DaveL59

I take it the scope gives nice sharp focus with the eyepieces for visual, given you too pictures with the projection method. How much in-travel is left on the focuser at that point?

On the side of the camera might be a mark that shows where the sensor plane is which may give some idea of how much further in the focuser needs to move to achieve a result. I'm guessing here tho, not knowing your scope/focuser/camera.

I suppose that if you just add your barlow to the camera nosepiece you still can't achieve focus at any point in the range of travel?

Have you tried this in daylight on a distant land target which you may find a whole lot easier to see what's going on? Bear in mind though that the focuser won't need to travel in as far when doing this, so while you might get focus on land, aiming in the sky at night it still may not, but worth doing just to know that something might be possible.

10 hours ago, GiggaKubicca said:

I have no idea if it is standard or not. All I know is I cannot screw it into the bottom of my camera adapters nosepiece. Telescope House said this "Orion may have changed the design of the Barlow.  You always used to be able to thread the optical cell into filter threads of eyepieces and nosepieces of camera t-adapters (hence my suggestion).  It’s a pity you can’t do this with yours."

More likely the camera nosepiece is a different thread I'd have thought?

Does the barlow lens screw into the other eyepieces directly? The orion shorty is often recommended as a good barlow, tho obviously the more expensive ones are likely better but then if they also don't fit the camera nosepiece you're still stuck in the same boat.

there's a big difference in using eyepiece projection as per your first post and doing afocal with the DSLR direct to the scope and no eyepiece, at least as far as I understand it. For one you may not have enough in-focus in the focuser to achieve focus with just the DSLR but assuming you do then you will need to work out how best to set the camera up to get an image you can work with to focus with. 

If you need to dim the image then a filter in the camera nosepiece adapter will help, they should screw into it as they do on a regular eyepiece, assuming they are all using standard thread, tho a moon filter may dim things a bit too far, can only try it and see what the effect is. At least with the glare reduced you improve your chances of being able to see something and so can try to get focus, if you see what I mean.

2 minutes ago, GiggaKubicca said:

Yes I have a small moon 13% (I believe) filter.

Filter will fit an eyepiece or barlow obviously though. So unless I'm wrong I'd still need to use a barlow.

does it not screw onto the end of the camera nosepiece? or is that a non-standard thread?

ideally keep the ISO in the 100-400 range, maybe 800 on darker objects, as you'll be trading noise against sensitivity.

at ISO100 you'd maybe need 1/500-1/1250th sec shutter speed at the moment. Crank the speed up until you find the image starts to darken and then try checking focus and then adjust the shutter speed to get the best details?

not sure who told you that, but since the DSLR has no AF lens attached and is using the scope as its long lens, it can't auto-focus and there's no aperture control, it'll all be manual mode. So the only control you have is shutter speed, since aperture is fixed by whatever the scope you have is. When I was testing last night with the phone thru the eyepiece I was using shutter speeds in the 1/1600-1/3200s range at ISO400 with the moon being so bright at the moment. Do you have a moon filter at all to dull the glare to help with focus? 

A barlow won't improve the glare problem when trying to see anything so you're unlikely to get further until you can find a way to get the camera to show an image that you can focus with IMHO.

As Miguel has suggested, try first without the barlow, just the DSLR T-ring and nosepiece and see if you can find focus and the settings to get an image. Worry about the barlow later as you need to get it working first before deciding if a barlow is needed or not...

in the above pics it does say waterproof on 2 of the images, or do you mean the ES ones don't say?

9 minutes ago, markse68 said:

That’s the same length as mine Dave thanks. But the og Tal focuser has a really long tube- this one is 185mm. That leaves me about 8cm short- a bit more to be safe with all my eps (the Siberia 50mm erfle focuses 15mm inside the barrel step) 

Dave F15rules thanks- I’m toying with the idea of just making a longer tube- maybe a nice polished aluminium one or I’ve been looking at phenolic rocket tubes!

true, the orig RS focuser body is 10cm to the where the drawtube meets it. The drawtube travel is 13cm to fully extended on mine.

hmm a polished ally tube, you know when I'd stripped the TAL-M OTA to bare metal I was so thinking maybe get it machined, polished and a diamond-cut pattern along its length and clear-coated. Bit too bling tho perhaps  

7 minutes ago, markse68 said:

Well spotted Dave. Trouble is it’s an RS with short tube and it lost its og focuser so I’m going to have to figure out a way to extend it I think...or new tube 🤔

 just measured my 100RS, between the holes for the objective and focuser its 72.5CM if that helps at all. Was the tube modified in the past then?

