Taking pictures with a telescope...

[Corry]

My boyfriend is wanting to use his rebel to take pictures of the stars and moon, and was wanting some info on using a telescope...so what can y'all tell me?

Are there any particular telescopes that you reccomend, and do certain ones work with cameras, or do you just have to rig em?

 

[SLOShooter]

They make mounts so you can jack your camera right onto the end of the scope and shoot that way. You can also get piggy back mounts so that the camera rides on top of the scope and sees what it sees. The disadvantage to the piggy back is that your not using the scopes optics.

Is it a film rebel or a digi rebel?

 

[Skipster]

Most any telescope can be used for astrophotography. The tighter the mount, the better the pics will turn out. A telescope that tracks celestial objects works best for long exposure shots > 30seconds. Easiest thing to start with is a t-adapter (specific for your camera lense mount) and a basic camera adapter (specific for your eyepiece diameter). You then drop an eyepiece inside the basic camera adapter and thread it into the t-adapter. Then attach the whole unit to your camera. Pics of this simple set-up to follow.

Start with your camera.

You then need to purchase a t-adapter or t-ring that mounts to your camera.

You'll also need to purchase a basic camera adapter that fits your telescope. 1.25" are the most common. That is the diameter of the eyepiece.

This is a picture of the eyepiece before inserting it into the basic camera adapter. Note the rubber eyeguard is still attached.

This picture shows the eyeguard removed and the eyepiece inserted into the camera adapter.

This pic shows the t-adapter mounted to the camera and the basic camera adapter (with eyepiece inside) threaded into the t-adapter.

This is a crude picture of how it all mounts into the telescopes eyepiece holder.

Hope I've helped in some way or another.

 

[mentos_007]

Skipster! that's cool!!!!

 

[PlasticSpanner]

Are there any particular telescopes that you reccomend, and do certain ones work with cameras, or do you just have to rig em?

Is he planning on buying a telescope just for this purpose!?

The best "value" telescope would be whats called a reflector (works kinda like a mirror lens) where the eyepeice is near the end of the scope thats pointing at the stars. Get as large a diameter mirror reflector as he can afford as these will allow more light in and more detail.

And a good Equatorial mount preferably with a motor drive to track the stars automatically.

I am fortunate that my mate has the telescope and I have the camera!

 

[ferny]

http://www.google.com/search?q=digiscoping&sourceid=opera&num=50&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

[Corry]

Is he planning on buying a telescope just for this purpose!?

The best "value" telescope would be whats called a reflector (works kinda like a mirror lens) where the eyepeice is near the end of the scope thats pointing at the stars. Get as large a diameter mirror reflector as he can afford as these will allow more light in and more detail.

And a good Equatorial mount preferably with a motor drive to track the stars automatically.

I am fortunate that my mate has the telescope and I have the camera!

No, not JUST for this purpose...he wants it to just look at the stars, as well.
He has both the film and digi rebel, but will almost definatly be using only the digital. Thanks for all the help, everyone...I'll show em this thread as soon as he gets back in the house...looks like some really helpful stuff here!

 

[SLOShooter]

Digital cameras are not very good for astro-photography. They don't have very low ISO's which leads to horrible noise and since they're battery operated they run out of juice super fast, especially in the cold, which is what it is when your star gazing.

An older model, manual 35mm would serve you much better in this persuit. You need something that, if it uses a battery, only uses it for the meter, and has the ability to keep the shutter open for long periods of time. If you want to do deep sky then the time goes up into the minutes possibly 10s of minutes. If your doing the moon then a regular shutter speed will do, and the digi will probably work OK.

 

[Unimaxium]

Digital cameras are not very good for astro-photography. They don't have very low ISO's which leads to horrible noise and since they're battery operated they run out of juice super fast, especially in the cold, which is what it is when your star gazing.

An older model, manual 35mm would serve you much better in this persuit. You need something that, if it uses a battery, only uses it for the meter, and has the ability to keep the shutter open for long periods of time. If you want to do deep sky then the time goes up into the minutes possibly 10s of minutes. If your doing the moon then a regular shutter speed will do, and the digi will probably work OK.

I don't know about that. I've seen some really good work taken by Pursuer with his digital rebel in this thread. Canon even has a new camera in Japan (and soon to be in the US I believe) that is basically a 20D that's tweaked for astrophotography, called the 20Da.

 

[Skipster]

This is another good link he may want to check out.

http://scopetronix.com/

 

[PlasticSpanner]

From what I've read you should get more colour in film than digital but that may have been printed over a year ago!

It would be nice to see the results from a digital and a film aimed at the same target!

 

[SLOShooter]

I don't know about that. I've seen some really good work taken by Pursuer with his digital rebel in this thread. Canon even has a new camera in Japan (and soon to be in the US I believe) that is basically a 20D that's tweaked for astrophotography, called the 20Da.

It's certainly not impossible I just wouldn't recommend it. If your doing objects that don't require long exposures than a digital camera will be just as good as film. At least as good as it normally would be.

I'm pretty sure that if you pitted a digital vs. film in long exposures you would end up with unacceptable noise in the black regions and you'd blow through batteries at an alarming rate. If you want to go digital in the astro-photography area most people use cooled CCD's that are specifically made for astro-photography.

 

[Digital Matt]

I'm pretty sure that if you pitted a digital vs. film in long exposures you would end up with unacceptable noise in the black regions and you'd blow through batteries at an alarming rate. If you want to go digital in the astro-photography area most people use cooled CCD's that are specifically made for astro-photography.

The technique that Pursuer and others use is stacking a series of shorter exposures, say 30 seconds to 1 minute. Noise is not an issue at these exposure times, at least with Canon digital slrs.

As far as batteries, my 2 batteries in my battery grip will last me 8 hours at least. I don't think that's an issue.

 

[Mitica100]

I have a Canon AE1 rigged to go on a Meade ETX 90 Cassegrain/Schmidt telescope. It's a great beginner's telescope, comes with the computerized tracking base. If you have the money I'd go to an ETX 125, it's got more mirror surface, hence gathering more light.

If you want the telescope to watch the stars I suggest you also invest in a great eyepiece, made by Televue. They're more expensive than the Meade line but so much brighter, sharper and better! Do not go for extreme magnifications (the smaller the number the greater the magnification), especially under 8mm. Best range is between 8mm and 40mm (eyepieces).

Read a lot about telescopes before you invest in one.

 

[SLOShooter]

The technique that Pursuer and others use is stacking a series of shorter exposures, say 30 seconds to 1 minute. Noise is not an issue at these exposure times, at least with Canon digital slrs.

As far as batteries, my 2 batteries in my battery grip will last me 8 hours at least. I don't think that's an issue.

I've done that before. Except it was 1 shot red, 1 shot blue, 1 shot green with a CCD to make a composite image.

If it works, then it works.