wulfrun

To set the stage, I have a Panasonic micro 4/3rds mirrorless camera and the necessary m4/3-T2 and T2-1.25" nosepiece adapters to attach it to a scope drawtube. Scopes are as per my signature. I have absolutley NO aspirations to be doing serious imaging so I'm expecting nothing beyond a "snapshot of the Moon" type of thing.

I tried attaching the camera to my SW114P Virtuoso (yes, I know it's rather too much for the focuser but bear with me). I could not achieve (infinity) focus, I assume because the focus point is within the drawtube and the sensor can't get there. Lateral thinking - use a Barlow. I have a Baader Classic-Q 2.25x and with that I can achieve focus. I also have an ES 2x focal extender, that did not quite allow focus (close but no cigar). First question then - is it down to the different factors or or down to the barlow vs FE that the Baader works?

Second question: I noticed whilst playing with daytime use that if I put the camera in at 45-degrees I get an upright image. That's puzzling me - why the tilt?

Third question: I've not yet tried it since it's a bit more faff, would I be right to assume the same setup of camera>adapters>barlow will work in an equivalent fashion on my 150PL scope? Or indeed, anything primarily setup for visual?

Thanks for any answers! Just to re-iterate, I've no interest in pouring money in, upgrading anything or attempting more than short-exposure "snaps" at present (never say never though). I just want to advance my knowledge a bit.

I'm a newbie at observing anything, so I've never tried solar. I'm well aware of the requirements for a secure, full-aperture filter, so that's not the question. I have 2 scopes, a SW114P Virtuoso and a SW 150PL on an Alt-Az and the plan would be to equip one or other with a filter. I'm thinking ahead to the partial eclipse in June so I don't want to try getting a filter last-minute, they'll be gone. I also think solar might be an interesting side-avenue to explore anyway. Given the choice, which would be the better scope to use?

The Viruoso will track the Sun (well almost, it's sidereal rate), whereas the 150PL will not. However, I can get higher magnifications with less quality loss with the 150PL should I require it. Not having much clue as to whether high magnifications are worthwhile on solar, do I go for that or go for near-tracking? Clearly, light-grasp isn't different enough to be a concern on solar (I assume).

Advice from the more experienced than myself please...

(EDIT: I've realised this probably would have been better placed in the beginners section, mods feel free to to move)

6 minutes ago, Radojica said:

So, after a hell of a decade (jeez, time is relative, but it does fly) i am back to this fine community. Less poor, a little bit more wise, i was able to bring my hobby to a bit higher level. I am gathering equipment for astrophotography, something that i wanted to do since, well, ever, and thanks to my good friend and collegue who thought i will find better use of her Panasonic G2 Lumix, who gave it to me as a gift, i am one step closer of achieving that. Hopefully, i will find the answers i need that i will be looking for in the future. 

Hello again and looking forward  of meeting you and learning new things over here.

Clear sky

Welcome back! As it happens, I have the same camera although I've not (yet) tried it at AP so I can't comment if it's any good for it.

Hazy/clear here with some wispy cloud, I've been out with the 150PL for a couple of hours but the seeing isn't good. Had a fabulous 22-degree halo around the moon though, very eerie sight.

13 minutes ago, Stu said:

Something like this maybe?

Looks promising, I'll save that one for a time when I can see anything other than thick cloud! Thanks for your trouble.

5 hours ago, PeterW said:

I use Option 3, which is Cassiopaea into the top of Perseus, down andromeda and then up. Easy to start (cassiopaea is always up) and easier to follow, even when there are fewer stars visible.  Well done!

Peter

Now that's one I could try. I can find Perseus when it's high-ish, or at least the brighter bits - enough to find it. Cassiopeia is a doddle to find even here. I'll plan a route for that way next time I attempt it.

A very-late-for-Saturday postie brought me an ES 2x focal extender, courtesy of CraigT82 on here. In excellent condition and nicely packaged in a FLO outer box, although I'm a bit miffed he never unpacked the clouds  😞 Hey ho, they'll disperse at some point!

Thanks for the encouragement! Yes, definitely one to re-visit and preferably with a scope and from darker skies - when we're allowed out to play. I can't see it naked-eye from here, or not last night anyway. Strangely, it's in the direction that I'd expect LP to be less bad but that seems not to be the case. I have a hard time finding anything but the brightest stars in the NW-ish direction. I'm looking away from the city that way, is back-scatter a likely candidate? Not sure what logic applies to LP.

