Telescope for Moon photography.

[Michael_Lambert]

Hey Guys,

As the title says. I am not all that into astro photography however i do enjoy going out and shooting the moon.

I have had success using my 70-200 2.8 with TC however i want more detail and want to get closer. Have found my sigma 50-500 to be alittle soft.

What am i looking at in terms of a scope? Can someone give some suggestions of what would be required again primary use would be the Moon anything beyond that would be gravy!

Not looking to cheap out but also not looking to break the bank was hoping there was something in the 3-5 hundred range?

Again any suggestions would be great.

thanks

[Bernoulli]

Michael -

I've been photographing the moon for almost two decades through a variety of scopes and I'd be glad to give you my two cents worth of advice.

You have a basic binary decision to make first: low mag or high mag. Low mag means having more than about 1/4 of the disk in the frame to give either the whole disk or regional views and high mag means getting those extreme closeups of craters and rills and mountains. They require totally different approaches and I'm guessing you want low mag. That's what almost all the shots on this forum are because they are much more suited to digital SLRs than high mag. If you do the high mag thing, you use smaller pixel count CCD's looking through an eyepiece and stack lots of images to nullify atmospheric turbulence. For low mag, you put the camera at prime focus just like you would for deep sky photography and you won't be at high enough magnification for turbulence to be much of an issue.

Assuming low mag, the moon will fit neatly into the frame at about 2000 mm for a full-frame format and about 1400 mm for a 1.6 crop frame (like my 50D). You don't need much aperture since the target is bright, 4 inches at least and there isn't much return going above about 6 inches.

Regular Cassegrains tend to scatter light a bit much for my taste. Newtonians need to have a low profile focuser so you can get into focus.

You'll get your best, crispest shots through either a refractor or, what I use, a Maksutov-Cassegrain. I chose the reflective optics since it has no color abberation. If money were no object, I'd use a apochromatic 4 inch refractor like this:

http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=refractors/~pcategory=telescopes/~product_id=09975

Longer focal lengths in refractors decrease color abberation so don't go with those real short wide field refractors unless they have the expensive fluorite glass.

But through a process of elimination, I think your best bet is a Maksutov-Cassegrain. Here's my setup:

http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=cassegrains/~pcategory=telescopes/~product_id=09968

Or you can look at just the tube if you have your own mount:

http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=cassegrains/~pcategory=telescopes/~product_id=09967

At 1800 mm focal length, the entire disk will not fit at full moon, so I take 2 or 3 shots and stitch them together with Photoshop's Automerge function. You can't find the seam.

At $620 that's still a little pricy so maybe go to the next smaller tube:

http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=cassegrains/~pcategory=telescopes/~product_id=09825

I have this one too and the moon fits almost perfectly. At full moon it'll chop off just a small amount. It's a light compact design. Since I got the 150 mm I mainly use this one for terrestrial viewing and birding.

There are even smaller tubes like this 4 inch model that would also do very well and is relatively inexpensive.

http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=cassegrains/~pcategory=telescopes/~product_id=09823

You can put this on a light mount and, at low magnification, don't even need a guide motor for short exposures. You'll be using 1/10 to 1/100 second for most of these scopes.

I hope that helps. It's been a very rewarding hobby for me over the years and I've enjoyed the equipment aspects of it a lot. I've put lots of moon pictures in this forum that came out of my Maksutov. If I ever win the lottery I'll get a highi-end refractor, but I think a small Mak is the most bang for your buck.

[slitherjef]

The bad thing about the Mak is the focal number... my little ETX90 is f/13.7! But like a SCT, you can get a focal reducer that will give you a wider FOV and even "open" your f/number up say to like f/10 for example.

Oh, and Orion Telescopes is a great place to deal with

[Bernoulli]

But that's exactly why I DO like the Mak, the high focal length.

It would never do for deep sky photography because the field of view is too narrow, but high f ratio in a telescope reduces stray light, reduces the effect of optical imperfections in the glass and mirrors, and reduces the effect of poor collimation. They are really specialized scopes for lunar and planetary.

The 4 inch Mak would be usable on a light tripod w/o a motor for lunar and would, during the day, work well for wildlife photography.

[slitherjef]

But that's exactly why I DO like the Mak, the high focal length.

It would never do for deep sky photography because the field of view is too narrow, but high f ratio in a telescope reduces stray light, reduces the effect of optical imperfections in the glass and mirrors, and reduces the effect of poor collimation. They are really specialized scopes for lunar and planetary.

