Skywatcher 130p and DSLR

[DH2001]

Hi all,

I've been researching in to getting my first scope recently and think i've settled for the skywatcher 130p. If possible I would like to attach a DSLR to it to get some images mainly of the moon, but anything else would be a big bonus aswell (I know a webcam is the better option, but hooking it up to a laptop etc isn't always practical).

So I just want to know firstly is it possible to attach a Canon 1000D to the 130p to take images and would I need any additional equipment. Secondly the EQ2 seems a popular mount to come with the skywatcher 130p, is this secure enough for images? if not what is the minimum I would need.

Thanks.

[MBJ]

it is possible to attach a dslr to the 130p via a t-mount adaptor,wether it will achieve focus is another problem that might arise,this is not as straightforward as you might think. DLSRs invariably use autofocus, and lack the focusing aids of film SLR cameras. But your telescope has to be focused manually and judging when a star is in perfect focus can be tricky. You might even find that you can't bring a star to focus at all, the SkyWatcher 130, for example, doesn't focus close enough to the mirror to achieve focus with a camera attached.

If you can't adjust the focus far enough out, you could add a short extension tube or a star diagonal, or if you are using a 1¼-inch adapter just don't push the adapter right in but tighten up the thumbscrew to hold it in place. But if you can't focus far enough in, all you can try is to use a Barlow lens in the system as well. This increases the effective focal length of the system, giving more magnified images, but it often allows you to focus.

the eq2 wouldnt be suitable for taking images as its not strong enough and vibration would be a major issue,the minimum you would require i think would be an eq5,then again if you are really serious about imaging and go down the guiding route then even the eq5 would be on the limit and the next step would be a mount upgrade to the heq5 or ideally the neq6.

[Rihard]

the eq2 wouldnt be suitable for taking images as its not strong enough and vibration would be a major issue,the minimum you would require i think would be an eq5,then again if you are really serious about imaging and go down the guiding route then even the eq5 would be on the limit and the next step would be a mount upgrade to the heq5 or ideally the neq6.

I would personally reconsider cheaper setups more positively

Maybe for single quick shots of a bright and relatively close object as the Moon (or with a filter, for shots of the Sun) with a DSLR, the Eq2 might be fine, especially with a remote shutter release. This would produce some good enough shots to keep for the record. Such shots might not have the definition and detail of images taken with heavier / more accurate setups (and CCD's + Stacking) but from a beginner standpoint they could be fine.

With some stepper motors he might even take some short videos of the moon or other bright objects and stack them. I say this because of my (little) experience: with a LOT of patience and "trial by error" (and very little budget) I was able to take a few basic yet nice records of the moon, the sun and even M42 with just a bridge camera, a dSLR + telezoom and a terribly cheap lightweight camera tripod (without remote shutter). I didn't have amazing expectation so back then I was very pleased with those pictures. That pushed me to buy some better equipment to get more (even though clouds were included in the package ) .

I even imaged the sun (afocal with an old compact camera) with my niece's Skywatcher 114P on Eq1 + a very old Mylar Sun Filter. It wasn't that bad.

So depending on the objectives (and patience ) of DH2001 that setup might do the job.

I was wondering, for Lunar Imaging, eyepiece projection (yes, more glass in the way ) might also be considered since the 1000D can't reach focus on the 130D. Did anyone try that?

Clear Skies

[sgazer]

What lenses do you have for the 1000d? For DSOs, I think you will get much better (in fact very good) results mounting the 1000d directly onto the mount (no scope) with a lens. 18-55mm kit is very good for wide vistas (IS version, the first one is rubbish), 55-250mm better for getting closer up. Both have excellent optics.

[farunj]

For the moon, it wouldn't really matter which mount you have as the moon is very bright and you need exposure time of the order of 1/200 or 1/125. You can also take videos and stack them in registax.

[Cornelius Varley]

You will need a barlow lens to allow the telescope to reach focus with a dslr attached.

Peter

[K3ny0n]

Do you need both a T ring and T adapter to connect a DSLR to the telescope or am I missing something?

Rob

[farunj]

You will need a t-ring for your camera and a t-adaptor for the camera to attach to the scope.

[DH2001]

Thanks for all the replies, so basically from what i've got from the above (please correct me if I get anything wrong). The eq2 and 130p is physically strong enough to have a DSLR camera attached, but it is not recomended for any deep space photo's because I would need to have long exposures and the eq2 would wobble a lot. So considering moon/sun spot shots both use fast shutter speeds it should still get half decent results though? Would the results be better than attaching the camera on a separate tripod and taking it through the eyepiece? Would the results be similar or a lot sharper than this image? (obviously a lot closer, but just considering quality) http://www.flickr.co...tream/lightbox/

To attach the camera and get focus I would need a barlow, T ring and T adapter?

What lenses do you have for the 1000d? For DSOs, I think you will get much better (in fact very good) results mounting the 1000d directly onto the mount (no scope) with a lens. 18-55mm kit is very good for wide vistas (IS version, the first one is rubbish), 55-250mm better for getting closer up. Both have excellent optics.

