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.


George Gearless

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by George Gearless

  1. George Gearless

    Exposure time without eq mount

    With my AZ GTI mount I can get around 20 secs consistently. On a wind calm night I can get 25. I've taken one or two photographs at 30, but can't do so consistently. My scope is a 127mm Maksutov with focal length of 1500.
  2. Sounds good, guys. Maybe it's as Ben says the shipping weight with the aluminium case that comes with the purchase? Never mind. As long as it doesn't conflict with the mounts capabilities, I'm fine. Thanks for the confirmation checkup, Ben and Star Struck.
  3. Since I'm expecting to win the lottery within the next month or so ( ) I've been browsing for all the great stuff I intend to buy with my new gotten wealth. But, being the modest man that I am, I've set my eyes on this Skywatcher Apochromatic refractor AP 80/600 EvoStar ED OTA . The problem is, that the mount I've also set my eyes on, supports only 10kg of operating weight. And the above link says that this telescope has a total weight of 10,2kg ( tube weight of 3,1kg). I then set out to find out what was included in the 10,2kg (to see if something could be 'trimmed' off) and searched the telescope on another site here: Teleskop Service . It doesn't list the total weight, but here the tube weight is listed at 2,5kg. So now I don't know what to believe. I watched a few youtube 'unboxing' videos of that telescope, and I struggle to see how it can achieve a weight of 10,2kg. But since I haven't had one in my hands, there realy is no way of telling by just looking at a youtube video. So, what I'm realy asking here is: Is this telescope too heavy for a mount that supports 10kg of weight, when I intend to use it for astrophotography (adding the weight of a DSLR and possibly a guidecam)? Or, if you want to get all technical about it; what does the damn thing weigh?
  4. George Gearless

    Aparently a T2 is not a T2 all the time

    Ugh, I've figured it out. I was too hasty. I've discovered that there was an inlay ring (in lack of a better word) that has the appropriate aperture. That ring had fallen out of the main coupling, due to the three tightening screws not being tightened. This inlay ring serves as a M48 to M42 'converter'. So essentially the coupling came in two parts. So I slipped this inlay ring into the main bajonet coupling and tightened the three screws to keep it in place. And voila! A perfect M42 thread for my camera adapter. Sorry for wasting everyones time . I'm not a smart man.
  5. I've run into a little problem with connecting my new camera to the telescope. I used to use a Nikon DX40. And so I bought this coupling. If you click the link, you'll see that the description says "T2 thread". It fit perfectly and all was well. Then I bought a camera adapter, so I could insert different eyepieces/filters for planetary photography. Once again, you'll notice that the description says "T2 thread". It is not of the 'Skywatcher' make, but it fit the coupling as if it was made for it (picture below this paragraph). So far so good. Recently I bought a Canon EOS D7 Mark-1. And naturaly I needed a new coupling. So I bought this : Omegon T2-Ring, Canon EOS It clicks snugly on the camera as expected. But the apperture with the internal T2 thread is much too big for any of the other stuff I have. So it begs the question(s): What the heck is T2 a reference to, since it apparently comes in different apperture sizes? And...how the heck can I ensure that my next purchase is the right one?
  6. George Gearless

    Very excited 44 year old XT8 owner greetings

    Welcome. I too was a long time lurker before I joined. Never regretted it. You'll find the SGL members to be the most helpful, not to mention patient, amateur astronomers out there.
  7. George Gearless

    Aparently a T2 is not a T2 all the time

    You know, it was niggling in the back of my head. I'll be sure to check up on it when I get back home with the callipers. Yes, I'm browsing the SGL forum while at work. I do some of my best research here...haha.
  8. George Gearless

    Aparently a T2 is not a T2 all the time

    That answers my question as to the reference. Thanks Cornelius.
  9. George Gearless

    Andromeda Galaxy

    I'm on the same page as you are Greg. Put the Orion nebula under my belt a couple of weeks ago. Great feeling isn't it? Andromeda is next. If the "¤#%&#¤! clouds would get out of the bloody way!
  10. George Gearless

    sun filter

    When I was a kid, we used a piece of clear glass and sooted it with a candle so we could look at the sun. Not a treatment I'd recommend for your binocular lenses :). Not to mention that it's probably still highly unsafe and might still burn your eyeballs to boiling point.
  11. Those of you, who are old enough, will remember that anticlimactic feeling when finally receiving your developed holiday pictures from the photo shop. That magnificent vista that took your breath away seemed ordinary and flat. The pictures from the beach showed a couple of empty beer bottles, a random piece of plastic and a fat man with a beer belly dominates the background in his speedos. Back then, how often did we wish we could remove those annoying little details? Or perhaps even embellish upon them a little bit? However, the pictures faithfully depicted what you did see. Not what you remember seeing. Fast forward 20 years or so. Now we can remove the fat man from the picture. We can make the sea look blue’er than it really was. We can even add a few details that our mind remembers, although they were never there in reality. By now you’ve probably already figured out where this is going. I recently took my very first picture of a nebula (the Orion nebula). The first single photo (no stacking, no nothing) looked unmistakably like the Orion nebula. It didn’t remotely have the luster and colorfulness that we have become so accustomed to seeing in glossy astronomy books and the internet. But it was there. Then I started the process of grinding my pictures through DeepskyStacker and fiddled with the various settings. And lo and behold; soon a beautiful pink and blue picture of a vast cloud emerged on my computer screen. I fiddled a bit more with the settings in an attempt to approximate my picture to what I remembered from ‘the astronomy books’. Then, a couple of days later it hit me; was I cheating? Did I ‘make’ something that wasn’t there? Did I retouch my beach picture and removed the fat man in speedos? And what if I did? I guess the question I’m asking is; where do you draw the line? If I was proficient in Photoshop, I could turn the Orion nebula into a nice green hue. Or purple with yellow polkadots. Pretty as that might be, it would not represent ‘the truth’. Too little processing, and my picture may turn out unrecognizable. Too much, and I might as well have made the picture in Photoshop without bringing out my mount and my telescope. I find myself balancing a knifes edge. When is it ok? And when has the line been crossed? I suppose it’s a matter of personal morals. Why am I even writing this? Well, I don’t think I’m the first or the only person to have had these moral quandaries. It is futile to set up black and white rules of what is right and what is wrong. Astrophotography is simply too complicated for a rigid ‘rulebook’. So I’m not even going to make the attempt (or ask someone else to). But I would be interested to learn what others think about this. Are you a purist or are you a no-holds-bared kind of guy? Or something in between? If you are reading this and think “What on earth is this guy on about. There is no problem I can see”, then good for you. If you think you can contribute with your own views on the matter, then I look very much forward to reading them. Maybe I just gave you some food for thought. In which case, I wish you bon appetít.
  12. George Gearless

