A couple Astro noob Q’s

Carter31 · Mar 24, 2018

I have a canon g9x and a digiscope adapter for it. Looking to try shooting some Astro just for fun on a shoestring budget.

Can I buy this telescope below and take decent Saturn or other shots (saw this telescope used for cheap)? Do I need to get some type of motorized tracker or any other accessories to make it work?

Here is a picture of my digiscope adapter and a picture of the telescope in question.

Telescope link. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...MI86uInNCF2gIVSIR-Ch1tXgRxEAQYASABEgL29PD_BwE

rgibbons · Mar 24, 2018

It is hard to lineup the camera with the eyepiece using the apparatus you show, (I've tried). It is easier to hook an SLR camera directly to the telescope with a small adapter (bayonet on one side, 1.25inch nose piece on the other side.).

You don't need a motorized tracker for Saturn (although it would make it easier). The moon and planets aren't really night-time objects as far as exposure time goes, They are lit by the sun, just like daylight pictures on earth, and only need a small fraction of a second exposure time, so you don't get the effect from movement across the sky.

If you want to take pictures of deeper sky objects such as galaxies or nebula, then those are minutes to hours of exposure, and a motorized mount is almost required.

Russ G.

Lyle Aldridge · Mar 25, 2018

Whether you can get "decent" images depends on your expectations and standards, but you should be aware that the particular telescope you're considering- Celestron's Powerseeker 127EQ - has a horrible reputation. It's a "Bird-Jones reflector," not a traditional Newtonian. (A traditional Newtonian has a parabolic mirror, while the Bird-Jones uses a spherical mirror.) If you do a google search, you'll find lots of contempt for Bird-Jones scopes in general, and that one in particular. Whether it quite deserves its horrible reputation may be debatable, but I think the paucity of images from it on Astrobin.com is telling.

Note that one user has posted a couple of planetary images, and the rest of the very small collection consists of lunar images. Compare those images with the first one posted in this thread, and draw your own conclusions. Some of those lunar images are actually the stacked output from software that enhances detail, yet I don't see any image there with as much detail as this single, un-sharpened frame from my own 40 year-old Newtonian reflector:

Single frame of moon with a 6-inch Newtonian, cropped, but not sharpened

For what you propose to do, even an inexpensive achromatic refractor, like this one, would likely exceed the performance of the Bird-Jones.

Carter31 · Apr 1, 2018

Lyle Aldridge said:
Whether you can get "decent" images depends on your expectations and standards, but you should be aware that the particular telescope you're considering- Celestron's Powerseeker 127EQ - has a horrible reputation. It's a "Bird-Jones reflector," not a traditional Newtonian. (A traditional Newtonian has a parabolic mirror, while the Bird-Jones uses a spherical mirror.) If you do a google search, you'll find lots of contempt for Bird-Jones scopes in general, and that one in particular. Whether it quite deserves its horrible reputation may be debatable, but I think the paucity of images from it on Astrobin.com is telling.

Note that one user has posted a couple of planetary images, and the rest of the very small collection consists of lunar images. Compare those images with the first one posted in this thread, and draw your own conclusions. Some of those lunar images are actually the stacked output from software that enhances detail, yet I don't see any image there with as much detail as this single, un-sharpened frame from my own 40 year-old Newtonian reflector:

Single frame of moon with a 6-inch Newtonian, cropped, but not sharpened

For what you propose to do, even an inexpensive achromatic refractor, like this one, would likely exceed the performance of the Bird-Jones.

Excellent information thank you very much. So I’m making a checklist of what to look for. Newtonian telescope = good, bird-Jones = bad. Check!

I love the idea of getting the best image to start with and less reliance on stacked output. I’m thinking if I know in general what to look for I can watch Craigslist for a deal on a used telescope. I’ve heard that “bigger is better” in terms of diameter of the scope, so perhaps I need to look for Newtonian scope with as large diameter as possible? I’m sure there are lots of other details but just trying to keep it simple due to apparently huge learning curve.

So basic things of what to look for and not to look for are a big help.

Carter31 · Apr 1, 2018

rgibbons said:
It is hard to lineup the camera with the eyepiece using the apparatus you show, (I've tried). It is easier to hook an SLR camera directly to the telescope with a small adapter (bayonet on one side, 1.25inch nose piece on the other side.).