Sorry i'm a bit confused with what you mean here? if I don't use the scope, then how would I get the magnification?

current lenses are:

Canon f2.8 100mm macro lens (Non IS)

Canon f1.8 50mm lens (Non IS)

Tamron f2.8 17-50mm (Non IS)

Canon f3.5-f5.6 50-250mm (IS)

The think the kit lens is better than it get's credit for

[Rihard]

Thanks for all the replies, so basically from what i've got from the above (please correct me if I get anything wrong). The eq2 and 130p is physically strong enough to have a DSLR camera attached, but it is not recomended for any deep space photo's because I would need to have long exposures and the eq2 would wobble a lot. So considering moon/sun spot shots both use fast shutter speeds it should still get half decent results though? Would the results be better than attaching the camera on a separate tripod and taking it through the eyepiece? Would the results be similar or a lot sharper than this image? (obviously a lot closer, but just considering quality) http://www.flickr.co...tream/lightbox/

To attach the camera and get focus I would need a barlow, T ring and T adapter?

Sorry i'm a bit confused with what you mean here? if I don't use the scope, then how would I get the magnification?

current lenses are:

Canon f2.8 100mm macro lens (Non IS)

Canon f1.8 50mm lens (Non IS)

Tamron f2.8 17-50mm (Non IS)

Canon f3.5-f5.6 50-250mm (IS)

The think the kit lens is better than it get's credit for

You understood completely right Faster shutter speeds on bright objects = less probability of getting shaky images. It is, basically, like taking pictures during the day, you don't need tracking or long exposures to take a portrait Same basic concept can work with the Moon and the Sun.

Results should be better this way (dSLR + Scope only) then using an eyepiece in the middle, because more glass in the way (an eyepiece) will deteriorate the image. However, I've seen people achieving better focus / sharper picture with this technique. Why not try them both, and see what you prefer ? IT should cost nothing.

There are also some adaptors that support and keep your camera square to the eyepiece, without the need of an external tripod.

The barlow should help, as stated by others, to achieve focus, but that would increase the magnification (And dim the image) , so I doubt you would be able to get a full view of the moon this way. Some skywatcher scopes have a "direct SLR connection" in such case you "might" only need the T-Ring for your Canon, and nothing else. You will have to double check for this. I've asked FLO when I bought mine and they told me what I needed for my 200P.

Several DSO's do not need magnification at all but light gathering power, which is given mostly by the aperture of the scope or lens. The Galaxy of Andromeda is bigger then the full moon - we don't see it because our eyes have a very little light gathering power and aperture Think about the milky way. You can even see it with naked eye.

The Canon F1.8 50mm and the Tamron at 17mm should be OK for wide-fields of the milky way and other DSO's. You may add a cheap RA motor to your setup and with a lot of patience you might take multiple 20 / 30 seconds exposures and get some details out of the milky way. But it's not as easy as it seems as you will need to align the mount to the polar star and that mount (the Eq2) doesn't have a polarscope to do that accurately (but if you're brave and patience, the Trial by Error technique will still give you something!)

With the 250 mm lens + a solar filter you should be able to image the whole sun and its sunspots fairly easily. Anyway with a proper mount/tracking all the lens could be of use, although I don't know anything about the Canon system so not sure if the lack of IS in the lens would produce very shaky images.

Clear Skies.

[Rihard]

The think the kit lens is better than it get's credit for

It should be a good one (given the IS the images should get better) but its maximum aperture at 50mm is 3.5,

not sure if that will be any good for DSO's without proper tracking. It will be, however, good for bright objects like the moon,

giving more contrast. Hope this helps.

[geoffers1]

As a (daylight) photographer I've always been of the opinion not to use IS with the camera on a solid mount for long exposures. The IS itself creates a vibration which when handheld is dampened and cancelled out by the slight movement inherrant with holding a camera, but when on a tripod or any other solid mount, it induces vibration through the tripod, creating a sort of feedback effect and can give if conditions are right, more image blur. Hope that helps?

[webby962]

/\ Agreed. It is common amongst 'vanilla' day photographers that Image Stabilisation (IS) should not be used on a tripod for the reasons given above.

Adie

[Alien 13]

The standard 130p as already stated wont achieve focus with a DSLR unless you use a barlow however this is not an ideal solution, the 130pds version of the scope is around £50 more and includes a dual speed focuser that can reach focus with a DSLR.

As far as mounting goes for visual or lunar photography with maybe some limited DSO you would need a min of an EQ3-2 better still an EQ5.

A DSLR with camera lenses is a very cost effective way to get started and i agree that the std kit lenses are realy excellent to get  you going especially the IS versions (the IS isnt used but the optics are slightly better)

Alan

[igm]

I may be reviving an old thread, but just for the record: It is possible to prime focus even with Skywatcher 130p, although not out of the box.

The Barlow lens solution resulted in blurry(ier) image, and the more lenses the less light reaches the sensor.

1. I disassembled the focuser and cut the focuser tube (the one fixed-mounted to telescope main tube) just after the focusing mechanism.

2. In addition, I unscrewed the metal part from the eyepiece holder (even though this part has the 42mm thread on the outside and would be ideal for mounting T-ring, it is too long).

3. I attached the T-ring directly to the eyepiece holder with plastic-glue gun.

With Canon EOS 70D attached this way, I am able to prime focus and the image is certainly sharper than with Barlow (and brighter too -- wider FoV).