5 hours ago, markse68 said:

New focuser

Almost a new telescope!

Not a TAL100 OTA is that Mark? does have a very familiar look to it esp with those rings  

isn't that cheating a bit Olly, going that far up the scope range?  

seems not too bad a price, the FLO listing shows an astro essentials one for £25 tho so could order that with the 130 and get it all at once, with the usual clouds included of course  

As to a shroud, you can maybe make one up yourself rather than buying something custom and more expensive, I'm sure others here have done so and could advise on that.

oh if you do decide to go for the heritage, don't go buying a barlow for the current scope yet  

Doesn't look like the 130 comes with one but on the FLO page they've a recomended one which should work with no issues.

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/beginner-telescopes/skywatcher-heritage-130p-flextube.html

can understand where you're coming from, the risk of dismantling and damage vs an unknown level of gain without some scientific comparisons to gauge how worthwhile the effort would be.

I know daylight use is very different but I can say the step change in my hensolt wetzlar dialyts after flocking behind the objectives was huge, especially if the sun is close to on-axis (or the moon come to that), but on a scope used for night sky targets which in the main are small and relatively dim, perhaps a much lesser gain  

29 minutes ago, LeeHore7 said:

Hi Dave

Thank you for your reply. I have to say what kind and thoughtful members are on here and don't take the mickey or judge beginner users.  The barlow lens i have is just a bog standard normal one and not branded (my inexperience again buying this and not expensive so cheap meant crap) Sadly the lens from the barlow i have doesnt screw on correctly to my 20mm or 10mm ep so i think I'll need a new barlow lens.  Do you think the celestron branded one or the orion shorty be best for my celestron 76x300mm scope and what is a reasonable price youd pay for them. Sorry for being this inexperienced but thank you for your comments.

no probs Lee, we all started as beginners after all and I'm not that expert myself lol. I can't say re the celestron barlow but I'd guess the short omni would work. The gear I mainly have is TAL so I've TAL barlows you see, tho the Barlow that came with the SW130 I have works well in my 76/350 so I'd expect both the others mentioned would work too. The Orion gets a lot of recommendations hence mentioning that one specifically. As to price, hard to say, if you're lucky to find a good one used then 60% of new price is fair. Harrisons list the Omni at £25 but out of stock, so its not an expensive one, going up the range may be better if you're staying with the hobby and looking at later upgrades.

if you'd like to make a jump would you stick with a reflector?

I'd suggest if so that 130 or 150 would be a reasonable jump as that's a lot more light capture than the 76. Anything below 130 and you'd largely be wasting the funds, you'll hardly notice much going to a 114 for example. I have a TAL-1 (110) and SW130 and you'd be pushed to notice much difference, tho the TAL's do punch above their weight. 

Something like a SW heritage 130 flextube may suit since you're using a table-top DOB type scope and seem comfortable with that. You may want to rig a shroud around the open part of the tube though to block stray light. It's a scope lots here recommend and its easily portable and gives good views, should suit well for taking pics through the eyepiece as you've also been trying  

1 hour ago, LeeHore7 said:

When i put the barlow on the 20mm ep the focus wont go any further to get a clear view as its blurred when viewing the moon but i guess when viewing further away objects would pull into focus

which barlow did you get as it doesn't sound like it suits your scope?

In terms of more detailed view then as above you'd need more mag which that barlow "should" give you if you could find focus with it. the 20+Barlow should give the same mag as the 10mm on its own, but with a little more eye relief. The 10+barlow would give you an effective 5mm and so more mag but without losing the eye relief vs a 5mm eyepiece. This might be enough for what you want to have at this time.

The 32mm or 25mm would give less mag but a wider field of view which might be nice when panning around the sky at constellations etc but perhaps isn't what you need right now.

