Mikel56

Along with the Celestron 9.25 I also had a box of “extras”. The first attached photo shows one of the units along with camera with 1.25” fitting at other end. I opened the unit and out popped a 32mm lens. The 32mm direct to the telescope produces a perfectly good image at about 80x. When I attach the unit with the lense fitted internally to the camera the image displayed on the camera has a narrower view and very close up. Focus is not too bad but not much use. Do I really need such a unit for taking photos ? Am I doing something wrong ?

I don’t have a tracking mount hence slight elongation or maybe bad focus. The iso was set at 800 and at 1/3 second. Maybe the iso was set too high.

Thanks Geoff, it helps to understand that certain attachments are considered in the design. I also managed to find the adapter you mentioned. Tonight’s project is to use the 9.25 Celestron on Jupiter and hopefully “snap a photo”. thanks again

At some point in time my sixty year old telescope focus drive shaft has received a fairly significant knock as in the photograph. Other than trying to straighten the shaft would it be possible to buy a replacement / similar unit ? I also took my first photograph using a camera attached to the telescope. The moon was too bright I think. Tree problem too. My focus is out however it’s not that easy to focus by looking at the camera screen ! Another thing is that as I added an elbow and Barlow I had to adjust the focus. I understand that but there came a point in time when the focus control, wheel adjustment and draw tube adjustment, “bottomed out” mechanically. Removing the Barlow or elbow gave me more “room” when focusing on distant objects. Is this a function of older units, namely a Swift 831.