    IC434 2 Hours

    This is poster on the wall material. Nicely done, man.
  13. George Gearless

    EOS 7D any good?

    Excellent! Thanks. Was worried there for a bit. So *phew*... :),.
  14. George Gearless

    EOS 7D any good?

    I'm looking to upgrade my Nikon d40 to a EOS 7D. I can buy it used near my location for €335. No objectives come with the purchase. According to the seller the shuttercount is 6800 and the housing is without a scratch. The seller has a ton of other photographic parafinalia for sale (lenses, mounts, batteries, lights and such), so my guess is he's a semi-pro. So I'm assuming the camera has been treated better than most. The question is if it's any good for my purpose (purely AP. Nothing else)? Anyone have any experience with this camera? Words of caution? Go for it?
  15. George Gearless

    EOS 7D any good?

    Thanks for the speedy reply. I would have found it odd if the EOS7D wasn't able to manually control the shutter beond 30 secs. Just wanted to make sure, since I'm buying the camera privately, and can't be sure about any 'return policy' :).
  16. George Gearless

    EOS 7D any good?

    I have set up a meet with the seller tomorrow evening. But he mentioned something disconcerting; as far as he knows, the maximum shutter is 30 seconds. If that is the case, I'm gonna bail on it. The tech specifications do in fact state the the shutter speed range is from 1/8000 to 30 secs. But I am wondering if that is just the maximum choosable automatic shutterspeed? Meaning that anything above that will require manual discontinuation of the shutter. Can you help me out with this question Zerocool? Or, if anyone else owns a EOS7D? PS: I quoted your post in order to get your attention.
  17. George Gearless

    Try at Flaming Star Nebula

    Despite the difficult conditions, it's still a beatiful picture. Thanks for sharing.
  18. I've been checking out prices on various recommended dslr's. On top of the purchase price, I'll need to add a modificaton cost. The dslr (unmodified) has the advantage of being usable for other than AP, and so it would be reasonable to assume that I am paying for features and capabilities that are irrelevant for my purpose. So, if I had, say, £600 in my budget for a purchase. Would I not be able to get a 'much better' CCD camera for the same money? Or a 'equaly' good CCD for much less? I guess what I'm asking: Is there an advantage to DSLR's that I am overlooking?
  19. I concur with the posts above. I have the setup you are referring to. It is quite versatile, quick and easy to set up (especially for a beginner), and should serve you well for a long time. It's fun to play around with a Barlow lens to see what you can get out of the telescope. But in my opinion, it is unnecessary.
  20. George Gearless

    SynScan WiFi Adapter

    You marry up your mobile in 'settings' like you would any other network. When your mobile is connected to that network (named Synscan something), you then launch your app.
  21. George Gearless

    EOS 7D any good?

    Thanks every body. This is most helpful. I think, at least for now, a proper astrocamera is out of the question. It is simply not financially feasible for me right now. I suppose I could get some 'shitty' semi-useful astrocamera within my budget. But considering the fantastic photos that Zerocool posted, I am struggling to see what would be gained from that. And as someone pointed out to me in a different thread; there are no cables on a DSLR :). Initially, I just wanted a 'nod' from users of this forum that the 7D could cope with the task at hand. And that it indeed would be a step up from my Nikon DX40 (on paper it's a huge step, actually). Somewhere down the line, I'll most likely be looking into another upgrade. But that'll be another time and another fiscal quarter. As of now, I don't think I have the equipment nor the skills to match a semi-professional piece of kit like a €800 astrocamera. But it's something to shoot for. Edit: Btw, it seems that you can still buy that ASI 1600 Mono. If you have the cash for it. https://www.astroshop.eu/astronomical-cameras/zwo-camera-asi-1600-mm-mono/p,50240
  22. George Gearless

    EOS 7D any good?

    Thanks Danny. When you say proper astro cam, did you have anything particular in mind?
  23. George Gearless

    M42 Orion Second Try

    Amazing shot(s). Would love some details about how you shot it.
  24. George Gearless

    First image finally! M42

    Nicely done. The shape of the nebula is quite distinct even with, as you pointed out, the slightly off collimation. If this is your starting point, it bodes well for the future. I know how you feel right now. Nothing quite like it, is there?
  25. George Gearless

    Guidescope and camera

    Good input. Time is fortunately on my side before making any final decisions. I'll certainly be looking into off axis guider. Something I would not have considered, had you not mentioned it. Or at the very least make every effort to secure the guidescope rigidly, as Dave also stressed in his post. Thanks.

Important Information

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