pedromreis

So I have an EQ3-2 "Deluxe" plain, with no motors/etc.

Exactly what do I need in order to:

1 - Track an object in order to get long exposures

2 - Be able to "goto" an objecto using my computer (Mac)

3 - Have sturdier tripod, is the 2" skywatcher tripod for EQ5/6 compatible? Are there other options? (including DIY)

Thanks!

A quick update.

Is difficult to buy new stuff nowadays, everything seems out-of-stock.

Also shipping to Portugal of used stuff is not easy to find, and sometimes the price itself is prohibiting..

So, fo now, I have on order a 150P-DS and a eq3 mount. Arriving in 2 weeks if I'm lucky.

Also I got a 9mm and a 20mm 62º LER eyepieces from Explore Scientific.

I hope this will be portable and versatile enough to get me started.

Thanks

35 minutes ago, Quatermass said:

I modded my 350D many years ago and just removed the filter from it. Used it for about 4 years for all my images then upgraded to a modded 1000d and to be honest it was not that much better a bit sharper and it had live view. I have now got myself another 350d which I might mod like I did the first one its not that hard to do and I am the worst guy to ask to do electrical things but managed to do it.

Heres a picture of the Rosette Nebula I did with it after it was modded 

Rosette Nebula MC.tif 2.77 MB · 1 download

Hi, I would be very happy If I could make a photo like that

What was the rest of the setup? Lens/scope, mount, etc...

So is one just remove the filter, there is no problem focusing to the infinity?

Did you put any clip filter to protect the sensor?

Thanks

What would be a ccd camera "entry level" that would have as good as photos like a 450D or 60D?

1 hour ago, michael8554 said:

For 100 Euro you could get a 450D, several generations better than the 350D, and it has LiveView.

Use the 350D to gain experience of modding.

Take anti-static precautions, and mark the insertion point of the ribbons with a thin Sharpie, so that you know you have re-inserted them square and all the way in.

Michael

thanks

does it needs a glass inside after removing the IR?

Hi

So I have laying around an old Canon EOS 350D that I wont mind trying to mod for astrophotography, i.e. remove the IR filter. I have read several tutorials and I cant understand if I need to put anything extra inside or just remove the IR filter.

Does anyone have experience on this camera that can point me the right direction?

Is it worth modding? 

For around 100€, is there a better alternative?

Thanks

Hi All

So I got the budget https://www.firstlightoptics.com/startravel/skywatcher-startravel-80-tabletop-telescope.html and I got up and running 2 nights ago.

This was my all time first observation, no other help than the manual that came with the scope and what I read in the web. No star atlas, just phone apps.

Tried it on my front terrace, with lots of light pollution. I have led street light illuminating the terrace, just 10m away

But, ok. I assembled it and point it to Jupiter. Didn't try the polar alignment, either.

First thoughts:

- I really liked the experience. Seeing the moons(?) was very nice. I just hoped that my sky was darker..

- We get what we pay... the EQ1 seems sturdy enough but the fittings on the telescope are no good. Just "breathing" to it made it move. I need a good mount when a buy a "real" one.

- The eyepieces that came are plastic-ish and I struggled to use the 10mm with the Barlow.   Maybe I need one with longer eye relief? 

- The focus system is barely usable in high magnification... Is there a point to upgrade it in the model? Is it even possible?

- I wish the 90º mirror was longer because using it on a table is not easy.

- Didn't really understand how to setup the spotter, calibrating and such. I will try again in daylight.

- Didn't had any problems using the EQ mount, but as I said, used it without alignment.

All in all was a good first experience, limited yes but very enjoyable. Looking forward to another clear sky night!

The obligatory snapshot taken from the eyepiece with the cellphone, no mounts or anything. 

7 minutes ago, smudgeball said:

If I was to start over again ?

itelescope.net subscription and check if my off-licence does home delivery ?

That looks interesting... Will give it a try!

