Any chance with a Canon G7?

[rob7]

When my camera comes back from the 'Canon hospital' I would like to have a go at taking some astro' pictures. I have a 'point and shoot' Canon G7 with 10mp and a multitude of manual controls. I have a C6 F10 Schmidt, driven eq mount and a simple Baader camera adapter frame. What chances have I of getting some reasonable pics' of planets and dso. I will be getting a Celestron Neximage ccd in the new year at some point, but would love to be able to use my G7 all the same. [i am neither a great astromomer or photographer!]....yet!

Thanks, Rob.

[Kaptain Klevtsov]

Snapping the moon shouldn't be a problem, for other stuff I'd not be so optimistic, but some stuff will work. M42 afocal with a wide eyepiece should be doable.

Kaptain Klevtsov

[Whippy]

Your camera looks like a posher version of my Powershow A610. I've been doing afocal images with it and I'm pretty chuffed so far. Here's my M42: http://stargazerslounge.com/index.php/topic,20287.0.html . The only problem I can see would be that your scope is pretty 'slow' at f10. I tried doing some lunar shots with my Intes Maksutov which is f12 and it was a real pain to get it into focus and it wasn't exactly sucessful. But I'm always up for being proved wrong, give it a go and see how you get on!

Tony..

[rob7]

Tony, I think what you've done on M42 in your Canon powershot is fab. If I can get something similar through my G7 I'll be well chuffed. Didn't expect you could get a result like your example from a 'compact' camera. I love the camera I have and even though one day I have plan to get a ccd jobby, I would still like to drain every droplet of use out of my Canon and see what limits I can reach. I tinkered some nights ago with the moon with the G7, the F10 scope, 32mm ep and the moon and was reasonably pleased with my first efforts with some sky surrounding the moon, [would be better still with a focal reducer], nice lit and also quite sharp detail when studied on my laptop . Trouble was, 'dew' was hindering me and eventually the camera battery was on its last legs, so I had to curtail the session, but still plan more trial sessions especially on something like M42.

You've gave me hope!

Regards, Rob.

[Whippy]

Thanks Rob, I'll be honest and say I haven't got a clue about photography. I just connect all the bits and snap away! What I normally do is get something in focus at the eyepiece, then set the camera up for exposure time, ISO setting etc etc, as many multiple shots as possible (mine's got a max of 10), 10 second timer delay and then connect it to the eyepiece. Press the button and stand back. Rinse and repeat as necessary . Problem is that you need a bright(ish) star in the field of view to get the camera to focus. I'm sure there's another way of doing it but for now, I'm happy doing it this way but it limits what I can image (for example M31 is a non-starter as there's no bright enough stars around it...). Like you, I'm planning to wring every last ounce out of this setup before I dive in and spend proper money. Don't be shy about posting the pics up either as I'm sure you'll get pointers on how to get more out of what you've (we've!) got no matter how bad they are:).

Tony..

[rob7]

Well Tony. You and I are may be a bit alike. I'm a wanna be photographer, but am probably at the same stage in this field as I am in astronomy, which means Ive a lot more questions to ask than answers to give! Still the theres alot of fun in the learning. I would say your some steps forward of me yet as I'm not near the stage of touching up the photos I take with the trickery pokery that is software! The main thing is its nice to be able to mix two toys I love - the Canon g7 and my scopes.

I'll keep my out in the forseeable, to see if you post some more impressive results with your Canon.

Rob.

[coliea]

What chances have I of getting some reasonable pics' of planets and dso. I will be getting a Celestron Neximage ccd in the new year at some point, but would love to be able to use my G7 all the same. [i am neither a great astromomer or photographer!]....yet!

Thanks, Rob.

Rob

I thought you might be interested in this guy's setup - it could be just what you're after: http://tinyurl.com/yrjzzg

You can get the Lensmate G7 58mm adapter here: http://tinyurl.com/25kar3 It's a very well engineered piece of kit and much better than the plastic Canon adapter- I have both.

A 58mm-T thread adapter can be purchased from CNC Supply Inc (http://www.cncsupplyinc.com/) for ~£15 which includes shipping to the UK. You will find it under "T Step Rings" Part # SR58T.

Hope this helps

Col

[rob7]

Col, thanks, thats looks something like the way to go for me. The pictures have made it loads clearer to me what I could or should do to hold my Canon for 'telescopic' photos. I'm using the Baader adjustable bracket which is a bit of a fiddly set up and was going to do the research to improve on the Baader. You've done a huge chunk for me, so cheers!

Regards, Rob.

[coliea]

Glad I could help Rob. Be interested to know how you get on.

Best

Col

[dph1nm]

Don't believe all these folks who decry afocal imaging with point & shoot digicams! It can be done, with a bit of patience and a lot of stacking. Have a look at my guide to afocal imaging with my 8" Newtonian. I have started using a Celestron SLT102 since I last updated this, which seems to give pretty good results as well, despite the smaller aperture. I have also found DeepSkyStacker very useful, as it makes a stab at removing the distortions you tend to get when the camera lens is wide open.

NigelM

[rob7]

Thanks for that Nigel. Interesting reading, but being a beginner I'll need to read it two or three times to digest it!! Personally, I'm a believer in afocal photography as I like its simplicity, similar to the simplicity in using my dob telescope. Using my Canon digi' cam' which I first bought for a growing interest in terrestial photography to be able to now use it on far off sky objects that not that long ago I didn't realize were there is a big bonus. Not saying one day I won't be using web cams and alike, but it will be 'as well as' as opposed to instead of.

Thanks once again, Rob.