Moon Shots-Post here

nickoly said:

What you need is a T-Mount to filter thread adapter ring. Mine is a
T> 52mm for the 5060. I'm sure T> 55mm will be just as easily

Click to expand...

Thanks much for the suggestion, now next question - where to get them? (in the US preferably).

Sorry, I meant to mention that before. Adorama is one likely source and I think another one is called Scopetronix. Don't get conned into paying big bucks, $35 is about the most you should pay and, for what it is, that is quite enough...

I got mine over the counter at a local astronomy shop here in Sydney.

Peter Khor said:

Peter Khor said:

recalled that I did do this last month. So here is a C7070 moon
shot. The camera was afocally mounted to a 1000mm f/10 Rubinar
lens using a TeleVue 32mm Plossl eyepiece.

Click to expand...

Jay - excellent shot! Wondering how you coupled the 7070 to the
scope; are u using TeleVue's adapter (iirc works only with some of
their eyepieces) or some other mount? fwiw I have a lens tube
adapter on my 7070 with 55mm threaded front (can be stepped down of
course), and have been looking to get it to mount on a
tele-extender (M42 T-thread) - or some other less cumbersome way to
mount it afocally.

Click to expand...

I use a Baader Planetarium "Click Lock" T2 to eyepiece clamp and an M42 to T2 adapter ring.

http://www.alpineastro.com/eyepiece_adapters/eyepiece_adapters.htm#Deluxe%20Eyepiece%20Clamp

http://www.alpineastro.com/eyepiece_adapters/eyepiece_adapters.htm#Telescope%20Adapters

These are nicely made pieces.

I epoxied a 46mm filter ring to the TeleVue eyepiece. Using their adapter is probably a cleaner approach though. On my camera, I have a Raynox adapter that has a 52mm thread. I use a 52-46mm step down ring which is where the camera and eyepiece mate up. It probably sounds more complicated than it is.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

Jay Turberville said:

down ring which is where the camera and eyepiece mate up. It
probably sounds more complicated than it is.

Click to expand...

Either way, It's a nice clean picture.

Jay Turberville said:

Taken with a C7070Wz and a 1000mm f/10 Mirror lens and 32mm TeleVue
eyepiece. It is was ab it difficult to get sharp focus with such a
low contrast subject.

Click to expand...

Never the less, I like this shot. I have got something similar but was taken in the evening with more contrast. I think for the conditions your shot is great!

btw- I looked at your website and what a wealth of technical information.

David

Jay Turberville said:

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

Click to expand...

Walker both shots are excellent, well, if I could see full size versions I bet they would be. Hint. I looked at your gallery and couldn't find them but I did find a lot of other good moon shots. Thanks for posting these.

David

They are mid-way down and at the end of the Nature gallery.

Thanks for the comments,

Walker

--
Walker
http://www.pbase.com/walker
Hogdriver

1800mm shot with a f8 600mm sigma mirror lens with a 2x converter and 1.5 crop factor iso 800.
--



ist*ds,fuji 602z and a few oly's. Greetings from St.Louis Mo.

Nice shot. It's surprising how many mirror teles have shown up on this thread.

--

ist*ds,fuji 602z and a few oly's. Greetings from St.Louis Mo.

I was standing on my balcony at Fall Creek Falls watching the nearly full moon last week and took this shot:



Suddenly, the moon fell into the lake, floating on the smooth surface just long enough to take a couple of snaps before it sank!!!





Some mighty fine moon shots in this thread! Great topic, David!

****
--
http://www.pbase.com/richardr
D70&C-2100UZ&C-5050Z&C-3000Z
PBase Supporter

I'm amazed how long this thread has become. OK, so half the posts are from Drummer, but I know of no previous moon thread that has attracted the traffic like this one.

You know, now someone needs to start a tread on setups for the moon. Which should include pictures of the setups, afocals, catadiopt... (whatever Nick said)

Cheers,
David

--
Hope you enjoy and comments welcome,
Drummer (AKA Sticks, David)
FCAS Member #122, Oly Div.
C8080WZ, Canon 250D
C2100UZ & Tcon 1.7
http://www.pbase.com/bluesfish
'You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.'