Actually, Stephenstargazer I agree completely. In this case, the frustration of being able to see so little in the required direction prompted the "cheating". Star-hopping from the highly-visible Orion wasn't going to work 🙂

Stu, I've tried route 1 before and failed. Route 2 is a non-starter due to LP/obstructed view at this time of year.

Last night we had a decidedly cold and unpleasant wind but largely clear skies; some fast-moving cloud and a hazy-looking near-half moon. With what we've had of late I decided to sieze the chance! Rather than put a scope out and risk the rain-god's wrath - not to mention the cold wind - I took the binoculars (10x50s). Whilst out there I started with the obligatory good look at M42 - well you just have to don't you, it's mesmerising. Now, I'm very new to observing and due to the near-continuous cloud-cover of late I'm still trying to even find certain constellations from my light-polluted back garden. The back of the house faces almost due east, so anything in the low or western half of the sky is the hardest to find, not only because almost nothing is visible but also since my low-down view is blocked anyway. The hunt for Andromeda resumed. Finding a start-point is a challenge in itself and I decided to cheat a bit with "Skeye" on the phone.

I've tried on a few occasions to identify Andromeda and hence locate the titled galaxy. So far it's been a miserable failure and the bright, hazy moon last night wasn't encouraging. I decided to attack the problem with brute force and patience, so I swept slowly and methodically in the area that Skeye indicated. Finally, I found a faint smudge that looked a likely candidate, with (assumed) v-Andromeda close by (can't seem to find greek letters on the keyboard!). I estimate I could see about 1-degree with no structure, just a smudge that wasn't passing cloud and sort-of galaxy-shaped. A check on Stellarium on the PC later suggests I wouldn't find anything else in the area - orientation and relationship to v-Andromeda looked correct for the time too.

Now, on the one hand I feel chuffed that I found what I can't explain as anything else but the said galaxy but on the other I'm a bit surprised. The question to the experienced observers is: was this an achievement under the conditions or should it not have been difficult? Do I "tick it off" or not? The joy of something good or the "nope, you made a mistake"? On the chin please...I'm a big boy 🙂

12 minutes ago, thepainpastor said:

While looking at it yesterday, I was experimenting with what can come off. The red-lined part you referenced does indeed pop right out. It's sorta like a little cap, almost. I wouldn't have considered it an adapter, but, in hindsight, that makes perfect sense.

In that case, measure the hole without it in place. It's likely to be 1.25" and that'll make life easier when it comes to replacement eyepieces.

2 hours ago, Merlin said:

Musk said that he would like to die on Mars.

If only that could be arranged....how about now?

45 minutes ago, thepainpastor said:

According to B&H website, the diameter is 1.25. 

Looking again at the photo you posted, it looks as if there is a plastic piece just inside the focusser that reduces its size. Check if it comes out (don't force anything). It might be a reducing piece to take 0.965" eyepieces and if it comes out you're better off with 1.25". Either way around, check what you have before buying anything - and check the state of the mirrors too. I second DaveL59's suggestion above, on a tight budget the SVbony 7-21mm would be ideal as a do-all eyepiece purchase. It would give you magnifications of 33x to 100x, which should be ok with that scope.

In the last photo, you've only removed the inner part of the front cap, the whole thing has to come off when you use it (the outer part should just pull off). Do you have any eyepieces for it? They fit in the hole in the second-last photo and if they're missing you'll need to know that hole's diameter before you can get replacements. It's hard to judge from the shot but they'll be either 0.965" or 1.25", the latter being a common size and the former sometimes found on older scopes (and not so easy to get decent ones).

Once we know what's there, we can give you more advice on checking it over and advising what else you might need.

A word of caution: in the manual linked to above, it mentions a "sun filter" that screws into the eyepiece. If you find you have that part, throw it away and do NOT use it. It is not safe to use an eyepiece filter for observing the sun. You should never point a telescope at the sun unless you know exactly what you are doing and have taken the right precautions.

1 hour ago, BaldyMan said:

I wonder what we will fill up with junk first. The oceans or the atmosphere? 

I thought we'd already achieved the oceans being full of junk? Hopefully, the Kessler effect will kick in and all that junk up there burns up. It'll serve them right for allowing such madness. I wasn't aware of this, thanks for raising it.

