Canon G2 & Astrophotography

[Keith_M42]

Hello, I'm an amatuer astronomy enthusiast. My dream was to get a nice telescope some day, and one day about 3 yrs ago I did. I purchased an 8" computerized telescope which is a big enough (gathers enough light) for some nice seeing. It's also small enough to be portable, which at my location is necessary. Like a lot of people, one day I held my digital camera up to the eyepiece and got a half way decent picture of the moon. It went from there, and you can see some of my efforts here:

http://www.geocities.com/keithnk_m42

I mostly use a Canon G2, but sometimes a Coolpix 4500. It was an old Kodak D260 that I first held up to the eyepiece. For those who know what it means, I use a Meade LX200 in the Alt/Az mode, which mostly means I can't take photos of more than 15 seconds duration - the G2's max "bulb" anyway.

These are a little different than the high quality high definition photos we normally strive for. Not that this isn't the goal here too, but because the objects I'm after are faint and small, I normally have to turn up the ISO to max (400), open the appeture as far as possible, and usually expose for the max (15 sec) Then to extract all that I can, I crank up the brightness and contrast as much as I dare to get everything possible there. All this means they are grainy and over processed by normal standards. - but that's what it takes to get what I have. It's been fun, and the time spent under the stars have alone been worth it.

Enjoy,

Keith

[billh101]

Very cool. I would love to see (and photograph) things in deep space like that some day. I thought about buying a little telescope recently to look at Mars, but I didn't find anything. And it's probably just as well since I'm sure I would have gotten too small of a scope anyway. Does it take an 8 inch scope to see those things? I was looking at 4-4.5 inch scopes.
Bill

[Keith_M42]

Thank you Bill! I don't feel I've gotten the best pictures possible yet of the different things I've put up, but it's fun slowly learning all the tricks on the way to obtaining the best ones possible with my G2 and scope.

Yes the 4" to 4.5" telescopes and a G series camera are not really suitable for most of the deep space objects. It wouldn't be very good for planetary either. Mostly and simply because In General more light gathering power is better. But also important is the ability to very accurately track an object over time - even for the relatively short time exposures of the 15sec max G cameras. Your eye is very forgiving of motion, but the camera remembers it all. However, I wouldn't want to discourage you from getting such a scope anyway. It's a great way to get started in astrophotography! Moon and sunspot pics are great, my Mercury picture used a 4", and anything you learn in the process is valuable. Many astro enthusiasts buy such a scope and mount it on their dedicated astro scope. Some things like the Great Andromeda Galaxy, - our neighbor and sister galaxy - need the wider angle view that a 100 mm or thereabouts gives. Besides astrophotography, such a scope is probably one of the better ways to get a great telephoto lens for your camera for all the terestrial possibilities.

Keith

[maple]

I am so impressed by the pictures!! Have always wanted to do something like that... could you perhaps give a rough indication of the price of that hugh telescope, as well as those of any additional attachments needed for my Canon D10? Thanks!!

[Keith_M42]

Hi Maple,
Sorry for my very late reply. It's been awhile since I stopped in here, so didn't notice your note 'till now. My scope and a couple extra eyepieces cost me about $2500 at the time I bought them. The good news is that today you can buy that same scope for about $500 less, and a used one for at least $1000 less. Not only that, but the new scopes today are so sophisticated that all you have to do is set them together outside, plug 'em in, and tell them to "GoTo" this or that and - bssss/whrrrrr ... beep - there you are. It's criminal how easy it is nowdays ;-). The new ones now also come standard with electric focusers and mirror locks. Both very very helpful for getting stable repeatable focus.

The camera you have is the envy of many astrophotographers. Right now there is no camera out there with the light sensativity, ability to handle wide range of contrast without blooming, and lack of noise over time exposure as the Canon D10. Only the new Rebel has that chip with it's characterisltics.

I do not have a D10, but here is what I can tell say. To hook up a D10 to a scope like a Meade LX200 (or Orion, or Celestron equivalent) you simply need an adaptor that you can get from Scopetronix.com. To get different magnifications you use focal reducers for less, and barlows for more. You can also use a technique called eyepiece projection, which uses standard viewing eyepieces to get various powers.

If you have one of those 400mm telephoto lenses for your D10, you already have a setup that can do astrophotography. The only thing you need is a tracking mechanism. I shouldn't say "only" because a good computerized tracking mount can cost $1500 and more. If you're going to take time exposure astrophotos, it doesn't pay to get anything less than a good tracking equatorial mount. With the D10 and it's ability to take long exposures at high ISO, there are a wealth of celestial objects out there that would be within reach.

Have fun. The D10 is an incredible night time camera.

Keith

[Theo]

Hello Keith,

Awesome Web Site! Well organized, very informative and Great Photography! I have just become interested in Astrophotography (see below "lunar eclipse" thread) and will be visiting your site often! Thanks for Your interest and concern in sharing your knowledge and experiences! Super Job!!

Take Care,

Ted

[karusel]

Nice. I just wish I had the money for this. I'm saving for some good lens.

[Canuck]

keith_m42 wrote:
Hello, I'm an amatuer astronomy enthusiast. My dream was to get a nice telescope some day, and one day about 3 yrs ago I did. I purchased an 8" computerized telescope which is a big enough (gathers enough light) for some nice seeing. It's also small enough to be portable, which at my location is necessary. Like a lot of people, one day I held my digital camera up to the eyepiece and got a half way decent picture of the moon. It went from there, and you can see some of my efforts here:

http://www.geocities.com/keithnk_m42

I mostly use a Canon G2, but sometimes a Coolpix 4500. It was an old Kodak D260 that I first held up to the eyepiece. For those who know what it means, I use a Meade LX200 in the Alt/Az mode, which mostly means I can't take photos of more than 15 seconds duration - the G2's max "bulb" anyway.

These are a little different than the high quality high definition photos we normally strive for. Not that this isn't the goal here too, but because the objects I'm after are faint and small, I normally have to turn up the ISO to max (400), open the appeture as far as possible, and usually expose for the max (15 sec) Then to extract all that I can, I crank up the brightness and contrast as much as I dare to get everything possible there. All this means they are grainy and over processed by normal standards. - but that's what it takes to get what I have. It's been fun, and the time spent under the stars have alone been worth it.

Enjoy,

Keith


Hi Keith,
That's way cool! I have gotten quite a few pics of the moon w/ the 10D and Sigma 120-300 F2.8 EX lens. See topic #17977 and there is my first dabbles in astrophotography. Ok, on the 10D that 300 is effectively a 480mm on 35mm camera due to 1.6x crop. That was taken as JPEG too! When I get myself situated in a different location, back in the US, I may invest in a really good telescope. I'd really like to take a crack at astrophotography. In the meantime, I'm waiting for winter to pass and in the spring, I will get together with one of my friends that has a telescope and see what we can get. I will start w/ JPEG mode as his computer can't read the *.CRW format. Although, we could install it on his laptop for giggles. I'm not bothered (don't care either way).