You don't need a motorized tracker for Saturn (although it would make it easier). The moon and planets aren't really night-time objects as far as exposure time goes, They are lit by the sun, just like daylight pictures on earth, and only need a small fraction of a second exposure time, so you don't get the effect from movement across the sky.

If you want to take pictures of deeper sky objects such as galaxies or nebula, then those are minutes to hours of exposure, and a motorized mount is almost required.

Russ G.

Lyle Aldridge · Apr 2, 2018

Carter31 said:
I love the idea of getting the best image to start with and less reliance on stacked output. I’m thinking if I know in general what to look for I can watch Craigslist for a deal on a used telescope. I’ve heard that “bigger is better” in terms of diameter of the scope, so perhaps I need to look for Newtonian scope with as large diameter as possible? I’m sure there are lots of other details but just trying to keep it simple due to apparently huge learning curve.

Sorry, things can't be that simplified. You're focusing too much on the telescope and overlooking the mount. This is probably the most common beginner mistake. Even though imaging of solar system objects doesn't necessarily require the tracking, it does require stability. Unless you limit yourself to images of the sun and moon, it also requires use of seriously long focal lengths, where vibration at the image plane can make focusing impossible if the mount is overloaded.

So, if you want a simple rule, it's to keep things relatively small, unless you're prepared for frustration and/or willing to spend what you would on a good used car. If you're considering a Newtonian reflector, the very largest I'd be comfortable suggesting is a 5- or 6-inch, and even those are heavy enough to require a mount considerably more substantial than the one shown in your OP.

Newts also aren't for everyone. Beginner models with good optics can be used to shoot through the eyepiece as proposed in your OP. There are, however, only a very few astronomical targets worth that effort, and the rest of the universe is most often photographed in prime focus mode. For that, Newts must either be purpose-built or the user must make modifications that often require a certain level of confidence with a hacksaw. This is the reason that most recommendations to beginners are of small refractors or Schmidt- or Maksutov-Cassegrain models.

just Tony · Apr 5, 2018

Saturn is indeed in full sunlight, but full sunlight at Saturn is only 1.1% as bright as it is here where we are so much closer to the Sun. Your exposures will typically need to be several seconds long. If you are using a high enough magnification to show the rings at all well, then the planet will be zipping through the view too quickly.

So start with the moon. It has endless detail at many levels, much of it high contrast at certain phases. It is the perfect learning experience for solar system photography. EVERY other object is much tougher to capture well. And the best part is that it is as bright as asphalt pavement so normal exposures times in your everyday photos will work.

Your big enemy will be vibration. If you touch the camera to directly start an exposure you'll get nothing but blur. If you can do any sort of delayed release that will help a lot.

One way to get around vibration issues is to shoot video and then use software that automatically selects the best frames and stacks them.

starman1969 · Apr 7, 2018

You can defo capture the ringed planet in a kind of lazy way, as long as the telescope has the resolution & the eyepiece allows you enough leeway to get a quick pic with a smartphone. Check out my grab shot captured through an old 8" reflector.

--
Steve

Carter31 · Apr 8, 2018

starman1969 said:
You can defo capture the ringed planet in a kind of lazy way, as long as the telescope has the resolution & the eyepiece allows you enough leeway to get a quick pic with a smartphone. Check out my grab shot captured through an old 8" reflector.

--
Steve

That’s taken with an iPhone? Very cool. Yes that’s similar to what I’m thinking about shoe-string budget Astro (based on my extremely limited knowledge so far). Big telescope (of the right kind), existing compact camera, some kind of mount. I bought a cheap smaller reflector telescope (non bird-Jones) new but seems to be total junk from what I can tell so far just viewing with eye (haven’t attempted photos through it). My $60 Simmons spotting scope does much, much better so telescope is probably going back.

Search

A couple Astro noob Q’s

Carter31

Member

rgibbons

Forum Enthusiast

Lyle Aldridge

Senior Member

Carter31

Member

Carter31

Member

Lyle Aldridge

Senior Member

just Tony

Senior Member

starman1969

Senior Member

Carter31

Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts