What detail of M42 can I expect to get with this setup?

[JohnJ]

Hi all, Im really new to this, ordered my scope and camera adapters but awaiting delivery (see my sig for specs). My question is; after some practice in technique and software editing/stacking experience what sort of realistic results can I expect when imaging Orion Nebula (M42)?*

Will I get rich purple colours/tones? With reasonable detail? Or is my equipment just not up to the task? A lot of posts talk about the mount dictating the images and that my 'AZ' won't cut it.*

I'd like to think I could get some halfway decent images considering the impressive results I've seen from gazers without a scope using a non modified DSLR.

Any help advice be great.

[themos]

It will be a frustrating and unrewarding experience. Get a cheap webcam instead and image planets, lunar craters, sunspots, double stars and star clusters instead.

[jgs001]

the focal length of the scope is going to cause you problems. M42 is too big to fit, and I think you'd really struggle with the tracking.

if you were to mount an SLR with a reasonable telephoto lens directly to the mount you should be able to get a reasonable result..

This was shot with an ST80 mounted on a NexStar SLT tracked in AltAz

it's far redder than an unmodded SLR would normally give as I was using a filter that removes a lot of blue... This was 47 frames of mixed exposure length at ISO1600 with a 450d.

In AZ your max exposure time, low in the east and west is about 2 minutes, the drive mechanism may well struggle to achieve that, however, and at 2 minutes I was losing 50% of my subs.

However, as Themos said, it's ultimately a frustrating experience as you cannot get the long exposures...

[JohnJ]

OK thanks for the info, it seems strange to me how people without a telescope using DSLR on tripod are getting semi-decent images. However, if I use my scope which magnifies at 300x and has an auto mount (although not great) and a 40mm eye piece with camera adapter (note camera has 18x) will not give me decent results? I'm confused. Lol.

[jgs001]

an SLR on a tripod is very limited in what you can do, but if you push the settings you can get something out of it. The issue here, you have a long focal length scope, which means that the tracking accuracy tolerances are far tighter, a fairly heavy scope (relative to the mount) which again causes tracking inconsistencies (you'll be surprised how little a variation on weight on the little mounts like this affect deep sky). And trying to use afocal, which introduces a lot more glass etc into the optical train.

Try putting the FZ28 on a camera tripod and see what you get. See if you can mount the camera directly to the mount or piggy back it on the scope, it'll make a big difference.

afocal, you should be able to get some good results of the moon and possibly the planets (although I was never able to get afocal to work for me). As Themos said, http://www.morgancomputers.co.uk/shop/detail.asp?ProductID=6313&CategoryID=452&SubCategoryID=522 will do a good job on the moon and planets.

[Space Cowboy]

Sorry to be blunt but you are completely barking up the wrong tree trying to mount an 18x zoom camera on that setup. I too have a skymax 127 az mount and tried mounting an 18x zoom camera on it....its far too heavy for the mount which wont track properly and totally wrong for deep sky. Planets need lots of magnification not deep sky. The Skymax 127 is a Planetary scope perfect for using a webcam.

[themos]

OK thanks for the info, it seems strange to me how people without a telescope using DSLR on tripod are getting semi-decent images. However, if I use my scope which magnifies at 300x and has an auto mount (although not great) and a 40mm eye piece with camera adapter (note camera has 18x) will not give me decent results? I'm confused. Lol.

Just because these objects are faint does not mean that they are small (in apparent size). Beginners almost always overestimate the importance of magnification, I know I did! Have a look at this image

http://stargazerslounge.com/imaging-widefield-special-events-comets/111727-rho-oph.html

This is just with a telephoto lens and a light-weight, portable equatorial mount. The field of view is about half-a-thumb at arm's length, much larger than a full moon. This lens does about half the "magnification" of the smallest telescope.

[JohnJ]

Sorry to be blunt but you are completely barking up the wrong tree trying to mount an 18x zoom camera on that setup. I too have a skymax 127 az mount and tried mounting an 18x zoom camera on it....its far too heavy for the mount which wont track properly and totally wrong for deep sky. Planets need lots of magnification not deep sky. The Skymax 127 is a Planetary scope perfect for using a webcam.

Thanks for the info, keeping me right. These are the types of things I need to know.