I’m new to this and only had the Swift and Celestron for a couple of weeks. Due to the overcast weather the most I have seen is the odd pigeon sitting on rooftops - but I’ve done a lot of reading but not up to speed on the jargon ! I’m new to this and only had the Swift and Celestron for a couple of weeks. Due to the overcast weather the most I have seen is the odd pigeon sitting on rooftops - but I’ve done a lot of reading but not up to speed on the jargon ! Clear sky last night and much aided by Stellarium Jupiter appeared low on the horizon. I wasn’t prepared. I fitted the Swift 831 with no cool down. First eyepiece I used was the 32 mm. which is about 30x magnification. The view was sharp with four moons clearly visible but Jupiter a bit fuzzy. I then used a 19mm. eyepiece with similar results, still sharp. Next up was a 3x Barlow with the 19mm. This results in about 150x and from what I’ve read would be at the maximum theoretical of a 77mm diameter lens. The view was still sharp and I could see two faint lines running the length of the planet about 20 degrees from the horizontal. The colours associated with Jupiter were slightly noticeable. For all three conditions I focussed on the moons until they were dots which I think put Jupiter in best possible focus. With the 19mm and the Barlow I could see four moons. To my untrained eye the Swift is a good telescope and I believe I could have pushed it more. All levels of magnification were impressive. The low level of Jupiter meant I was having to navigate “volumes of atmosphere” which I think indicates the Swift has more in reserve. I learned the mount/stand is more important than the telescope. I need a goto. Next up was the Celestron 9.25. With the 32mm (about80x) the view was crisp with two lines and colour present, four moons as well on a near horizontal plane as for the Swift. I next used the 19mm and the 3x Barlow (350ish x). The view field was by Jupiter and four moons to the edge of the circumference. There was also a fifth moon towards the bottom of the view but intermittent as I had a lot of knob twirling. The two Jupiter lines were more pronounced as was the colour and I convinced myself I could see the “eye” storm shape on one of the lines (interfaces) towards the centre right. The view of Jupiter was not so clear as in the numerous photos on the Internet. Maybe those photos have been processed ? I checked the collimation at the high magnification and had, to my untrained eye, a perfect black hole in the centre of an out of focus disc. Bearing this in mind I noticed at the high magnification an extremely thin blue crescent shape at the top left quadrant on the circumference of Jupiter. Correspondingly I had a similar thin orangeish crescent shape at the bottom right quadrant circumference. Is there something wrong ? Cool down was only about 15 to 30 minutes (set up and viewing time ) for the Swift and Celestron. Enthusiasm was the problem ! This was my first time however I conclude the Swift is very good, the 9.25 is also very good but I need more practice. I also need a goto mount. Clear sky last night and much aided by Stellarium Jupiter appeared low on the horizon. I wasn’t prepared. I fitted the Swift 831 with no cool down. First eyepiece I used was the 32 mm. which is about 30x magnification. The view was sharp with four moons clearly visible but Jupiter a bit fuzzy. I then used a 19mm. eyepiece with similar results, still sharp. Next up was a 3x Barlow with the 19mm. This results in about 150x and from what I’ve read would be at the maximum theoretical of a 77mm diameter lens. The view was still sharp and I could see two faint lines running the length of the planet about 20 degrees from the horizontal. The colours associated with Jupiter were slightly noticeable. For all three conditions I focussed on the moons until they were dots which I think put Jupiter in best possible focus. With the 19mm and the Barlow I could see four moons. To my untrained eye the Swift is a good telescope and I believe I could have pushed it more. All levels of magnification were impressive. The low level of Jupiter meant I was having to navigate “volumes of atmosphere” which I think indicates the Swift has more in reserve. I learned the mount/stand is more important than the telescope. I need a goto. Next up was the Celestron 9.25. With the 32mm (about80x) the view was crisp with two lines and colour present, four moons as well on a near horizontal plane as for the Swift. I next used the 19mm and the 3x Barlow (350ish x). The view field was by Jupiter and four moons to the edge of the circumference. There was also a fifth moon towards the bottom of the view but intermittent as I had a lot of knob twirling. The two Jupiter lines were more pronounced as was the colour and I convinced myself I could see the “eye” storm shape on one of the lines (interfaces) towards the centre right. The view of Jupiter was not so clear as in the numerous photos on the Internet. Maybe those photos have been processed ? I checked the collimation at the high magnification and had, to my untrained eye, a perfect black hole in the centre of an out of focus disc. Bearing this in mind I noticed at the high magnification an extremely thin blue crescent shape at the top left quadrant on the circumference of Jupiter. Correspondingly I had a similar thin orangeish crescent shape at the bottom right quadrant circumference. Is there something wrong ? Cool down was only about 15 to 30 minutes (set up and viewing time ) for the Swift and Celestron. Enthusiasm was the problem ! This was my first time however I conclude the Swift is very good, the 9.25 is also very good but I need more practice. I also need a goto mount.

Thanks Geoff. Is this the EOS to T2 for existing Celestron scope adapter ? If it fits the Swift that would be a bonus. Thanks again for your help.

I’ve got an old Canon 450 d and read that it’s not too bad for Astrophotography. I’m trying to figure out how I attach the camera to the telescope. The first two photographs are of the Celestron 9.25. The first photograph shows the existing 11/4 “visual back” screwed to the Celestron body thread. I unscrewed that unit and fitted the T-Adapter SC to the thread on the body as in next photograph. On the left side of the photograph is an internal threaded coupling which I unscrewed leaving an external thread on the T-Adapter SC as shown in the same photograph. The removed coupling to the left (sitting on the box) has what appears to be a bayonet fitting. Is it this coupling I need to source to fit the Canon EIS 450 D ? The last photo shows the Swift with the various reducers to fit 1/14 eyepieces. The first attached unit to the Swift drawtube end thread is a 2” T2 Adapter. The (Celestron T-Adapter SC thread diameter is oversized for that thread therefore of no use). Maybe I have to get a fitting for the Swift that attaches to the Canon and inserts to the 11/4 hole as would a 11/4 eyepiece ?

