Mounting DSLR's to telescope's

[Rjhere]

I'm so close to buying a T2 mount to my Nikon D3200 DSLR, so I can mount it to my telescope for better stability. Also have the cheapest remote control I could find.

I talked to a photography shop in town, who were able to provide me a T2 adapter for 300NOK, but I found this thing on ebay which seems really interesting.

The T2 from the shop is probably just a standard adapter, but the one I found on ebay comes with an extension tube, which enables me to use eyepieces to get more zoom for my camera. Plus I have a barlow lens which came with my telescope.

The ebay adapter: http://www.ebay.com/itm/221298827353?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

Do any of you guys have any thoughts on this? (Am aware of the kinda misleading title...)

Edited March 12, 2014 by Rjhere

[chickenplucker]

I have both and I'll try to help out without rambling too much

First, you did not mention what type of telescope you currently have. Newtonian telescopes can sometimes have trouble reaching focus if the camera is mounted directly to the focuser with the T adapter, but eyepiece projection will work fine with them. Most other types of telescopes are okay to just mount the T mount directly to the focuser with no issues.

Just using a T mount, at least from what I've experienced, gives you sharper pictures. There is less glass and things to focus/worry about which seems to make things just work better.

Eyepiece projection can be touchy. I have a Meade .965 direct projection adapter I hook to my DSLR every once in a while. It seems to only work well with an 18mm eyepiece Anything lower then 10mm or higher then 20mm makes it really hard to focus, and to do that you sometimes have to adjust the eyepiece in the tube which can be a pain in the butt with that little set screw on the side. Its very, very, touchy. Also the pictures from it seem to be not as sharp as you would think they would be.

Also, check this out. Its roughly the same price as the projection tube but you would still need to buy a T mount for you Nikon: http://www.amazon.com/Celestron-93230-24mm-1-25-Eyepiece/dp/B0007UQNV8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1394872585&sr=8-1&keywords=8-24mm+zoom

Its a zoom eyepiece that you can zoom in or out by twisting it. It makes finding and zooming in on things very nice and easy since you don't have to keep swapping out your eyepieces.

But the really neat thing; that rubber cup on the end pops off, and under it is a T mount thread for your camera. This means that you can screw your camera directly onto the eyepiece and then zoom in or out by just twisting the eyepiece to help focus/zoom. I would highly recommend it over a direct projection tube just because its so much easier to use, and as an eyepiece its very nice as well.

Oh, and one last thing, Barlows! I never had any luck using one with the camera, it just made everything way to dark.

Edited March 15, 2014 by chickenplucker

[Rjhere]

Well, it's a little too late now as I bought the T2 mount with eyepiece projection. Although I regret it now when I see that sweet eyepiece with zoom and everything! Definitaly will buy that later on!

But wouldn't a way to compensate for the light loss with a barlow lense, atleast if you have DSLR camera, is to make the ISO level higher. I know this affects some quality of the picture, but rather sharpness with not so good colors, than a giant mess. As I haven't gotten any method of mounting my camera to my telescope yet, I have held it loosely up to the telescope, therefore alot of shaking and so on. I turned up the ISO level to 6400 to compensate, thus having to lower the F factor to 1/500 when I took this Jupiter pic:

My telescope is a Sky-watcher 90mm refractor, with a focal length of 910mm. It's not the best telescope, but it is a good beginner scope, although I regret not going for the 130mm Celestron newtonian scope.

Here's a moon pic during daytime, where the camera settings was ISO 3200 and F = 1/320:

A little later I took this pic with a 2x barlow together with my camera. ISO 6400 and F = 1/320:

Although it's a bit dark, I really like this photo.

Another night I took another pic with the 2x barlow. ISO 6400 and F = 1/500:

Finally I took this yesterday, although I like the pic, the moon is way to bright and out of focus. Also there are two electrical cables stretching in mid-air, which is also a bummer. Settings is ISO 800 F = 1/250:

Edited March 16, 2014 by Rjhere

[MartGonzo]

I can't help with your questions but I just wanted to say those pictures are fantastic.

especially the Jupiter pic

funny, I would have expected Jupiter to be more red.

[Rjhere]

Thank very much Mart, really appreciate it! But yes, since I have a small scope, the colors aren't quite up to reality, also the camera is at the highest ISO level, which means that colors are dimmed a little I think.

What you really want is lowest possible ISO, and highest possible F-factor. I'm not exactly sure what the ISO does, but the F-factor holds the sensor open longer than if you had a lower F-factor.

Overall, Jupiter is more colorfull, but both camera and the scope is in the way of making higher quality pictures. Also note that the pictures you see from NASA is edited to give a much stronger color than else it would, to give the public the "awe-factor" they want.

[chickenplucker]

Those are some really nice pictures Rjhere! I think you will have no trouble at all mastering that projection adapter

ISO is basically exactly what you described, increased light sensitivity at the cost of more "noise" in the the image. In film cameras ISO numbers would have been the speed of film you put in the camera. Faster film had more grain but short exposures, and slower film needed longer exposures but had less grain.

Going back to the barlow, basically think of it as multiplying your F-stops. I think your scope is normally F/10. Adding the 3x barlow turns it into an F/30, which means you may need to increase the exposure time with the ISO setting to keep up. But there is only one way to find out, just keep playing with settings and see what works for you and what doesn't. Have fun

[Rjhere]

Yes, I'm aware that barlows dim the light a little bit, which means longer exposures are required. Although these pictures are of very bright celestial objects, which means exposure times doesn't need to be that high. I mean the exposure time on some pictures are so small that it doesn't matter. To us it's an instant.

Although the reason I have these high ISO levels and short exposures are since I haven't got a mount for my camera to mount to the telescope, to take these pictures I held my camera up to the telescope, thus shaking alot. When I do get the mount, longer exposures will be in order. Maybe even nebulae pics as I saw someone take a 1 sec exposure with an iPhone through a 8" telescope. You could clearly see the nebulae, and even some color on it.

Although I just have an 90mm scope, I don't think much more exposure is required to be able to see that there is a nebulae there, but I don't expect these beautifull colors and such, those are the results of hundreds, maybe even thousands of hours of exposure.