Recommendations for near object astrophotography?

[rfinn]

I'm wanting to use my Digital Rebel to take some pictures of objects such as the moon and the planets. (at least for now) So, for now I'm not interested in purchasing something like the Celestron Nextstar 8 GPS telescope... well, maybe I'm interested in it, but it's not feasible at the moment.

What lens and filters would you recommend? Would a 300mm lens be enough?

Thanks! :)

[CoolToolGuy]

I tried using a 75-300 zoom on my Digital Rebel during the lunar eclipse, and I didn't even press the shutter button. It just wasn't enough lens for me.
Have Fun

[Canuck]

Hi!
I have a 120-300mm Sigma EX lens that does really well for pics of the moon. See this link: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17348 and that will do you well. I took both pics. Remember the lens becomes effectively a 480 on the Rebel (or 10D as I have). The only problem with that is the cost of the lens, about $1900, and filters pushes into the $2200-$2300 range.
Another option, that said, I hear is the Sigma 50-500mm EX. I have not shot pics w/ it but hear it is great. Again the 500 is effectively an 800mm lens. That may not be a really bad option, and runs about $880 new, or if you can find it $680 used.

I hope this gives you a thought or two...

Cheers from England,
Canuck

[robertwgross]

I shot the solar eclipse of '91 with a 35mm film camera and 1500mm of mirror lens. That was enough to fill most of the frame. On a camera with x1.6 factor, I would say that you could get by with 1000mm to 1200mm.

Mirror lenses are slow, but for something that won't be used again for years, it was sufficient.

---Bob Gross---

[kfong]

With the moon you can get by with 300 mm. On a D30/D60/10D/D3000 a full moon will fill up a quarter of the height of the sensor.

Planets are different matter. You'll need at least 6000 mm to get a decent image. You'll definitely need a telescope, and THEN get the extra focal length using either afocal or eyepiece projection.

Ken

[robertwgross]

kfong wrote:
With the moon you can get by with 300 mm. On a D30/D60/10D/D3000 a full moon will fill up a quarter of the width of the sensor.


I give up. What is a D3000?

I'm not sure that I would want to fill up a quarter of the width of the frame if the moon was the subject. I would say maybe 3/4 for the subject.

---Bob Gross---

[kfong]

I give up. What is a D3000?


Sorry, I meant 300D.


I'm not sure that I would want to fill up a quarter of the width of the frame if the moon was the subject. I would say maybe 3/4 for the subject.

---Bob Gross---

Yeah, but it's a lot easier to blow it up in PS than dragging out the 100 lb+ 6" f/8 refractor for such an occasion.

Ken

[agit-prop]

Have you considered the nexstar 5i or the ETX105 or 125 as lower cost alternatives to the N8GPS

Or, If you don't mind not having go-to you could get a meade LX-10 or LX-50

I'm using an LX-10 myself and I can shoot lunar, planes, and DSOs

[eric1]

Agit-Prop,
hows the image quality with the LX-10? what adapter
do you use to hook it up? i'd like to take more lunar
shots, but the 75-300 i have doesn't cut it.

thanks,
eric1

[robertwgross]

kfong wrote:
Yeah, but it's a lot easier to blow it up in PS than dragging out the 100 lb+ 6" f/8 refractor for such an occasion.


"You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear."

You can't blow it up very far in Photoshop before you run out of pixels.

Besides, I had to shoot the '91 eclipse from 12,000 feet up on the side of a mountain (no road). Needless to say, I wasn't going to bring 100 pounds of *anything*. That was one of the few times when I had to make some compromises and use a 500mm mirror lens with a x3 teleconverter. Everything in the frame was pretty much at infinity, so focus was not a problem. The entire photo rig (film SLR, mirror lens, TC, another lens, tripod, solar filter, film, etc.) came to slightly under ten pounds.

Oh, and you don't need to worry about flash sync, either.

---Bob Gross---

[agit-prop]

Well, I've only just switched to a dslr so the quality question for it doesn't have an answer based on my own persoanl experience. I do have some shots of the moon I took afocally using my G1 on the LX-10 with the Scopetronics Maxview 40...

This is a mosaic I made from G1 images. The quality will only improve with the 10D

Too hook it up with a DSLR you simply need a Meade type 64 (I could be wrong... maybe it's a type 63?) T-adaptor and a T-ring for Canon EOS

The OTA on the LX-10 is identical to the LX-200 and is available with regular *or* UHTC coatings If you can afford it get the UHTC option and it improves contrast.

Tom

[kfong]

robertwgross wrote:

You can't blow it up very far in Photoshop before you run out of pixels.

Besides, I had to shoot the '91 eclipse from 12,000 feet up on the side of a mountain (no road).


The lunar diameter is ~2000", and here at sea level the "average" seeing is ~2". So I would say the happy medium is ~600 mm for a 6M pixel camera. A 300 mm with a 2X TC would be just right.

But of course at 12000' seeing would be a lesser problem than breathing :-)

Ken

btw, the ETX's should be OK for moon shot, but the mount, in particular the Azimuth clutch, is too wimpy for afocal or eyepiece projection, due to the additionally long leverage required.

[robertwgross]

kfong wrote:
But of course at 12000' seeing would be a lesser problem than breathing :-)


Backpacking up to 12,000 feet is no problem for me, but I start slowing down by 16,000 or 18,000. I've done photography up to almost 23,000. Up there, about all you can do is set the camera mode to "Green Box", since you have very few excess brain cells left functioning for technical photography.

---Bob Gross---

[GenEOS]

I have shot with my D60 and etx-125 Meade cope, 1800mm equivilent. I was not happy, because I get 3/4 of the moon in the frame, because of the smaller sensor. I have seen photos people are doing with mounting smaller digitals to the eye piece, with brackets made just for that. Do some web searching and you will find all kinds of kits. But, the highest quality vs. lowest cost fixes have come from people shooting these combos...I find focusing the scope to be the biggest problem with the t-adapter set up on the meade scopes and a digital 35mm...my 2 cents worth.

[agit-prop]

A hartman mask will assist greatly in acheiving focus