5 minutes ago, Alan64 said:

Ah, you live in a suburb of Lisbon.  Every little bit helps.  Photos may certainly be taken, and enjoyed; posting them for family and friends to see on social-media, perhaps in getting them interested in astronomy as well, then acquiring a telescope of their own as a result.  I take afocal-shots now and again through my telescope, with a small point-and-shoot camera, of even one or two objects that are a bit dim.

Suburb but very inside the "red" zone of the light pollution map.

About 120km from here I can get nice skies. Also in the north where I have family and go often. 

I will definitely try something like that :). I have an old canon 350d and a very new cellphone

45 minutes ago, Alan64 said:

Lisbon is, perhaps, lit up like a Christmas tree at night.  Many do opt to image instead with their telescopes as a result.  The larger aperture of the 8" Newtonian-Dobson may allow you to see more under such.  There are DIY tricks of the trade whereby you can improve the observing experience...

You place it over the head; same principle as that shown.  Of course, there is that nagging thought in the back of the mind of being bonked on the head by those criminal and nefarious, and whilst deploying.

Are you wanting to see the glories of the night sky with your eyes and mind only, or relegate the experience to an automated, electronic "eyeball"?

I think eventually I'll try to take some photos but its not my priority right now. 

I don't live in the city, rather nearby, around here https://goo.gl/maps/HvFMfrXkMNKDu6xc7

There is lot of light yes, the main problem for me are the street lights.... Even in the backyard. But I'll manage time to get to observation spots with dark skies.

44 minutes ago, alacant said:

Unfortunately, they need an optical element to reach infinity, so you lose any advantage.

Look instead at the M42 Takumar or Zeiss lenses. The M42 to Eos adapter is purely mechanical.

Cheers

I have some of those also, but not as fast. Maybe f4-f5.

But my DSLR is also very old so this is another upgrade I don't want to do just now

3 hours ago, alacant said:

An old ebay flavour 135mm lens for my dslr and a heavy tripod.

I thought about that .. I do have some old nice glass canon FD lenses, 135/f2, 200/f2.8, 300/f5 etc. If I buy an adapter I could use them on the eos/ef. The thing is that due to the distance to the sensor after the adaptor in place, the lenses will not focus all the way to infinity. So I don't know if I would be able to take any photo worth while....

5 hours ago, Peter Drew said:

The biggest thing that determined my astronomical career was not being able to afford to buy a telescope.  This forced me to make my own, eventually proving so interesting and successful that it became my business and way of life.  Would I change much if starting again?  NO!🙂

It sorta came to mind in the beginning... but one of the drives for this, maybe the most important is that my daughter wants to experiment also, and I don't want that the her will fades away by the time I would take to make my own. 

But if some kind of "kit" I would try, only that the ones I saw are too small/childish. Hence I bought a small 100€ telescope for the startup

Lots of fantastic posts! Thanks all.

A lot to think about.

On my shopping list currently is a newt/dob >=8" + 2/3 quality eye pieces for the starting kit. I'm open to suggestions on brands/models.

But before the buy I'll need to first go and experiment so never before christmas... BTW, is there a better / worse season to buy? Sales, discounts, etc...

18 minutes ago, Macavity said:

Learned a lot from BOTH "first" scopes: ST102 f/5 achromat and SW MAK90...
Always aware of likely virtues / limitations, I'd still go for both one or t'other. 🙂
The ST102 came with the (slightly awkward!) AZ3-2... But I do still have/use it!

[...]

Aside: My "epithany" came with (independent) discovery of Video Astronomy.
Occasional flirting with Classical Imaging? But that's a rather long/er story.

Those are for taking pics/video only right?

The achromat are the ones that have distortions right? can you link me to the exact ones?

Video Astronomy is taking a video and convert it to pics?

Thanks for your post!

6 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

My old Norton's Atlas is littered with comet paths that I pencilled in as I followed the comets across the sky, so it has history going back to Iras-Iraki-Alcock and Halley, and many more, including the biggy Hale Bopp. 

I can relate to that  I also prefer paper to electronics.

4 minutes ago, John said:

You can end up suffering from "paralysis from analysis" which I've seen happen quite a few times in such threads.

Good luck in finding your way though

Yes, sometimes is better to have 1 recommendation instead of 20

I have this book ordered, will arrive sometime next week https://www.cambridge.org/pt/academic/subjects/physics/amateur-and-popular-astronomy/turn-left-orion-hundreds-night-sky-objects-see-home-telescope-and-how-find-them-5th-edition?format=SP&isbn=9781108457569

This is enough for now right?

12 hours ago, John said:

The atlas I recommend is the Sky & Telescope Pocket Sky Atlas:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Telescopes-Pocket-Sinnott-30-Mar-2006-Spiral-bound/dp/B011T83TX6/ref=pd_lpo_14_t_1/259-5840706-6980031?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B011T83TX6&pd_rd_r=d0c23dfe-6f5f-4092-9f66-a1f0244390d2&pd_rd_w=nQfaC&pd_rd_wg=botGv&pf_rd_p=7b8e3b03-1439-4489-abd4-4a138cf4eca6&pf_rd_r=QQS8JG3111R4N8TWMBDT&psc=1&refRID=QQS8JG3111R4N8TWMBDT

 

Hi

What will a Pocket Sky Atlas give you more than all the apps that you can have on your tablet?

I've tried to find examples of what is inside, with no luck

2 hours ago, Alan64 said:

Plossl eyepieces are the minimum in performance eyepieces today, and at 1.25".  They represent a great value for the outlay, and the images are quite good; for example...

https://www.astroshop.eu/eyepieces/ts-optics-32mm-1-25-super-ploessl-eyepiece/p,12450

When choosing Plossls, keep in mind that those shorter than 9mm have tight eye-relief, to where you almost have to touch the eye-lens of the eyepiece with the eye itself, and in order to see the full view that the eyepiece offers.

When you talk about "performance" is the quality of the image that you get right? Like in a good lens for a dslr?

Being Plossls the minimum, what are the next, better, ones?

Will a better eyepiece like those costing around 50€, assuming an eyepiece that comes standard in a 500€ telescope, dramatically improves the viewing experience? 

17 hours ago, John said:

 

I would also invest in a red dot / illuminated reticule finder such as the Telrad or Rigel Quikfinder to complement (rather than replace) the optical finder that comes with the scope.I would budget to replace the stock eyepieces with decent upgrades such as BST Starguiders, Baader Classic Orthos or Vixen NPL plossls which cost around £50 each.

I would also invest in the Sky & Telescope Pocket Sky atlas.

If I had any money left I would buy an O-III or UHC filter.

The eyepieces are one diameter only right? 1,25 or 2. 

Whats the purpose of those filters? Point me to a link plz.

What pocket sky atlas you recommend?

Tks!

@Alan64

So much to learn!

I was inclined to a newtonian already for my first telescope. Will put that 8" on my short list, tks! 

As I said, before big expenses I need to experiment a bit, look around, talk to people. So far everybody says that the first telescope should be something like that.

13 minutes ago, BinocularSky said:

No, most binoculars can be recollimated. The exceptions are mostlycheap tat.

Easy. Don't trust daylight tests on terrestrial objects - your eyes & brain try, and often manage, to compensate; this can lead to headaches and/or nausea for prolonged use. Use a bright star. Defocus the right hand side of the binocular (eyepiece dioptre adjustment). Your brain will superimpose the images from either side; If they are collimated, the focused star will appear in the middle of the defocused blob.

Those opticrons and hellius recommended above fall into that cheap category?

Thanks!

6 hours ago, Alan64 said:

If the 150€ must include books and accessories, the telescope choices will be limited.  If not, then you might consider a kit among these...

Sorry, I was not clear. I already spend that. But that is not my "budget", that is only something I bought out of impulse just to get me started... 

I meant for the future. Your post was fantastic! I now have some options to pursuit... 

Nevertheless, I'm trying to contact local amateur astronomer groups and will try to join them to experiment all the different types of telescopes out there and their differences. I have no doubt they also give me good advices.

Thank you all!

I really appreciate these advices and I'll try to follow them! 

2 minutes ago, Jm1973 said:

I wouldn't buy cheap eyepieces. I'd go straight for something half decent.

For a layman, an example of half decent 10mm?