The 4 inch Mak would be usable on a light tripod w/o a motor for lunar and would, during the day, work well for wildlife photography.

I agree, you can't beat a Mak or SCT if you wanna get close :) They give some real crisp images too.

[tkbslc]

I am sure this is an idiot question, but how would you hook it to your camera?

[slitherjef]

I am sure this is an idiot question, but how would you hook it to your camera?

t-ring and adapter, depending on scope it depends on your adapter. My ETX needed a special adapter and it screws to the back of the scope and the t-ring screws to that. My refractor, I just use a t-ring and had to order a 2" nose piece that has a thread that I screw the t-ring to

[Bernoulli]

I am sure this is an idiot question, but how would you hook it to your camera?

Not an idiot question at all. What slitherjef has works great, I have a different fixture. I took a T-adapter and added a simple eyepiece-sized tube to it so that it slips directly into where the eyepiece would go. That way I can quickly go from eyepiece to camera without having to unscrew the eyepiece holder from the scope and screw on an adapter. Also, not all scopes have the same eyepiece holder on the back and you might need different adapters. My beloved Maks are that way.

The downside - make sure that thing is in there tight!

If anyone wants to know where to get the parts, I can tell you what to order from Orion. Also like slitherjef says, they are great to deal with.

[Michael_Lambert]

I am trying to buy locally, In order to have the local support using the telescope and to join there clubs.

The local store to us has recommended this..

http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=cassegrains/~pcategory=telescopes/~product_id=09821

[Bernoulli]

That'll work great. I have that mount. Together you'll be able to carry it with one hand out onto the porch. Plenty of focal length. I think the scope has a regular thread connector on the bottom also so you can also use it on a regular tripod.

Let us know how it works out.

[Michael_Lambert]

Yea i was reading on it, and they say you can take it off the astro mount and mount it to a regular tripod for using on terrestrial.

However it does say it comes with a 25X eyepiece? Now the unit will give me the 1250mm with the camera attached right? The eye piece stuff is only for the viewing?

[Adrena1in]

The eye piece stuff is only for the viewing?

Generally, unless you want to get into the realms of even more magnification, where you start putting eyepieces inbetween the telescope and the camera. This is called "lens-projection", but does degrade the quality somewhat. Plus you would need a special camera adapter which lets you put an eyepiece in it.

[Bernoulli]

You can see some results from Celestron and myself of lens-projection (or "eyepiece-projection") at this other thread:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=627144

I would start with the low mag prime focus technique and work your way up to this.

[slitherjef]

I did notice the mount does not offer tracking, that means in order to keep the target in the FOV you will need to cordinate your self and think ahead a little bit. Its not too bad, because the moon is pretty bright until its around new moon, but during that time you don't really see it unless you are on your way to work that early.

What you would do is, aim the scope at the moon and focus, and while you are focusing, you may have to tweak the controls so the moon stays where you want it. Once you get focus, you need to get your settings ready on camera, set your timer, ISO, shutter speed and so on. Once you get that, and I recomend the self timer and perhaps mirror lockup as well is move the telescope just slighly ahead of the moon and start the timer. A remote switch should be useful as well

Its not bad doing it this way, but at 1250mm even the slightest touch will send things vibrating. Not trying to scare you off or anything :)
Just wanted to let you know what to expect. If you can do a mount with tracking, it will make things even easier and will open up the rest of the sky for you as well (depending on tracking and how big your FOV is)

[Bernoulli]

Slitherjef is right about this mount not having tracking. I own the same mount (an EQ-1). Just get this little gizmo:

http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=drives_controllers/~product_id=07826

You can add this on in just a few minutes and it'll track the moon, or anything else, as the world turns. This does not have the precision to do guided long-exposure astrophotography through a telescope, but it'll do great at keeping the moon in your FOV.

The moon takes two minutes to move its diameter but it's still a pain to have to keep up with it manually.

And, as a bonus, you can take the telescope off the mount, replace it with your camera with a wide lens, and do some cool long exposures of the sky. It'll work great for constellation-sized things and the milky way.

To answer your other question, yes this is really a 1250 mm prime focus lens. Just connect your body to the scope with no lens on the camera or eyepiece on the telescope and you're ready for the moon, maybe Jupiter, and the nose hairs on nearby animals.

[Michael_Lambert]

OKay,.

So i was into the store today and we where talking and stuff and mentioned another scope that he can bring in for me for less and it has a better mount?

