Astronomy Quantum Zero31: I have a 127mm f12.1 cassegrain telescope that Ive used a little bit. I DID read up on what the limiting resolution was that could be resolved, under ideal conditions, but what I would like to know is if anyone can determine what size of any area on the moon could be clearly resolved. Have a 25mm plossl, and 12, and 4 mm meades, but the 4 mm is too much mag for that sized aperture. Ideally no smaller than any 6mm eyepieces should be used for that size of scope. The 12mm equates to around 120x mag, and Ive used it, and a much older phone cam than I have now to take some moon shots, but Id love to know what aparent sized area could be resolved for this sized scope, if anyone knows Quantum Zero31: Picture Picture www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150935602263269&set=pb.716283268.-2207520000.1398777481.&type=3&theater Third link was the highest mag, from the phone cam, that I could get a clear pic with at that time........  Corwin: I've had a few home made refractor telescopes over the years... the best one was made with some juice cans, a huge lens I pulled out of a junked photo-copier machine, and an eye-piece and focus assembly pulled out of a cheap store-bought range-finder scope. I was constructing a ball-bearing tripod mount with a belt-driven reduction-drive powered by a clock-motor, to track the sky, but gave up on the project after a while... there are so much better manufacturer-built scopes out there that are fairly affordable, and I could get attachments to mount my DSLR cameras to them. But I did come to one conclusion (and also found this to be a popular opinion in articles I read in Astronomy magazine)... hobby-telescopes are wonderful for gazing at the heavens with your own eyes... but quality Astronomy Photography can get to be a very expensive hobby. And seeing how we are all photographing the same celestial objects, from the same vantage point (here on Earth), it's almost best to leave the photography to those who have more money to sink into it... you would be hard-pressed to take better amateur photos than the ones you'll see in the magazines, unless you take one serious dent out of your wallet. Taking the odd snap-shot of a moonscape is relatively easy (I have taken the odd one with my 70-300mm telephoto lens and my Canon DSLR), but shooting galaxies and nebula requires tracking the sky on clear nights, many miles away from sources of light-pollution, and combining three 45 minute (minimum) exposures taken with three separate colored filters... and combining the exposures with expensive software. So all in all... the easiest and most affordable use of a hobby telescope, is gazing at the craters of the moon in it's various phases, checking out the positions of Jupiter's four large moons (and straining to see a glimpse of the Great Red Spot), seeing a fuzzy suggestion of Saturn's rings, and looking at the featureless phases of the planet Venus. At the right time of year you may just barely make out an ice-cap on one of Mars's poles. ------------ But pertaining to your original question... (I'm more or less familiar with the type of scope you have), for taking some great snapshots of the Moon, and if you don't mind spending about $400 or $500 more.. put your eyepiece lenses aside, and purchase a camera-mounting kit. It attaches directly to the focusing assembly, and the camera itself becomes your eyepiece. Then purchase an entry-level DLSR camera (you can save money and buy the camera-body only, or spend a bit more for body & lens combo so you can use the camera as just a regular camera as well)... these have come down in price a lot lately, and you can pick one up for less than $400. With a DSLR (digital single lens reflex) the viewfinder on your camera is the same as the eye-piece, but you also have the option of looking at the image on the camera's large LED screen. You can play around with shutter-speed and ISO settings to increase brightness, and use a remote trigger (about $20) to capture your shot without touching the telescope. Unlike the eye-piece lenses, you will be restricted to only one magnification... but the telescope itself basically becomes one big-assed mo-fo telephoto lens!! And with the many megapixel resolution of the camera (an entry-level DSLR is anywhere from 12 to 15 megapixels), you will find that you can zoom in even further and crop the images on your computer, and still create some mighty fine high rez close-ups. ------------ If you do consider this, think about buying Canon... it's what I use, so I could give you detailed tutorials in PM to become familiar with the manual camera settings required. (Edited by Corwin) Quantum Zero31: Yeah!! Id LOVE a DSLR sometime!! *Pines at the thoughts of getting one!!* :\ Hopefully sometime in the not too distant future I will be able to get plenty of better equipment!! Corwin: Oh... I almost forgot to mention... these DSLR cameras have been improving so quickly over the last decade, that I'd bet you could buy a slightly older model used for just a couple of hundred bucks. (I'll look into that for you). I do know that that telescope would become a completely different animal with one of those things attached, and you'd have a blast with the Moon photos. Actually... now I feel like going telescope shopping. I could probably use it during the day too, to take extreme close-ups of owls and stuff. And don't be afraid of the camera... you can set those things to Auto as well, and use it just like any digital camera... and I can easily teach you the more advanced stuff. Quantum Zero31: Yeah, Im sure there ARE some pretty cheap good DSLRs available, and like you said, the scope would become a huge assed telephoto lens! Hmmm!! Wondering if the zoom on a digi cam would still work the same way with it mounted for prime focus???.................. Food for thought!............. Corwin: On a DSLR, the zoom function is always an optical-zoom only, and a hand-operated manual-function of the attached lens, not part of the camera-body's electronic or digital functions. (As the telescope will be the lens, you won't have a manual-zoom option, only the focus wheel.) Only cheap snapshot cameras sometimes have a function called "digital-zoom" (separate from optical-zoom), and it's not really doing anything but pre-crop the photo (you lose resolution quickly as you digitally zoom in). Even with a cheap digital camera, it's best to not use the digital zoom, and crop your photos later. (Edited by Corwin) | hobbies Chat Room Similar Conversations |