Does anybody know about the meade 1.25 telescope camera adapter? What use of magification does it use? Does it use no magnification and rely on the telescopes focal length? Can you put eyepieces or barlow's in it? Has anybody got images taken with it?
I'm interested in buying something to image the moon for my cameras until I can get a EQ6 and do DSO's
1. You can screw the collar and silver bit off the end and screw the silver/collar bit straight into the T adapter for your type of camera and put that into the telescope or barlow
2. You can screw the whole lot into the T adapter of the camera and insert that into the telescope or barlow
3. You can pop a 20 or 15 mm eyepiece down inside (after removing the silver bit and collar) and screw the open end into your T adapter and the other end onto the T thread of a refractor or sct (if you have the correct adapter for that end) Using the eyepiece will give you mucho mucho magnification.
The following two images were taken with a 1000mm refractor. First one is prime focus (as in point 1. above) and the second is positive projection as in 3.
Both were taken with film so if you are using a DSLR then you will get slightly more magnification
That's right. I also find setup 3. handy doing planetary imagining rather than using a barlow or powermate. Because it is variable you can adjust the setup to suit the night. It's a bit more mucking around than a barlow or powermate, but it's just a matter of practice.
That's right. I also find setup 3. handy doing planetary imagining rather than using a barlow or powermate. Because it is variable you can adjust the setup to suit the night. It's a bit more mucking around than a barlow or powermate, but it's just a matter of practice.
I'd say taking a bunch of pictures with a DSLR would outperform a cheap to mid range CCD cam (of course I doubt the $5000 CCD imagers would be outperformed XD). But then again, I don't know...I havn't been around astronomy or astrophotography very long. All planetary images look soft and grainy...
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but there is no way that a DSLR will outperform a webcam for imaging the planets. Even a cheap one. It just isn't going to happen. This is why webcam imaging has become all the rage for the moon, sun and planets. Very few other systems for ground based planetary imagery come even close unless you want to spend mega buck on adpative optics and very sophisticated imagers, with not much improvement.
Have a look at birds or icemans latest Jupiters you might change your mind about cheap to mid range CCD. And do a check of last years Jupiters that iceman was doing with a $170 Toucam. I don't think I would be far off saying that these guys are up there with the best in the world when it comes to imaging Jupiter.
These are birds latest attempts with a "webcam". Admittedly probably a grands + worth, but it way better than any SBIG could do. DSO and Planetary imaging are two totally different games requiring very different camera, software and processing.
If you can get hold of them have a read of Digital Astrophotography: The State of the Art, or Introduction to Webcam Astrophotography. They are two of the better books getting around at the moment, especially the second one.
btw that setup in your link might be great for deepsky stuff if it was on a tracking mount, but you can forget it for planetary. It just won't cut it I'm afraid.
Yes I've seen their pictures and they are very very good, but I don't see how something like a Toucam could outperform a DSLR in noise control and clarity. Take a Canon 1D Mark IIn, put it on ISO800, and you have very clean no-noise images at what, 8.2mp 3504x2336 images at 8.5FPS? Or even a new Canon 1D Mark III with 10mp at 10FPS with Digic III.
I just don't see how anything like a Toucam could beat out something like that, the sensors would be much higher quality.
I mean, this is Saturn just two frames from my DSLR at 100%, ISO1600 HAND HELD through my crappy Meade NGC60-TC with a 25mm eyepiece, I wouldn't say that's too bad for a DSLR, with only two frames.
This is where the webcams leave the DSLRs for dead. You aren't stacking 3 or 4 images you are stacking 3 or 4 hundred images, often in each colour channel. Stacking multiple images reduces noise increadibly.
Your noise will reduce by the square root of the numer of frames you are stacking. So if you stack 2 frames noise will be reduced by the square root of 2. If you stack 100 frames your noise will be reduced by 10. If you stack 1000 frames you noise will be reduced by 33.3. This is why webcams have it over DSLRs. It's not the quality of the chip that counts in this case (though it is important) it's the number of images you stack.
Also if you have a large chip you will get a correspondingly small image compared to a small chip, for a given pixel size.
Ok compare the close up moon shot above which was taken with a 35mm camera and then scanned in and then this closeup using a webcam plus these two widefields, one with DSLR at similar magnifiation (slighly less but not by much) but with nowhere near the clarity.
Ok compare the close up moon shot above which was taken with a 35mm camera and then scanned in and then this closeup using a webcam plus these two widefields, one with DSLR at similar magnifiation (slighly less but not by much) but with nowhere near the clarity.
So which are which? I don't understand which ones are from the 35mm and which are from the CCD.
The first two I posted way up the top are from 35mm slide film as is the last one down the bottom. The first two down the bottom are from a ToUcam webcam
![[1ponders]'s Avatar](../vbiis/customavatars/avatar45_9.gif){kind=avatar}
I don't think I would be far off saying that these guys are up there with the best in the world when it comes to imaging Jupiter.