What do you guys think of this one? He said its the same as the orion however a little better, better mount and 1300mm instead of the 1250.

what do you think?

http://www.skywatchertelescope.net/swtinc/product.php?id=82&class1=1&class2=108

[Michael_Lambert]

Alright and i just got call saying i can get this one for the same price as the above however it does nto come with the mount... When he found out i am in to photography he said i would be just as suited to use my photography tripods... So instead of putting the money into the Eq2 mount i would put it into the better optics and pick up a motorized mount later on if i get more hard core into it.

this is what they have now suggested.

http://www.skywatchertelescope.net/swtinc/product.php?id=83&class1=1&class2=108

[Michael_Lambert]

Posted the wrong model link.. Aparently the model they are suggesting is not online or too new they can't find info.

But its called the Sky Watcher Black Diamond 127.. Apparently its a 127mm diameter? F12 and has a focal of 1500mm

[slitherjef]

Alright and i just got call saying i can get this one for the same price as the above however it does nto come with the mount... When he found out i am in to photography he said i would be just as suited to use my photography tripods... So instead of putting the money into the Eq2 mount i would put it into the better optics and pick up a motorized mount later on if i get more hard core into it.

this is what they have now suggested.

http://www.skywatchertelescope.net/swtinc/product.php?id=83&class1=1&class2=108

Wrong advice if you ask me. I personaly would go for a better mount then "upgraded" optics. 1200mm is a LOT of focal length, I have a dob that has a 1200mm focal length, the tube is nearly 4 feet long and thats a strait shot. A SCT or MAK takes the same focal length and folds it so it fits into a compact tube.

At 1200mm any movement will be seen as shaking. Even short exposures can be blurred at that high focal length unless the mount is ROCK SOLID. If you skimp on a mount, I hate to say this, but it is true, you may not get good pictures. I would dump more money into a mount then a telescope. With SCT or MAK telescopes, the optics are good. Focal length is not everything. At 1250mm the full moon just barely fits into the FOV of my 30D.

I would really suggest something such as meade LXD75 (which has go to and all kinds of stuff you can expand too later) or a Celestron ASGT and if you don't mind used I know a good place to get used astro gear from I also have a couple other links I can direct you to, just send me a PM if you want them.

Astrophotography is not cheap and if you ever want to photograph deep sky objects, nebula, star clusters and so on it gets even more expensive. Why buy twice?

Get something you can grow into (and believe me, it is addictive and the only reason I am not out right now aside from the cloud cover is I am looking for a new mount and thus need to save some cash)

If the image is not stable even for a quick moon shot, then you will not get good photos.

My advice, Good mount with tracking (you can always look through the scope too)
Then a telescope.

Hope this helps

[Bernoulli]

I did a little comparing between the ones in the Orion catalog and the Sky Watcher scopes and it looks like they are exactly the same thing. They seem to have the same specs. That's not a surprise, they are all probably made by the same Chinese company. I have the 127 myself. It's a great scope but is a bit large to handle without being on a good mount.

I wouldn't go any bigger than the 102 mm scope without getting more mount than you might want to pay for. Maybe go for the 102 with an EQ-2 mount and the inexpensive motor drive. That would be a great moon scope.

This is not the scope for deep sky, you need lots more aperture and a super-steady mount, but I think you said you were really only interested in the moon for this.

Your moon (and wildlife) exposures are going to be a small fraction of a second. Even without a motorized mount, the moon won't move enough to matter. Focus with LiveView, leave the mirror up in LiveView, use the 10 second timer, and get the heck away from the mount during countdown. Unless it's very windy, the 102 mm + EQ2 mount will be plenty steady.

[Michael_Lambert]

I have a huge tripod coming for it :D

Its a speaker stand ( tripod ) if you want to call it that and we filled the inside tube with cement and put a thread in so that we could thread on a big ball end.. We decided to make it when the tripods we had would not support my Mark3 and the 50-500..

This thing will be rock solid.. the dam tripod weights almost 10 pounds alone :)

Keep in mind i am only looking to use this scope for shooting the moon from my back yard, i am really not into the astro stuff.. but getting annoyed with the soft images from the 50-500 and the 2X converter..

And yes its the exact something as the orion, just re branded and black and white instead. and it would normally come with a EQ2 mount but it was said to use my photography mount for now get the better optics until i have a need for shooting anything but the moon then we will look into a computerized auto mount for it.

[Bernoulli]

Hey Micheal - I just PM'ed you.