Quote:
Originally Posted by CJ
Hi Julian.
An interesting read as I'm in the process of putting together an almost identical setup!
I think I read somewhere that you bagged an Astro Pete's EQ2 with the 1/4" bolt head. Can I ask, are you happy the single bolt is enough to hold the weight of the combined tube and DSLR securely or would you prefer something with a bit more resistance to azimuth rotation?
The reason I ask is that I'm about to butcher the other style of eq2 head that Astro Pete had and it might well go wrong!
Thanks
Chris
|
Yes, I'm using the 90mm Mak on an EQ2 mount that I got at a bargain price from Astro Pete's a few months back.
The EQ2 has a standard two-bolt arrangement on the mount itself (I think it's mainly intended for attaching a dovetail or a set of rings), but I am using the camera adapter plate which fits to the standard telescope mounting with two bolts (all of which came with the EQ2 mount and tripod). There was no need to "butcher" anything - the set-up allows either standard telescope brackets or 1/4" camera fittings to be used, just by removing / installing the camera adapter plate.
The camera adapter has a cork facing to prevent slipping / rotation of the telescope, and the telescope mounting base has an "embossed" diamond pattern on the underside, which "bites" into the cork very nicely with only moderate tension on the 1/4" screw. I am not having any problems with the telescope slipping on the mount.
I was playing with a compact digital camera on one of those universal eye-piece-adapter brackets last night, and the extra weight at the back of the scope didn't cause any problems. I haven't used it with the heavier DSLR body yet (I'm still waiting for the T-Adapter to arrive), but I think it will probably be fine. The OTA is a bit "nose-heavy" relative to the mounting point, due to the length of the projecting tube (and its thick front meniscus corrector), and the mount is located near the back of the OTA. With a T-Adapter and DSLR body, the whole set-up will probably be fairly neutral, or perhaps slightly "tail-heavy", but no worse than its "nose-heavy" configuration with only standard eyepieces.
I'll report back when the T-Adapter comes and I get a chance to try it out.