The photograph below has the diagonal I was using as above. I think it’s a mirror. I just found the one on the right in a box. It looks like a 45 and according to your link that might be a prism? When looking inside the diagonal on the right there are multiple angled flat surfaces appearing on the circumference. Probably a prism ? Mike

It looks to me very much like a mirror. The back has “Celestron Star Diagonal 94115 - A. I take your point on the adapter. Mike

Thanks Mandy and Peter. I was concerned but not now ! Maybe I need a smaller diagonal.

Both photographs have the focus control knob in the same position. The first photograph has the eyepiece fitted directly to and in line with the direction of the telescope. I’ve focussed towards an object about 500 m. distant. Using only the draw tube for focus I have had to extend the draw tube in order to focus the object at approximately 500m. The second photograph has the same eyepiece fitted to a diagonal. In order to focus the same object at 500m. I have had to close the draw tube quite a bit. I noticed last night whilst focussed on Polaris (I think) with the diagonal the draw tube was closed. After focussing with the focus knobs I still had some room for movement with the focus knobs but not that much. Although the telescope was focussed at infinity with a couple of turns left to go I was surprised that the diagonal physically pushed the focus control (draw tube plus focus knobs) to near limit at infinity. Does a diagonal have such an adverse effect ? Mike

Firstly many thanks Neil H and Rustang. Apologies for not getting back to you but been busyish. I also had on order the SkyTee. I managed to fit the Swift and Celestron to the SkyTee. The mount is solid and the gears seem to have no play, quite impressed. The stand that supports the mount is also “tight” with little movement, if any. The Celestron plus the counter weight is about 14kg. (9 and 5). The opposite side has the 831 at about 5kg. I didn’t like the idea of the Celestron (large diameter) hanging off the dovetail along the centre line. It would have been better weight / distance balance wise in that position but the weight of the Celestron could have put a fair twisting load on the Vixen rail and body of the telescope, I think! Anyway with the telescopes in the position as in the photo there’s no movement and no inclination to fall over (touched wood). Let me know if I’m wrong or there’s a better way ! The only thing that I may change are the clamps that secure the telescopes to the mount. Not a lot of failsafe in the existing design. Managed to set up the Swift with the finderscope however need a findersope for the Celestron. The existing finderscope on the Swift is held to the tube by an adhesive bracket plus the dovetail. The original Swift finderscope had a full circumference bracket which unfortunately I do not have. I added a clip to tighten the finderscope to the tube however only a temporary solution. The view through the Swift is stunning although only had a look in daylight so far. Not bad for 60 years. Hopefully the sky is clear tonight and I may get the end cap off the 9.25. Won’t have a clue what I’m looking at but fingers crossed for a clear sky. Many thanks again for your help, Regards, Mike

Fitting Finder Scope to Swift A photograph below shows how the finder scope is attached to the telescope body. There’s what could be best described as a “wrap around” fitting securing the bracket and finder scope to the body. I don’t have the finder scope or any part of the unit. There are no threaded holes on the tube to secure any fittings. 1 - is it possible to source a similar wrap around unit ? 2 - maybe I have to replace the brackets that hold the telescope to the mount with other brackets that have an additional fitting for a finder scope ? I’ve also attached a photograph of my Swift (the one with the screwdrivers) showing the existing brackets as in 2. That photograph also shows a fitting which appears to be held in place by an adhesive. My intention would be to remove that fitting.

The lenses have written on the side “MADE IN USSR”. Not sure what the item is on the right, probably photography.

Good to hear that on the SkyTee I’ll get a visual surprise ! I’ve been through the eyepieces, ten in total in the box all measuring 11/4 “. All of them “work” with the Swift apart from the two on the left, 3.2 and 6. As I don’t have the stand yet it was just a test pointing through the window at a bunch of trees. The 32s and 19 were perfect to my eyes. The 3.2 and the 6 may have been too powerful for the Swift or maybe just not as good quality as the three on the right ? All I saw was grey with the 3.2 and the 6. I fitted them all directly to the 11/4 female fitting on the telescope.

Michael, I’m learning I need to spend the dosh for the mount ! The HEQ5 seems reasonable cost wise.

