel a whole lot better - Focusing (trickier than you think, imagine trying to focus a 1000mm lens on a speck of dust in the pitch black)
- Polar alignment and drift alignment (the process of aligning the mounts axis to the earths rotation, accounting for latitude, time, date etc)
- Mastering the use of the mount to find the objects you want to image and putting them in the field of view. (not easy through an slr focusing screen!)
- Processing the RAW images you've captured. I'd been using PS for 8 years when I started - yet I realised I knew nothing compared to the astroimaging guys. Typically we're talking Stacking 20 or so RAW images, subtracking dark frames, pushing the difference between a couple of rgb levels, etc, etc.
It fries the brain!
DIW35 said:
Phew! Think I'll stick to the occasional snapshot of the moon, and just enjoy everybody else's efforts at deep sky photography.
you might say that but when you see Saturn with your own eyes for the first time you'ew hook, she really is so beautiful.or when you look at the trapesium close up in M42
or the moon even
theres always something to look at each night even if you've seen it a hundred times before.
regards the zooming in forget it, i can use a tube on my T-adapter and a barlow (2x or 3x) to give me better magnification but it's not worth it as focusing is so much harger to do with a DSLR camera, but when using a webcam it's much easier as you'll be looking at the screen of a laptop while focusing.
Paul
I have actually seen Saturn (and Jupiter) through a telescope. It was the first thing I looked at after the moon. You're right, there's nothing quite like it.
My problem is that I've not had much luck attaching the camera to the scope and getting a decent picture. So far my best attempts at astrophotography have come from using a regular camera lens.
My problem is that I've not had much luck attaching the camera to the scope and getting a decent picture. So far my best attempts at astrophotography have come from using a regular camera lens.
Paul, I can't remember the exact make of telescope, but it's an entry level Russian made 4" reflector. (The same company also make a 6" reflecter, or they used to.)
I can mount the camera to the scope using a T-mount adapter, into which the telescope eyepiece is fitted; eyepiece projection?
Initially I couldn't get it to focus at all, what I believe is a problem referred to as back focus. It was heading in the right direction, but would then hit the limit of travel before coming into focus. I solved that particular problem by machining the T-mount so that it was shorter, thus allowing me sufficient travel.
Now, whilst the image comes in to focus, compared to the view through the scope without the camera, it's very soft. Vibration is also a problem, which I don't think I have fully conquered yet.
Still, it's been a lot of fun trying.
I can mount the camera to the scope using a T-mount adapter, into which the telescope eyepiece is fitted; eyepiece projection?
Initially I couldn't get it to focus at all, what I believe is a problem referred to as back focus. It was heading in the right direction, but would then hit the limit of travel before coming into focus. I solved that particular problem by machining the T-mount so that it was shorter, thus allowing me sufficient travel.
Now, whilst the image comes in to focus, compared to the view through the scope without the camera, it's very soft. Vibration is also a problem, which I don't think I have fully conquered yet.
Still, it's been a lot of fun trying.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff