Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums
Privacy Policy |
Please read our Terms
of Service | Signup and
Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu.... uh, User
Jud H.
newbie
Reged: 06/26/08
Posts: 3
Loc: Texas
|
|
Hi everyone--first post here. And beginner (well I had a medium refractor telescope as a kid but...) other than with a 10x30 binoculars.
Some background. Doing more RV'ing in the country now away from city lights so I'd like to get something better than the 10x30's. I *THINK* I want: mainly WATCHING 1) moon 2) limited planets 3) deep space objects BUT I'd like to be able to do some imaging (have digital SLR but CCD ok). I first started looking at medium SCT and go-to mounts but I've about decided against that--too big and bulky and I want a casual hobby not a new career! I borrowed a friends Meade ETX90--my first view of Jupiters moons--wow. BUT I discoved I don't really like one-eyed viewing. So started looking at binoviewers--lots of focus & FOV restrictions and lots of money for good ones. Haven't ruled that out yet--I like the go-to and autotracking idea--but started looking at big binoculars instead.
Two problems though--since I'm a beginner I'm not sure what magnification I'll want and fixed binoculars are just that--and nobody here seems to care for zoom ones. And--no camera use. The binocular telescopes seem to take care of the first problem with drop in 1.25 eyepieces. Which brings me to my question which I couldn't find any reference via search (is there any way to search ALL the sub-forums at once?).
Specifically looking at Garrett Optical GT80-45, Oberwerk BT100-45, Oberwerk BT80-45.
Is it possible to use a 1.25 camera adapter and t-mount ring in one side of one of these binocular telescopes for short exposure shots (maybe using finder scope or the 2nd side as a guide scope--if not blocked)? Is anyone doing this? Using a DSLR or a CCD camera? Results? Opinions? Usefulness without a dual-drive mount?
Like I said, astro-photography is not my primary use--but it would be nice to be able to take a few shots. And wildlife shots also for that matter.
Other questions: BIG difference in price between the 80 and 100 models. Anybody want to push me one way or the other for my use? With the 45 degree eyepieces would it be better to forego the straight finder scope offered and go with either a red-dot or a RA scope?
Thanks,
Jud in Dallas TX
|
Rich N
Post Laureate
Reged: 09/22/04
Posts: 5176
Loc: San Francisco Bay Area, Calif...
|
|
Hi Jud,
Welcome to Cloudy Nights!
It sounds as if you would be better off not trying to make one instrument do everything.
Unless you are taking short exposures of bright objects, like the Moon, you should have a mount that is relatively stable and
tracks. If you are taking long exposures it is easier if you have an equatorially mounted telescope. That way you don't have field
rotation issues.
I suggest you start with a visual setup. Just relax and enjoy the views.
A good 8" or 10" Dob with digital encoders would be a nice way to see lots of objects, but with one eye.
The scope with the most bang for the buck would be a Dob with no encoders.
Binoculars are fine low to medium power instruments. If you need more power it is easier to get a good view
using a telescope. SCTs are easy to use with a binoviewer because of their long focuser travel and being relatively short
their mount doesn't have to be as beefy to keep them stable.
If you are spending a lot of time looking high overhead it is easier if you have a binocular with 90 deg angled eyepieces.
A 15x70 binocular on a parallelogram mount would be a nice, not too pricy, way to get started. Add an 8" or 10" Dob and
you could have many hours of fun observing.
Roughly how much are you considering spending?
Clear skies,
Rich
|
|
8 registered and 17 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: EdZ
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 188
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 