Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

mrfishyfingers

New Members
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About mrfishyfingers

  • Rank
    Nebula

Profile Information

  • Location
    Northern England
  1. Just another thought on the above: is the reason that I can't use the camera for prime focus photography the fact that the lens is non-removable and therefore you can't strip the camera down to the bare body alone? Or is it the pure logistics of being unable to remove the lens to fit the necessary t-rings and adapters to mount the camera onto the telescope that is going to be the problem? If it's the latter, I've seen a relatively simple DIY adapter that can be used to mount the camera in place above the focal tube. This will obviously enable me to take photos of the images with an eyepiece in place, but I can remove the eyepiece holder from the top of the telescope completely, leaving just the body of the focal tube. I can slip this adapter over the focal tube in a way that I can still move the focal tube up and down to change focus - could I just mount the camera, lens and all, atop it and basically achieve prime focus photography that way? Put simply, must you have just the camera body in place to image using the camera for prime focus? Will a non-removable lens stop you completely from doing this if you can find another way to mount the camera? (Hope this lot makes sense!)
  2. Ah! Damn, that's a shame. Thanks for the info - told you I was a complete novice when it came to photography! Great detail on that moon shot by the way - never really considered using the camera in that way but definitely worth a shot or two. Thanks again all.
  3. Hello everyone. I've just inherited a Panasonix Lumix FZ72 camera from my Dad. As a keen stargazer, my first thought has been to couple it with my Skywatcher 200p dobsonian telescope and take a few shots of the things that I normally like having a gander at of an evening. I appreciate the limitations having an unguided/unmotorised telescope will impose on me when it comes to taking photographs. As a total novice when it comes to cameras and photography, I'm really just asking for advice in how to couple the camera with the telescope. I've seen a plethora of t-rings, adapters, etc, with all sorts of nomenclature when I've been searching on the web and I'm just concerned that I'll probably spend money on the wrong piece of equipment altogether, or the right piece of equipment but one that's unsuitable for my camera. I have a barlow lens that I use with my eyepieces, so that seems to be one requirement ticked off the list if I'm going to use the camera for prime focus photography. I'm just confused as to what rings/adapters I would need with this camera to be able to insert it straight into the focus tube instead of an eyepiece. An help would be very much appreciated, especially if anyone could point me in the direction of the specific products required. I'm also probably best asking if my telescope would actually be suitable and enable me to get focused pictures before I took the plunge and invested in some extra equipment! I've noticed that some adapters enable you to still put the eyepiece in before the camera and give you more flexibility in how you use and image with the camera. Does anybody have any experience of these? Are they suitable/any good? Thanks in advance for any help and advice.
  4. Yes, thanks - it does. Just seen a link to a video provided by Dr_Ju_ju on parkini's post which explains how the secondary mirror assembly works. Its the degree by which the screws are tightened in relation to each other that pushes the alignment of the the mirror around. Untightening the screws does nothing - save giving you a wobbly mirror! Great video that fills in the blanks that the Skywatcher instruction manual seems to delight in providing you with!
  5. Evening all. This post probably ties in very closely with parkini's one this morning re their Skywatcher 150P. I've managed to collimate my 200P over the weekend, more by luck than judgement I would say, but the red dots on my laser collimator now hit the donut on the primary mirror and hit the middle of the crosshairs on the collimator itself sitting in the focuser. My issue is this: reading the instructions that came with the telescope and looking at numerous articles and videos online re collimation, all state that the adjustment of the secondary mirror is achieved by adjusting the three hex-headed screws at the back of the mirror holder and using the large cross-headed screw to move the mirror position up and down the tube. The Skywatcher instructions, however, then go on to state that all aforementioned screws should be tightened after the adjustment process. Now, if its the action of moving these screws in relation to each other that adjusts the position of the mirror, then surely returning them to their pre-collimation position (ie. tightening them as they were before) completely negates any adjustment carried out?! The instructions explicitly state that leaving these screws untightened will lead to the mirror moving, though. Which baffles me! If you return these screws to their exact position on the threads they were in before you started, surely the mirror will end-up being in the same position as it was before you started! The primary mirror has adjustment screws to do the actual adjusting and locking screws to hold the mirror in place once the adjustment has been carried out, which seems entirely logical, but the secondary mirror seems to be a different idea entirely. Any collimation experts out there who can fill in the blanks between my very basic understanding and the ambiguities of the instructions? Would be very grateful.
  6. Thanks to all for your help - will be writing my list to Santa when I log off!
  7. Think its f/5.9 if I remember rightly. Finances don't really allow me to consider £100+ eyepieces though I am sure it would be a case of you get what you pay for. If the BST eyepieces are a definite improvement on the Plossls, then I think that would be the way to go. Just wondering what kind of improvement I am likely to see at the eyepiece if I replaced a Plossl with a BST Starguider.
  8. Evening all. Considering investing in a few new eyepieces with Xmas coming up. I have a few Plossl eyepieces which I purchased to replace the standard ones supplied with the scope. They seem to do a decent enough job but reading my monthly copies of Astronomy Now and looking through these forums, the better, more expensive eyepieces seem to offer the viewer a lot more enjoyment and are constantly recommended as worth investing in. Doing a bit of research, the BST Explorer/Starguider eyepieces seem to crop-up again and again as a strong recommendation when posters ask for advice on good eyepieces without breaking the bank for Dobsonians. My simple question is: would investing in such eyepieces provide me with a noticeable improvement in the quality of what I can see over my Plossl pieces? Many thanks, Simon
  9. Evening all. Considering investing in a few new eyepieces with Xmas coming up. I have a few Plossl eyepieces which I purchased to replace the standard ones supplied with the scope. They seem to do a decent enough job but reading my monthly copies of Astronomy Now and looking through these forums, the better, more expensive eyepieces seem to offer the viewer a lot more enjoyment and are constantly recommended as worth investing in. Doing a bit of research, the BST Explorer/Starguider eyepieces seem to crop-up again and again as a strong recommendation when posters ask for advice on good eyepieces for Dobsonians. My simple question is: would investing in such eyepieces provide me with a noticeable improvement in the quality of what I can see over my Plossl pieces? Many thanks, Simon
  10. Been looking at the Astro-Video Systems cameras, one of which was reviewed very favourably in a recent copy of Astronomy Now. Their website includes a gallery of images captured using one of their cameras in 4" and 6" unguided scopes without any processing. This is the kind of thing I would be looking for, something fairly basic that produces decent images of the planets and DSO's that I am able to look at through the eyepiece. My only real concern was that the camera might not be able to achieve focus with my 8" Dobsonian.
  11. To add to the above, am I right in thinking to get a larger or magnified image from a camera placed directly into the focuser I could use it in conjunction with a Barlow lens? Or are these cameras capable of zooming images independently? Thanks again. Simon
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.