Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Scope Piggybacking

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
14 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 09 July 2003 - 08:30 AM

I've seen many smaller scopes mounted on top of the OTA of larger scopes. Why would I want to do this?

Is the smaller scope used as a guide scope during photography?

Are two scopes always better than one for visual observing?

I have tapped holes in my ring cage on my 6" for this purpose, but never gave it much though until now. I thought about mounting my 90mm on the back of my 6".

Thoughts, comments, suggestions, and opinions appreciated.

#2 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 09 July 2003 - 12:03 PM

Is the smaller scope used as a guide scope during photography?


BINGO! On to the next round..... ;)

I've read that a quide scope can be used with a CCD camera to autotrack; by pointing the guide-scope-with-ccd-guide-camera setup piggyback on the bigger one (which also has it's own ccd or photographic equipment) and pointing the guide-scope on a bright star (which might be off axis of the big scope) teh software auto-guides the telescope setup. Anyone owning this setup might explain you more..

Actually i've seen set-ups with with as much as 7 scopes mounted. I really don't see the use for that except direct side-by-side visual comparing or just showing off.
But maybe there's another reason for that king of set-up..somebody???

I personally use my bino as an observing aid with my scope, that's because i'm used to the views of my bino and just started out using a telescope. Maybe others do the same thing with an extra scope.

I can also image that it can help with deep-sky observing by using the star-hopping method; first use the smaller (guide) scope for the highway reference objects and then the big-gun for the small roads

Hope your skies are clearer than mine, it's been a dreadfull juni and juli over here :(

Peppe

#3 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 09 July 2003 - 05:43 PM

Thanks for the reply. The skies here are not too bad, it's the heat and humidity where I am.

Right now at 1745 local the heat index is 101F. It was 105F when I left from work. It does cool off a bit at night, but right now it's too hot to even set-up.

#4 jrcrilly

jrcrilly

    Refractor wienie no more

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 35,543
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2003

Posted 09 July 2003 - 08:31 PM

I have found that piggybacking a fast refractor on a slow SCT gives me the best of both worlds visually on DSO's. The larger SCT gets more light and more detail but the fast refractor gives a much larger FOV and prettier views of star fields.

The two scopes you describe would give very similar views so there wouldn't be much visual benefit. A short-tube 80 had be found for not much over $100 and that would be a very nice complement to your 6" F8.

#5 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 10 July 2003 - 04:15 AM

Thanks. I'll ponder that awhile.

#6 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 15 July 2003 - 06:01 PM

If the smaller scope is being used for a finderscope then you dont have to keep switching eyepieces in the larger scope either. Of course a laser sighter does a decent job too, is cheaper, and lighter. If photography is the interest then a whole new world of possibilitys exist for piggybacking then.

#7 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 15 July 2003 - 06:24 PM

Well, when I was a lot younger in my teens, I used to dream of the day I could take photos like those I saw in books.
Back then I had the camera, a Cannon TLb. Not top of the line in the mid '70's but pretty darn good for a kid of 13.
I didn't have the scope for it back then.

Now I have the scope, but no camera.

I think maybe I'll wait awhile and get maybe a short tube refractor like jrcrilly suggested.



#8 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 16 July 2003 - 01:37 AM

the camera shouldn't be a problem; they're dumped on the second hand market because of their digital brothers. Worth a look.....

But eh.... i'd go digital if i where you, less hassle...

#9 rboe

rboe

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 69,086
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2002

Posted 16 July 2003 - 09:01 AM

I've good luck with KEH.com for used cameras and acc. But if you go wet film and want to process your image you need a digital file of it. That means a scanner. Which usually means data loss unless you spring for a high end scanner at which point you would be better off putting that money into the camera straight away and working with a first generation image.

I've been wrapping my mind around this for a spell because of all the old slides I have a scanner would be nice. But some of the work being done lately involves cheap web-cams and stacking images. Very hard to do in film: At least to the scale you can accomplish with a web-cam.

You have some reasonable choices if you go digital now, just to play with it, provided you're willing to work with free/shareware software off the net and other cost cutting measures; instead of using film. I would like to get a laptop so I can break into it, but you can make a desktop work with a little brain storming.

Good Luck!

Ron

#10 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 16 July 2003 - 02:00 PM

I don't have any experience with digital cameras. They look so tiny compared to the Cannon SLR's I've had over the years. I used to think that if it didn't weigh three pounds it wasn't a "real" camera.

Is film bad, now that digital is available? I used to take some fantastic photos in my earlier day. Not of astronomical object, but portraiture, stills, etc. I got away from it as I got older and never really got back into it.

#11 rboe

rboe

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 69,086
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2002

Posted 16 July 2003 - 02:45 PM

Schultze;

My feelings exactly. My Pentax KX feels like a real camera. These digital wonders feel like toys.

However; in one of the threads here is a link to a fellow up in Scottsdale doing some wonderful work with digital. One of his cameras is a Canon EOD-1 (I think, memory is flacy today), which uses a CMOS chip. Gorgous images!

So film is not bad, just not as user friendly anymore. If you use slides there are some nice slide/film negative scanners from Nikon and others that will scan them in at very high resolution so you can still use film. From what I've read, film has a few advantages in certain situations - don't ask me when, over digital but expect to pay over $1K for a good scanner.

In the mean time we could just tape on some weight so the digital cameras feel real. :)

Ron

#12 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 17 July 2003 - 02:04 AM

Schultze, Ron

Seen any of the new Nikon SLR series lately? They're not as weighty as they used to be either; plastic is the name of the game nowadays. Guess it's not just the digital camera market.

It's just a shame that the digital "SLR's" are still so expensive...why don't they make an "amateur digital SLR"?

#13 rboe

rboe

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 69,086
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2002

Posted 17 July 2003 - 08:54 AM

Peppe;

I have noticed that with many of the newer SLR's. Must be a brass and nickle shortage. To be fair to the manufactures, the customers have pushed for lighter and lighter anything. Being a fickle bunch, we now complain that they don't make like they used to.

In many ways we're lucky they don't. I was looking into the motor drive of my KX. So many resisters and wires and junk. Surprised they didn't have tubes in there. Many of those same functions could be replaced by A chip. Of course, I couldn't solder on it, but it would replace a pound of old stuff and probably be more reliable. You just couldn't fix it your self when it did die. Like your car!

Anyone for flourite plastic? :)

Ron

#14 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 17 July 2003 - 11:47 AM

Actually I didn't think anyone made SLR film cameras anymore.

I haven't really been looking though either.

I remember the how my Cannon A-1 and AE-1 felt when you picked it up with a 70mm lens and autowinder. You knew you had something in your hands back then.

I guess I'll have to find some lead strips somewhere if I get one of these new fangled devices.

#15 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 18 July 2003 - 04:13 AM

Actually, as far as i know, the legendary Nikon F3 is still being made.... so if you like.....

Even so; altough they're made from plastic, the better amateur and professional camera's of today's main manufacturers use a type of plastic that's supposed to be tougher than their metal grand-daddy's....if that's true i don't know...

my father is a fotographer, many nikon's and lenses. had his f800 fallen down a few times (with a record of +2 meters (himself included :( )) it still works, just a few cracks

So they are lighter and tougher; guess it's just the looks you have to get used to. Guess the same goes for their digital (prof) brothers



CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics