Last night a relative visited and gave me a Canon 300D camera with an extra lens in a nice carrying case. It seems that the word has gone around amongst my clan that I was back into astronomy and they are all looking for things I might need to help my hobby along. One relative brought over a folding chair (not much good) but the thought was there.
So last night I was up and read the entire manual on the camera from cover to cover and learnt a lot. Over the next few days I will start taking terrestrial photos and get used to the camera. I realise it's not the latest, I see they have a 350D and also 400D and I would assume they are feature rich, however the camera I was given looks as if it will be a good starter camera.
Now here is the problem, I don't have a telescope yet. I have been waiting to go to a few observing nights at dark sites with different clubs so I could look through as many different scopes as possible. I do have 20x80 triplet binoculars and a very sturdy mount and over the last month have only used them twice, the weather as we all know in Sydney has been a shocker.
Firstly, is this camera good enough for me to start astrophotography? Second, what telescope or type of scope would be a good union between telescope and camera. Which mount would suit both the telescope and camera. Has anyone out there actually got a camera like this or similar, that they have actually taken astronomical photographs with and if possible could they show me a few examples so that I could see the type of image possible?
Seeing I have a couple of months before I purchase a telescope, I have the luxury of time to do a lot of reading on the subject, so which are the best links, sites, software, books, resources for learning the A-B-C's of astrophotography in a tutorial style?
Finally, nothing substitutes for experience, so can you all please give me your best tip for astrophotography, doesn't matter if it sounds quirky, it just might save me hours of frustration doping it the hard way.
Hi Tailwag...
Got your PM.
You have been given a fine camera there for starting astrophotography...
The canon cameras like the 10d, 300d ,20d etc caused a bit of excitement for astrophotographers when they first hit the market Good noise to signal etc. and then the modding started..... UV/ir filter removal etc...but thats another topic..
If you havn`t done much astrophotography I would suggest some wideangle, piggyback pics first using standard lenes and telephotos. Much easier to start that way as errors in tracking etc won`t show up..
You will need a good mount preferably a equatorial mount like a Heq5 or better ..
What sort of things would you be interested in imaging?
Cheers Gary
You can start taking astrophotos right away. I'm not sure the exact procedure for the 300D but if you have just a standard lens and tripod, or if no tripod rest the camera on books or something similar, point at the sky and give 15 seconds exposure with the lens on the widest aperture on around ISO 800. You may have to focus on a distant street light first to set focus.
When I don't have a tripod I ckock the camera lens up with playing cards to point up.
For deep sky (galaxies, comets, nebula) a fast telescope in the f4-5 range will be better than a slow f10 telescope. Planets are the opposite.
A good equatorial mount is a must, preferably with dual axis drives but as mentioned before shooting "through the scope" take some long exposure piggy back photos first to get the hang of it.
Hi Tailwag...
Got your PM. What sort of things would you be interested in imaging?
Cheers Gary
Hi, I saw a fellow take an image of the Sombrero galaxy about 7 years ago, we were on a mountain top, he had all the latest gear then and it took about 1.5 hours in total I think. He had a car battery and his computer, all the software and of course the knowledge and before my eyes that image came to life and looked extraordinary.
I would love to do something similar, (don't forget I don't have the telescope yet) but I do have the cash, but am waiting to test a few telescopes under real dark site conditions. I just downloaded RawShooter and am up to page 10 of the 71 pages of the read me which is in PDF format. I'll finish reading it tonight, I also have Photoshop somewhere on a HDD as well.
I love the way that galaxies and Nebula look in images, I feel that it extends humans because we can't see these objects nor the colours with the naked eye, that means that this field of astronomy (in my mind) goes beyond looking at single stars which at the end of the day just look like white dots of varying size against a dark background.
Perhaps I am showing my ignorance here and that is understandable because I am totally a beginner, well I haven't even take one shoot yet, so I am pre-beginner
I am willing to learn however, and it seems that reading unending volumes of technical literature is part of the deal, but that's okay with me, if that's what it takes. I suspect however as soon as I start going to the local amateur astronomy club, then to one of their regular dark site observing nights, that I will quickly hook up with other astrophotographers and then by me simply observing what they do, how they do it and by me asking questions, that eventually the whole thing will drop into place.
In the meantime I'm asking questions here (IIS) and reading as much as I can by way of background info, so that I might speed up my learning curve a good deal.
You can start taking astrophotos right away. I'm not sure the exact procedure for the 300D but if you have just a standard lens and tripod, or if no tripod rest the camera on books or something similar, point at the sky and give 15 seconds exposure with the lens on the widest aperture on around ISO 800. You may have to focus on a distant street light first to set focus.
When I don't have a tripod I ckock the camera lens up with playing cards to point up.
For deep sky (galaxies, comets, nebula) a fast telescope in the f4-5 range will be better than a slow f10 telescope. Planets are the opposite.
A good equatorial mount is a must, preferably with dual axis drives but as mentioned before shooting "through the scope" take some long exposure piggy back photos first to get the hang of it.
WOW have you made my day, it never occurred to me to use the camera in this fashion without an actual telescope, Yahoo, now I really can't wait for the retched clouds to go away and have a first shooting session. Thanks for this leg up, already I have benefited from this forum in real terms
One question, what exactly is meant by the term 'piggy back' ?
Piggyback, is when you strap your 300D and it's own lens on top of the telescope (not through it) and let the telescope mount track the stars. Without piggyback the camera will be limited to about 15 seconds exposure (less for tele lenses) before the stars trail.
For even longer piggyback exposures, a guiding eyepiece is put into the main telescope's focus tube for more accurate tracking.
When I started out I first used a 50mm lens, then a 135mm, 200mm, 400mm and so forth all piggyback until I gained the skill to finally shoot through the big scope. I have a photo somewhere. The last time I tried to find it the PC locked up so I'll post this and go look for the photo.
Piggyback means to mount your camera ontop of a telescope that is already mounted on an eq mount. This way you can guide you camera to prevent the stars from trailing.
Here is a simple formula to use to work out how long an exposure you can use and not get star trailing.
FL of lens/700= T sec for shooting near the celestial equator (declination 0)
FL of lens/1000 = T sec for shooting near the celestial poles (declination -90 or 90 deg)
So using a tripod with your camera and say your shortest focal length (FL) of your lens, 18mm (I'm assuming you have the 18-55 mm zoom lens) and shooting straight up will let you shoot for about 40 sec without trailing. Shooting at the pole will give you about 55 sec. 55sec at ISO400 and f/3.5 (I think that's the lowest f ratio for that focal length of that lens) will allow you to snap up the ol' Comet McNaught no problems, even now.
If you now switch to the 55mm you will only get 12 and 18 sec for the respective declinations.
The only photo I could find of piggyback is the wrong way around Lol. Usually the main telescope is in the main mounting rings and the camera on top. Mine is the other way, but I think it may still give you the idea. In this image I'm taking the photo with the camera and 400mm tele lens and guiding with the white telescope.
Hi again Tailwag,
The term piggyback implies just that. The camera with its own lense rides piggyback style on top of your telescope/mount which is tracking the stars. The telescope is not used in the image just a platform to track the stars..
For a good beginners scope I would go with a ED80 like one of skywatcher/orion/saxon 80mm ED scopes or a william optics 80 or 90mm APO if you have some cash saved, mounted on a Heq5 or better yet a vixen sphinx mount. There is soo many choices out there to start you off. So this is only my opinon..
Oh by the way you will need a remote/timer for your camera to do "bulb" exposures (longer than 30sec) will cost you around $50 from any camera store. Like cometcatcher says you can get some nice pics with just a standard tripod 30 seconds at a fast iso..Just focus on something on in the distance or in the twilight then switch the lense from AF to MF before shooting. (on the lense barrel.)
Cheers Gary
Thank you for your replies Ving, Garyh, cometcatcher and 1ponders, you have all been very helpful indeed. I had to slip out and go to work (yes I know, it's just something I have to do occasionally, I hope it doesn't interfere too much with my new found passion of astrophotography). Listen to me, haven't even snapped the shutter once yet and already sounding like a pro, I better get outside and start clicking soon.
Also 1ponders you were correct in your assumption that I have a 18-55 mm zoom lens, there was also a standard 50mm as well. I need to go and buy one of those cable releases, to eliminate a shaky hand. I have a terrific tripod so that not an issue.
Rather than talk about it, I'll keep an eye outside on the sky and if I see even so much as one star (unlikely) between the wall to wall cloud cover, I'll start snapping.
Of course, then it's going to be a whole new learning curve using that program called Raw Shooter which I installed earlier today, it definitely was the right price
I do have another quick question, it regards battery chargers. I already had another smaller digital Canon camera which I purchased a battery charger for and I checked today to see if the 300D battery fit, and of course it didn't.