37 minutes ago, DaveL59 said:

well the conservatory is the scope storage space here. Can't exactly build as I rent so with 6 currently in there no room for another right now, tho never say never... 😉 

Just needs some shelving then, stack 'em high! 😁

25 minutes ago, banjaxed said:

Assuming that your primary mirrors are clean then you should see a difference between the plossl and the Celestron. Try them at night on a star or planet to get a better idea.

Not clear what the second scope is (OP says a couple of refractors though) but the first one says "refractor" i.e. no mirrors to be concerned about (bar the diagonal?) 😉

1 hour ago, DAVE AMENDALL said:

I think you may have the answer with the little 300w Heater. It would be ideal if the heater was battery operated because I am not keen on leaving mains electrics on overnight. I will do a google and see if I can find one.......Dave

I think you're unlikely to find a battery-powered heater of 300W. Worst-case, it runs for (say) 10 hours "on" time - that's a 3kWh battery, which is about the capacity of an electric moped (moped, not bike) battery. If you can actually find one, you won't like the price!

1 hour ago, BaldyMan said:

I'm an utter newbie. I find the orion nebula with ease. If you look at Orion's belt currently in winter it is south facing and tilts diagonally down to the left. There are 3 small  stars just below it which make up "the sword". The centre of these 3 stars is the nebula and once you put any kind of scope on you should see it.

It took me a few seconds because you need your eyes to adjust but then it just pops out, a big grey smudge all around and you can usually see 2 or 3 stars in it actually. My 9yr old daughter insists she can see it in a pinky purple colour. I didn't believe her but she hasn't googled anything and apparently it's true that young kids can see it in colour

Crossed wires? I too was pointing out just how easy it is to find. The OP has edited his post but he mentioned he could not see it, so myself and others suggested he's not looking in the right place.

The thing that always makes me think, when you look into the night sky you're looking into a time-machine. Many of the things you see are no longer where you're looking and some may not even exist anymore. Equally, there's "stuff" that is there but you can't see it yet.

1 hour ago, reezeh said:

I'm all in favour of the technology as long as used properly. I think if they could be made so that they are narrow band; ideally low pressure sodium wavelengths only, shielded and fitted with passive infra red detectors so they only are active when needed they would be the best thing since dark skies....

It's perfectly possible to make them sodium-colour. Use yellow LEDs instead of white, it's quite a close match and I can verify that a UHC filter cuts it drastically.

Advantage: the LEDs would last several times as long.

Disadvantage: lower efficiency (not seriously so but lower all the same) and no improvement to colour-index. Saying that, we've managed for donkey's years with sodiums.

I can (just) discern the Orion nebula with the naked-eye and from a light-polluted backyard. Obviously I can't see any detail at all, naked-eye but I can see it looks like a fuzzy smudge with a bright centre. I'd agree you may not have been in the right place.

For your bugdet, if you really want one, you could get an 8" or so Dob. It'll be a beast, size-wise though, don't forget - compared to your refractor anyway.

We still have the old sodium here but there's a neighbouring estate that's new and has LED. Two of them are visible from my back yard and in my opinion they are far more obnoxious. The nearer, in particular, has all the LEDs creating star-like lights showing. I think a lot depends on the design (and no doubt the price). If well-designed they should be better but if they just buy on price and disregard good design then it's pot luck. Call me a cynic but I know which is more likely. I've also noticed several failing LED ones that just flash very irritatingly, seems to be a bit common failure-mode.

One advantage of sodiums is that a UHC almost kills them, with LEDs you're stuck with what LP they generate. Unless, of course, you don't want the UHC on!

21 hours ago, Tiny Clanger said:

South side of Brum we said 'Bill's mother's' which adds a nice bit of alliteration ,  I vaguely wondered if it was that bloke from Stratford  U. A .

North-west side here, my family always said "black over the back of Bill's mother's". Another variation I guess.

It was crystal clear here last night, virtually all the visible stars showed no twinkling. However, it was bitterly cold and I decided just to have a scan around with the binoculars and do the CPRE Orion star-count. I spent about an hour before my cold feet, hands and nose forced me back in. Probably just as well I decided not to put a 'scope out but I did spend half the time wishing I had and half the time glad I didn't.

The view to the north was washed out by the floodlights on the racecourse, very annoying on such a rare night. Without the moon though, the Orion nebula really seemed to pop, if that makes sense, despite the city-centre sky-glow - even in the binoculars it was a "wow" sight. Rigel and Sirius really seemed to be glaring down at me too.