Lumix G7 adapter, focussing?

[JenkoRun]

Evenin' all, I'm looking to buy the adapters needed for attaching my Lumix G7 to my Celestron 130eq telescope, I've heard that there is something of a problem with focussing due to the distance of the camera and mirrors, I'm looking to use Eyepiece Projection so the adapter tube is needed.

These are the adapter parts I'm looking to buy, are these appropirate for use or will I end up with the focussing problems due to the lengths?:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1-25-Inch-Variable-Projection-DSLR-Camera-Adapter-Telescope-Eyepiece-Accesso-2C8/233412386695

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/T2-M4-3-Micro-Mount-Adapter-T2-T-Ring-For-Olympus-PEN-E-PL2-PEN-E-PL1s-PEN-E-PL1/283424369727

Cheers.

[Louis D]

Eyepiece projection doesn't generally produce very good results because very few eyepieces project a flat field, so only the central part of the image will be in focus.  Microfiche lenses reportedly did a good job.  Pentax made a small line of specialty projection eyepieces years ago (the XP line), but they are rare and expensive.

I would stick with prime focus, prime focus with a Barlow, or afocal projection.  For the first two, you'll need a 1.25" to T-thread adapter and a T-ring for your particular camera's mount.  For the afocal method, there are various adapters to try and facilitate aligning the camera with lens to the eyepiece.  However, I've found it difficult to get the large lenses of DSLRs to play nice with eyepieces.  Cameras with small lenses like smartphone cameras work much better for this method.  This adapter gets good reviews for this purpose.

[JenkoRun]

11 hours ago, Louis D said:

Eyepiece projection doesn't generally produce very good results because very few eyepieces project a flat field, so only the central part of the image will be in focus.  Microfiche lenses reportedly did a good job.  Pentax made a small line of specialty projection eyepieces years ago (the XP line), but they are rare and expensive.

I would stick with prime focus, prime focus with a Barlow, or afocal projection.  For the first two, you'll need a 1.25" to T-thread adapter and a T-ring for your particular camera's mount.  For the afocal method, there are various adapters to try and facilitate aligning the camera with lens to the eyepiece.  However, I've found it difficult to get the large lenses of DSLRs to play nice with eyepieces.  Cameras with small lenses like smartphone cameras work much better for this method.  This adapter gets good reviews for this purpose.

Hi, the problem with the Afocal method is that it's extremely difficult to get the lens close enough to remove the sides of the eyepiece from showing in the image without the risk of touching the exposed lens, and the prime method lacks the magnification needed to get in close on deep space objects (like nebula) this is why I was looking at eyepiece projection (at least that's what I've seen from looking at the moon)

The objective of doing any of these is to be able to get pictures like this with picture stacking: (Long exposure might not work due to the mount being unstable on the 130eq)

what setup would you recommend for getting results like -or close- this? Cheers.

Edited March 31, 2020 by JenkoRun

[Louis D]

I would probably consider using a Tele Vue 5x Powermate for high magnification work with the above 1.25" adapter and T-ring.

[JenkoRun]

16 minutes ago, Louis D said:

I would probably consider using a Tele Vue 5x Powermate for high magnification work with the above 1.25" adapter and T-ring.

*Whistles* that'll be the most expensive part I buy for this yet, thanks for recommending it and the advice you provided, cheers!

[Louis D]

5 minutes ago, JenkoRun said:

*Whistles* that'll be the most expensive part I buy for this yet, thanks for recommending it and the advice you provided, cheers!

Then I'd start with lower cost 2x, 3x, and 5x Barlows to learn the ropes, so to speak.

[JenkoRun]

2 minutes ago, Louis D said:

Then I'd start with lower cost 2x, 3x, and 5x Barlows to learn the ropes, so to speak.

As a trainer? I could probably find something off Ebay that I can afford for that... Provided we get a clear night sky anytime soon >.<

[Louis D]

1 minute ago, JenkoRun said:

As a trainer? I could probably find something off Ebay that I can afford for that... Provided we get a clear night sky anytime soon >.<

Yes, because you're going to find that it is difficult to get your object centered, to track it well at higher powers, and to focus it sharply, among other issues.  It's best to hone your skills at lower powers and gradually refine them to move to higher powers.

[JenkoRun]

Hi again, just need something clarified quick, if I'm using the Barlow do I still require a T-Adapter? I'm uncertain as it looks like the Barlow goes straight into the focusser on the telescope with the adapter

Camera > T-Ring > Barlow > Telescope, I'm guessing the T-Adapter would go between the Barlow and Telescope? (Completely new to this area, just making sure, thanks)

Edit: NVM, it's camera > t-ring > t-adapter > barlow > telescope, isn't it. My bad.

Edited March 31, 2020 by JenkoRun

[Louis D]

10 hours ago, JenkoRun said:

Hi again, just need something clarified quick, if I'm using the Barlow do I still require a T-Adapter? I'm uncertain as it looks like the Barlow goes straight into the focusser on the telescope with the adapter

Camera > T-Ring > Barlow > Telescope, I'm guessing the T-Adapter would go between the Barlow and Telescope? (Completely new to this area, just making sure, thanks)

Edit: NVM, it's camera > t-ring > t-adapter > barlow > telescope, isn't it. My bad.

Only if the Barlow has T-threads on the top, then you don't need the 1.25" T-adapter.  Otherwise, you need some way to attach the T-ring to the Barlow, and that's where the 1.25" T-adapter comes in.