Digital eyepiece

[Sierra Golf Mike]

I'm seeing digital eyepieces on ebay for about £60 where you can hook it up to a laptop for group viewing, take still shots and videos. I think I know the answer but I have to ask, are they any good?

Cheers

Steve

[CGolder]

i am not sure on these cams as i have not seen them? does it say you can see deep sky objects or just bright ones like moons and planets? if its moons and planets you will probably be better off with a £10 webcam from morgans. I also have a meade digital eye piece... never used it but it will still again only be decent for planets and moon (although prob just the moon)

[E621Keith]

I don't know about most digital eyepieces, but there is one on ebay that looks suspiciously similar to the old Meade LPI.

The Meade LPI does a decent job for imaging planets, but performs poorly on DSO. If you just want to image moon and planets, it can be a good alternative to hacking a webcam.

However, if the software is anything like the Meade Autostar suite, then I think it would be rather poor for enhancing your visual experience. In most cases you'll just get blurred images.

When I was using my 120mm refractor with budget Kellner eyepieces, I consistently got better view (sharper, better contrast, brighter) than the LPI. I think this has something to do with the outrageous amount of processing power of our brain, and our eye's ability to correct for minor focus error.

If you are getting it to enhance your viewing experience, I'd say don't bother. However if you want to do some lunar, planetary imaging, I'd say give it a go.

[Cornelius Varley]

I don't know about most digital eyepieces, but there is one on ebay that looks suspiciously similar to the old Meade LPI.

The Meade LPI does a decent job for imaging planets, but performs poorly on DSO. If you just want to image moon and planets, it can be a good alternative to hacking a webcam.

However, if the software is anything like the Meade Autostar suite, then I think it would be rather poor for enhancing your visual experience. In most cases you'll just get blurred images.

When I was using my 120mm refractor with budget Kellner eyepieces, I consistently got better view (sharper, better contrast, brighter) than the LPI. I think this has something to do with the outrageous amount of processing power of our brain, and our eye's ability to correct for minor focus error.

If you are getting it to enhance your viewing experience, I'd say don't bother. However if you want to do some lunar, planetary imaging, I'd say give it a go.

At first glance it does look like a Meade LPI. But if you compare the specifications of the LPI and the one on Ebay you will see that they only share a similar looking case. The LPI has a sensor with a pixel size of about 8 microns which gives it a sensor size of 5.18mm x 3.9mm. The ebay camera has a sensor with a pixel size of 5.4 microns, sensor size 3.46mm x 2.59mm. The big pixel size of the LPI means that you need to shoot at higher focal lengths than cameras with smaller pixels to get a good arc*sec/pixel value.

Peter

[Sierra Golf Mike]

Thanks guys, I might just hold back and try some basic imaging with my camera before venturing into digital eyepieces. I have a lot to learn so one step at a time I think.

Cheers

Steve

[Macavity]

I think it's a terminology thing. Digital eyepieces are [iMO] more of the following ilk:

Astro video cameras - Watec 120n - Mintron @ Modern Astronomy

They are, in essence, high-sensitivity, low-light security / video cameras. They (e.g. the Watec) provide nice LIVE views of many faint-ish objects - open / globular clusters... even galaxies, with quite modest scopes. The image can be stored / processed too. A viable and FINE(!) alternative to "hardcore" imaging. Worthwhile, but still a significant expensive for us mere mortals. But then, you may eventually be tempted...