Digital Camera for Astrophotography

I am in the market for a digital camera, and would like to determine
what I would need to be able to get into astro-photography, as a hobby.
I need the camera for other purposes, and would like to get one that
can grow into this hobby as well.

I would eventually like to take pictures of various objects, like planets,
galaxys, nebulae, etc.

I understand that I can piggy-back a camera on my telescope tube, but
to be able to take advantage of the telescope's magnification, I need
an SLR camera. I would think that I also need features like long
exposure times, and the ability for the camera to mount to the
telescope (using a T-ring adapter?).

Can anyone provide some suggestions on what camera I can use for
this? I'm expecting to need to spend around $1000US, but am interested
in hearing what others think.

Thanks for any insights,

In message , Mark Hansen
writes
I am in the market for a digital camera, and would like to determine
what I would need to be able to get into astro-photography, as a hobby.
I need the camera for other purposes, and would like to get one that
can grow into this hobby as well.

I would eventually like to take pictures of various objects, like planets,
galaxys, nebulae, etc.

I understand that I can piggy-back a camera on my telescope tube, but
to be able to take advantage of the telescope's magnification, I need
an SLR camera. I would think that I also need features like long
exposure times, and the ability for the camera to mount to the
telescope (using a T-ring adapter?).

Can anyone provide some suggestions on what camera I can use for
this? I'm expecting to need to spend around $1000US, but am interested
in hearing what others think.

$1000 will get you a top-of-the-line camera; you can probably spend half
that and put the money towards gadgets - spare memory cards, spare
batteries, etc. You want a camera that can do long exposures, and even
then noise is going to be a problem - you will need to add together a
lot of 30 second exposures to capture a galaxy, for instance.
Unless you buy a digital SLR with interchangeable lenses you won't use a
T-ring - you need one of the rings that screws into the filter thread
and grips the eyepiece (Scopetronix). There are also adapters that screw
into the camera tripod bush.
You don't really need an SLR because the camera will have an LCD screen
that acts as a finder and also replays the image.
I haven't seen many of the sort of pictures people take with a normal
film camera piggybacked on a telescope - perhaps the short exposures
mean the results aren't very good. You'd need to "stack" images again.
I hesitate to recommend brands - for one thing a camera is an extremely
personal item IMO and I think you need to pick it up, hold it, and see
if you like it!
--
Save the Hubble Space Telescope!
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

On 5/21/2004 09:55, Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

In message , Mark Hansen
writes
I am in the market for a digital camera, and would like to determine
what I would need to be able to get into astro-photography, as a hobby.
I need the camera for other purposes, and would like to get one that
can grow into this hobby as well.

I would eventually like to take pictures of various objects, like planets,
galaxys, nebulae, etc.

I understand that I can piggy-back a camera on my telescope tube, but
to be able to take advantage of the telescope's magnification, I need
an SLR camera. I would think that I also need features like long
exposure times, and the ability for the camera to mount to the
telescope (using a T-ring adapter?).

Can anyone provide some suggestions on what camera I can use for
this? I'm expecting to need to spend around $1000US, but am interested
in hearing what others think.

$1000 will get you a top-of-the-line camera; you can probably spend half
that and put the money towards gadgets - spare memory cards, spare
batteries, etc. You want a camera that can do long exposures, and even
then noise is going to be a problem - you will need to add together a
lot of 30 second exposures to capture a galaxy, for instance.
Unless you buy a digital SLR with interchangeable lenses you won't use a
T-ring - you need one of the rings that screws into the filter thread
and grips the eyepiece (Scopetronix). There are also adapters that screw
into the camera tripod bush.
You don't really need an SLR because the camera will have an LCD screen
that acts as a finder and also replays the image.

I thought I would need SLR so the camera would be able to use the magnification
power of the telescope. If the camera is not SLR, then won't it just
be piggy-backed on the telescope tube, taking the picture through its
own lens?

Am I wrong in thinking that I want to take my picture through the
telescope, rather than using the telescope simply as a guide scope?

Another question: If I use a camera that adapts to the focuser on the
telescope (via T-ring?), how does one adjust the magnification? It seems
to me that the camera is placed in the focuser assembly in place of
an eye piece, and the camera's lens is also not used.

Thanks for the help!

I haven't seen many of the sort of pictures people take with a normal
film camera piggybacked on a telescope - perhaps the short exposures
mean the results aren't very good. You'd need to "stack" images again.
I hesitate to recommend brands - for one thing a camera is an extremely
personal item IMO and I think you need to pick it up, hold it, and see
if you like it!

In article ,
Mark Hansen wrote:
On 5/21/2004 09:55, Jonathan Silverlight wrote:


I thought I would need SLR so the camera would be able to use the
magnification power of the telescope. If the camera is not SLR, then
won't it just be piggy-backed on the telescope tube, taking the picture
through its own lens?

Depending on the scope, the magnification in prime focus can be enormous
and the ccd - the device that records the light - is very small in digital
cameras. Eyepiece projection seems to be the best way.

I had an old digital camera and I took the lens out so that I could project
directly onto the ccd. It was nearly impossible to focus and I always got a
fuzzy image.

Jochen

--

------------------------------------
If you like to learn about the Roe Valley
and some of its history, try:
http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com

In message , Mark Hansen
writes

I thought I would need SLR so the camera would be able to use the magnification
power of the telescope. If the camera is not SLR, then won't it just
be piggy-backed on the telescope tube, taking the picture through its
own lens?

Am I wrong in thinking that I want to take my picture through the
telescope, rather than using the telescope simply as a guide scope?

Another question: If I use a camera that adapts to the focuser on the
telescope (via T-ring?), how does one adjust the magnification? It seems
to me that the camera is placed in the focuser assembly in place of
an eye piece, and the camera's lens is also not used.

Unless you buy a digital SLR it will have a fixed lens, and you will be
taking the picture using both the eyepiece and the camera lens. It's
called the afocal method, though that may not be strictly correct. You
then have a lot of control of magnification because you can both change
eyepieces and use the zoom on your camera.

If you want to see some amazing pictures, look at Johannes Schedler's
site at http://panther-observatory.com/. He's the person who inspired
me to buy a Nikon Coolpix 995, because that's what he was using at the
time. You'll find my site at
http://www.merseia.fsnet.co.uk/index.html. I've got a link to Mike
Weasner's site, which is another invaluable resource.