I looked around last night on the Net and found a few chargers that would do the job, but I was wondering about this one, it seems to be able to fit lots of different batteries. Has anyone seen or used this type of charger?
Is there any possibility of uploading say two images that are similar, one with trailing and one without, so that I can see what is meant by this term?
I've got the Canon 350D and got some reasonable results of McNaught on the tripod with an ISO of 200 and an exposure of 30 sec. I didn't notice any trailing, but I was using my 50mm prime lens, so maybe not enough magnification.
I'm a bit new at this too, but I think cometcatcher means that with longer exposures on a fixed tripod (which is all I have) the camera pics up the stars as they move, giving streaks. If you can piggyback on a telescope with a drive that tracks, you should eliminate the tails and get brighter star shots...
Hope that makes sense...
(Thanks for all your posts by the way, I'm learning alot!)
I've got the Canon 350D and got some reasonable results of McNaught on the tripod with an ISO of 200 and an exposure of 30 sec. I didn't notice any trailing, but I was using my 50mm prime lens, so maybe not enough magnification.
Hi Ben, yes from all the great advice so far, I doubt that 30 seconds or less would give trails, especially in my range of between 18mm to 55mm. It doesn't look as though I will get to try the camera tonight, way too cloudy, but weather permitting tomorrow night might be okay. For now it's back to my Bird In Hand, Merlot and the remaining 50 pages of the RawShooter user manual.
If you don't have that software, go any grab it it's free
[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]I doubt that 30 seconds or less would give trails, especially in my range of between 18mm to 55mm.
At the long end of the range of 55mm you will definitely get trailing with 30 seconds.
I don't seem to have any examples on the hard drive atm and I can't get my scanner to work on this computer. I'll try and get the scanner going on another PC otherwise I'll shoot some pics tonight to show the effects. By then you may have clear skies perhaps.
Edit, this is a non trailed example of Scorpius the night before last. 15 second exposure at ISO 800 on a tripod with a Fuji Finepix 5600 set to wide.
Thanks Kevin, yes tonight (Wednesday) might be the night, at the moment (9.30 am) it is fine and sunny, so I am keeping my fingers crossed. If I do get the chance tonight, I intend to take a range of shots through 18mm to 55mm at different ISO and different time lengths, if I plan this first then carry it out correctly, I should end up with a range of different results and then I will be able to see for myself what the real differences are.
Here is a photo taken with my 300d on a cheap equatorial mount. I did the polar alingnment using time exposures thru the tracking/guide scope but did not guide the camera which was piggy backed on the guide scope..a $200 80x400. With respect look into mounts first as it is the mount that determines how far you can go in this game not the scope. I would rather a $5000 mount and a $500 scope than the other way arround.
I cant remember the settings I used but I hope this gets you excited about your camera and what you can achieve with inexpensive equipment.
If you want next time I am down I can lend you a pount so you can try it.. I have an lxd 55 that needs a handbox or what I call an old eq5.
You can do widefields using a barn door set up. Think of a book with the binding pointing at the pole and tracking the star by slowly openning the book..you can build one of these in an afternoon and start shooting that evening wiht good results. Look on the net there are many barn door mounts all made by diys.
alex
and one with a cheap $200 70/300 lens thru the 300d again unguided.
I have a mate lookinh after up home, poor devil cant read but the way he is going he will be turning this sort of thing out with a nikon d50 with no guide scope. He has built a foot for the camera so it goes on the mount without a guide scope and will polar align using only the camera.
alex
Hi Alex, I like both of your images but the second one best. I think I can just see a little trailing, not sure but it looks like that to me. I have a great mount so that won't be a problem, but of course I have nothing to follow a star with, but for the short time I intent to open the shutter, it shouldn't make a difference.
With a few hours to go before nightfall the sky is clear so keep everything crossed and I'll go outside and play and see what eventuates.
Thanks for taking the time to upload your images, they are really good given the description of what you used to get them. I am starting to think that it's not all about money, but I guess it probably doesn't hurt to have some, just in case
UV/ir filter removal etc...but thats another topic..
have you made my day, it never occurred to me to use the camera in this fashion without an actual telescope, Yahoo, now I really can't wait for the retched clouds to go away and have a first shooting session. Thanks for this leg up, already I have benefited from this forum in real terms 
![[1ponders]'s Avatar](../vbiis/customavatars/avatar45_9.gif){kind=avatar}
Great to see your so excited. 