Going back to the barlow, I think you'd maybe need something like the Orion shorty barlow, but lets see what you have first. If the lens end on the barlow you have unscrews from the barrel, does it fit onto the eyepiece barrel and reach focus that way? More fiddly in the dark but saves buying another in the short term  

so having re-prep'd the control head body and started to spritz it with paint, I thought I'd turn my attention to the OTA since its been curing several days now. Not totally happy with the prickly bits here and there in the paint but lets have a look at flocking it. Now I've a number of sheets of A4 size flock, not the "proper" astro stuff, but is it usable? Well it leaves around a 1CM gap between the edges if laid square on, but inclined it might work. Laying 3 sheets at this offset layout to test the idea gives a really nice dark inner indeed so could well be worth doing. But the inside of the TAL tube feels a bit greasy so it ain't gonna stick reliably then. I remember astrobaby said the same when she did the TAL-1 so seems a family trait then in the TAL line? Maybe its to snag the dust and pollen falling into the OTA and reduce the amount that gets onto the primary mirror?

Oh well, kinda shoulda de-greased the OTA inner before I'd started painting then  

While I come up with a plan-B (flock onto acetate sheet rolled and inserted in the OTA, probably) I decided to console myself with gently sanding the OTA's fresh paint to smooth off those annoying blemishes and start giving it a light refresh coat or 2 - heck it might as well come out of this looking $1m than not, well I guess more like $10  

Still not managed to locate the mysterious paint-pad eating black hole either, will have to nab one when am round at my Dad's in the next couple days to check/cut the grass...

are those the OEM eyepieces Lee and how are you finding them?

Surprised they went with 20 & 10 plus barlow as the 20+barlow would be a 10. With my little NatGeo 76/350 it came with junk H20 and seriously junk SR4 so at least maybe you got something better in the kit you have. I updated that scope with a low cost plossl pair off a seller on the bay, to a 25mm and 6.5mm which included a green moon filter and tho they're non-standard filter thread they work very nicely in this little scope. I don't recall using the 6.5mm barlowed but then these days I don't really use this scope much at all.

With the EP's you have you effectively get 20/10/5mm with barlow and at 5mm.

I think the limit for your scope will be its max magnification which I guess is really limited to x150 ish so going for shorter focal lengths will probably not gain much, since the small mirror would result in dark views and loss of detail. A wider view at lower mag at 25mm should work ok, not sure if a 32mm would but of course you can transfer that to another scope as(if) you upgrade later. With the barlow that'd give 25/12.5mm or 32/16mm which fill the gaps a little.

I guess a pertinent question would be - what are you hoping to see? more magnification on targets like the moon? or clusters and deeper sky objects?

fluffy clouds making cute patterns, insects buzzing about on their way around the gardens, the odd birdie getting up to naughties...

I'd imagine setting circles or a tracking mount could at least get you to a point in the sky, but I expect the big issue would be on a bright day, no dark adaption so other than really bright objects would we really be able to pick out much in the way of detail let alone the fainter objects?

so, inspecting the OTA carrier and focuser, still brushy marks  At least the objective beauty ring did come out nice so won't need anything further  Yep that's a toothpick in the set screw hole to save me having to re-tap that one to clean up the threads after painting.

Now I have a plan, IF I can find it. Flat it back and give a coat with a paint pad... pretty sure it's somewhere, now where's that black hole gone hiding  

Local DIY got new some stock so I can redo the L-shaped ALT-AZ mount body too, which with these done will complete the painting works, finally!

9 minutes ago, dannybgoode said:

Honestly I spent £130 on my first setup - a second hand f5 150P and an AZ4 mount  and if my astro journey has begun and ended at my first sight of that pair I still feel I would have got my money’s worth. 
 

Never get bored of the sight either. 

So true, my reflectors all cost me around the £70 mark apart from the tiny one, the frac even was only £260 so to me were great value for money a given for the lovely views. No plans to spend the earth on the top end kit but then again those seriously into the hobby a long time I'm sure can appreciate the benefits far more than I with my slowly fading eyes  

10 minutes ago, JOC said:

😳😳😳😳😳😳

nice of the guys to quote you so you couldn't totally get away from that one  

5 minutes ago, andrew s said:

I was just having fun with the Tak lovers society on SGL. I am sure refractors can give nice views. However, for sheer simplicity, perfectly achromatic (IR to UV), and diffraction limited across a planetary field what's not to like about a Newtonian.

Regards Andrew 

oh I so got that Andrew  

Just wondering with John's comment is he offering a TAK for £100?