I have never seen a picture of a moon reflection done so well. What a find! Usually it's just a long streak in the water seen from a distance. You had the perfect angle.

Thanks for posting this one ****!!!
David

--
Hope you enjoy and comments welcome,
Drummer (AKA Sticks, David)
FCAS Member #122, Oly Div.
C8080WZ, Canon 250D
C2100UZ & Tcon 1.7
http://www.pbase.com/bluesfish
'You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.'

Maybe this thread will keep going till the next New Moon.

I would really like to see a thread started on setups for the moon. Which should include pictures of the setups, afocals, catadiopt...(whatever you said), etc... I and I'm sure a lot of folks no little of them. Just a thought.

David

nickoly said:

I'm amazed how long this thread has become. OK, so half the posts
are from Drummer, but I know of no previous moon thread that has
attracted the traffic like this one.

Click to expand...

13s f/4.0 at 10.9mm iso50
--
http://www.pbase.com/fvillegas

Drummer said:

Maybe this thread will keep going till the next New Moon.

I would really like to see a thread started on setups for the moon.
Which should include pictures of the setups, afocals,
catadiopt...(whatever you said), etc... I and I'm sure a lot of
folks no little of them. Just a thought.

Click to expand...

Although I haven't seen anything myself, I'm sure there is a raft of astrophoto sites around. Essentially there are three methods

1. Prime focus, i.e. a telephoto lens on an SLR

2. Eyepiece projection, a telescope eyepiece projects the image onto the film. The SLR lens is not used.

3. Afocal projection. A camera with a fixed lens looks through the telescope. That telescope may be merely an Olympus TCON.

Astrophotogs used to turn their nose up at afocal. It was usually illustrated with a Kodak folding Brownie stuck hopefully on the back of a telescope. The situation has changed with modern fixed lens digitals. The live viewing and a bit of zoom changes everything. This was one of the most important lessons I learned on this forum. Some guy, obviously a professional, was using a 5050 on a microscope! Then, of course, came Grey Lady with her great binocular stuff.

A lot of the game is in mechanical integrity, the absence of which is well illustrated in my effort, despite my serious tripod. That setup was the equivalent of a 6050mm telephoto, so things needed to be well bolted down.

Optical simplicity helps, well illustrated by the catadioptric crowd, which provide real bang for the buck. It is notable that over the last year or so, the rather pathetic teleconverter stacking efforts seem to have died out on this forum. I guess this is because those advocates didn't really understand the problem, thought they could fix it merely by throwing money at it, and then lost interest.

My shot was with an old geniune Maksutov made by Maksutov Tele Optics, Moscow USSR. Another post used a Rubinar, a slightly simplified direct descendant of the MTO. I understand the Rubinar can be had dirt cheap and it certainly looks like it can deliver the goods!!

Hope this helps.

nickoly said:

Astrophotogs used to turn their nose up at afocal. It was usually
illustrated with a Kodak folding Brownie stuck hopefully on the
back of a telescope. The situation has changed with modern fixed
lens digitals. The live viewing and a bit of zoom changes

Click to expand...

I'd have to say no (wrt to amateur astronomers 'turning their nose up at afocal'); and this is among those I know and visited both from parts of Asia/SE-Asia, and EU. We, maybe amongst the US community of Obsession/AP owners ;D

I'm not quite sure what you are saying but I believe my memory extends past your crypticism.

And having said that, afocal projection was indeed a hell of a way to go for amateurs. Even if you were confident about the focus, knowing what you were seeing took some courage, unless you had some truly serious eqiupment, in which case you were probably able to afford a camera appropriate to it.

ops, that's what happens when you miss a letter, and a word or two

Make that:

"Well, maybe amongst the US community of Obsession/AP owners ;D" (and add "would turn their nose up at afocal")

Anyways, perhaps I should rephrase a little; imo it might be a little too critical to use the phrase "turn their nose up at afocal" and painting astrophotogs with a broad brush of elitism (hey then again, looking at the cost of equipment there, it's a whole other level, and it does exist! (elitism, that is)).

That said, I wholeheartedly agree that digiscoping with today's digicam, esp. with articulating LCD's and remote shutter release (or timer), along with easily available mounting options is a whole other experience, and so much more effective/satisfying/etc than the 'old days'.