Thanks Mandy. I was wrong, 15kg in the specification. I had a look Geoff and they are all Goto. Ouch. To begin with I’m going to use the SkyTee with the Swift. I have a lot to learn. Maybe try the 9.25 on the SkyTee as an interim step but don’t expect great results, operator results ! I’ll then have to decide how to mount the 9.25. Thanks,M

Just watched the video, thanks for that. Seems that I have quite a good 9.25 Celestron but unfortunately minus a stand. I’m going to keep it at this stage. My feeling is to go for the SkyTee along with some downloaded software as David suggested. Hopefully beginning with the Swift and the other bits and pieces I might get a hint as to how to navigate the night sky. The moon is usually there I suppose. I note the SkyTee can take up to 10kgs. (X2) Maybe not the best for the Celestron 9.25 but could give me a feel for the possibilities of the 9.25, that’s from the perspective of a newcomer. With both telescopes on the SkyTee, not the best I accept, and a red dot finder (got one in the box and it works !) plus the software, I could have the 9.25 pointing more or less towards a desired location. If positive then I’ll have to spend the dosh ! That’s the plan. Thanks to you all for your input, it is appreciated, Mike ps Any idea what unit is at the bottom of the picture ? There’s an internal lense.

Definitely not a typo ! Not eBay ! not Private either ! And I didn’t know how valuable the items were until I started googling. and I thought the mounts would be cheaper !

……compromise with a goto for the Swift and manual for the heavy Celestron.

I live up north but also have a place in one of the northern isles. Open the door at night and you immediately need a torch. I have looked online and there are two clubs near me. Once I get the “stuff” in order my plan is to attend and see how I get on. Big thing today is they both “work”. I thought the Celestron might be too heavy. So far I’ve learned the mount is at least equally as important as the telescope. I’ve been reading about Goto mounts and for someone with limited knowledge that might be the way for me to go. Having said that there’s the cost. Of the total 151 the celestron was 55 (not a typo !) The SkyTee looks to be a very good possibility however it is manual. Question for me then is will a Goto be a significant time saver for me or should I learn the basics and go manual to begin with.

As mentioned I don’t yet have a mount for either of the telescopes. This afternoon I set up the celestron through an open window. I aimed, with difficulty, towards a tree about 200m to 250m. I used one of the angle pieces and used an eyepiece of 32. I turned the focus knob and wow, crisp and clear with a very grey sky. I then changed the eyepiece for 17 or 19 and again the same result. Focus was equally crisp. So both telescopes are in working order and that’s good. The only problem is they know a lot more about what they can do than I know !

Thanks Andy. I don’t think the Celestron has been used. It still has the box, packing material and a couple of tags. Once I get a mount that suits I’ll be asking about collimating ! I read an article which stated that the collimation was factory set and likely to be ok. I had a look through the front and wouldn’t be too surprised if it needed adjusting, Mike ps Is it necessaryto protect the telescope from dew ?

This morning I aimed the Swift towards a distant object just to confirm it was working, and it is ! Changed out various eyepieces successfully. My concern was that the telescope had been damaged but appears to be surprisingly good. I noticed this mount - https://www.firstlightoptics.com/computerised-goto-astronomy-mounts/sky-watcher-az-gtix-dual-saddle-alt-azimuth-astronomy-mount.html the product detail includes the following statement “The mount is quiet in operation and has a payload capacity of up to 6 kg (using one saddle) or 10 kg (using both saddles). I weighed the Swift and it’s about 3kgs. However the Celestron is about 81/2 kgs. Is eleven and a half kgs total for dual use that little bit too much ? Maybe the limit for balance is 6kgs one side (as in single use) and therefore 4kgs the other side ? That being the case I would be 21/2 kgs over the limit instead of 11/2 kgs. M

Thanks Tom and Phil, I’ll remember that. Good news about the camera lenses, one less immediate problem to solve !