Meade camera adaptors vs homebrew

A quick question. To mount my camera (digital, Olympus 4040Z) so
it uses the image seen through any eyepiece it seems I need to
spend £55 on the Meade two-bits-of-metal bracket. I've been
thinking about making an adaptor for the star diagonal but am
beginning to wonder if it is worth the trouble. Can anyone
comment on the value of making one's own camera mount versus
using the official product?
Thanks,
James

In message , James Harris
writes
A quick question. To mount my camera (digital, Olympus 4040Z) so
it uses the image seen through any eyepiece it seems I need to
spend £55 on the Meade two-bits-of-metal bracket. I've been
thinking about making an adaptor for the star diagonal but am
beginning to wonder if it is worth the trouble. Can anyone
comment on the value of making one's own camera mount versus
using the official product?

Well, if you're as cack-handed as I am it's probably worth using a
commercial product to avoid dropping your expensive treasure on the
ground ;-) I use BC & F's adapter. OTOH a very neat DIY job was
described on alt.binaries.pictures.astro a while ago. I'll see if I can
find a link.
--
"Roads in space for rockets to travel....four-dimensional roads, curving with
relativity"
Mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome.
Or visit Jonathan's Space Site http://www.merseia.fsnet.co.uk

In message , James Harris
writes
A quick question. To mount my camera (digital, Olympus 4040Z) so
it uses the image seen through any eyepiece it seems I need to
spend £55 on the Meade two-bits-of-metal bracket. I've been
thinking about making an adaptor for the star diagonal but am
beginning to wonder if it is worth the trouble. Can anyone
comment on the value of making one's own camera mount versus
using the official product?

Well, if you're as cack-handed as I am it's probably worth using a
commercial product to avoid dropping your expensive treasure on the
ground ;-) I use BC & F's adapter. OTOH a very neat DIY job was
described on alt.binaries.pictures.astro a while ago. I'll see if I can
find a link.
--
"Roads in space for rockets to travel....four-dimensional roads, curving with
relativity"
Mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome.
Or visit Jonathan's Space Site http://www.merseia.fsnet.co.uk

James Harris wrote:
Can anyone comment on the value of making one's own camera mount versus
using the official product?

This method should work on yours:
http://astunit.com/tonkinsastro/digicam/digicam.htm



Best,
Stephen

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://www.astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

James Harris wrote:
Can anyone comment on the value of making one's own camera mount versus
using the official product?

This method should work on yours:
http://astunit.com/tonkinsastro/digicam/digicam.htm



Best,
Stephen

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://www.astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Looking at Stephen's and David's replies, I was wondering if they (or
others) have any comments on the advantages/disadvantages of an "on lens
barrel" adapter rather than a "tripod thread" adapter.

The reason I ask is that the few "zooming" digital camera's lens barrels
that I've seen, do look a little flimsy. They look and work OK, as result
show, when you hold the camera body for conventional shots, but, would
hanging the weight of the camera (and batteries) from the lens cause any
out-of-alignment effects, or stress?

Cheers, Bob.


"James Harris" no.email.please wrote in message
...
A quick question. To mount my camera (digital, Olympus 4040Z) so
it uses the image seen through any eyepiece it seems I need to
spend £55 on the Meade two-bits-of-metal bracket. I've been
thinking about making an adaptor for the star diagonal but am
beginning to wonder if it is worth the trouble. Can anyone
comment on the value of making one's own camera mount versus
using the official product?
Thanks,
James

Looking at Stephen's and David's replies, I was wondering if they (or
others) have any comments on the advantages/disadvantages of an "on lens
barrel" adapter rather than a "tripod thread" adapter.

The reason I ask is that the few "zooming" digital camera's lens barrels
that I've seen, do look a little flimsy. They look and work OK, as result
show, when you hold the camera body for conventional shots, but, would
hanging the weight of the camera (and batteries) from the lens cause any
out-of-alignment effects, or stress?

Cheers, Bob.


"James Harris" no.email.please wrote in message
...
A quick question. To mount my camera (digital, Olympus 4040Z) so
it uses the image seen through any eyepiece it seems I need to
spend £55 on the Meade two-bits-of-metal bracket. I've been
thinking about making an adaptor for the star diagonal but am
beginning to wonder if it is worth the trouble. Can anyone
comment on the value of making one's own camera mount versus
using the official product?
Thanks,
James

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 01:07:17 +0100, "Bob Letsche"
wrote:

Looking at Stephen's and David's replies, I was wondering if they (or
others) have any comments on the advantages/disadvantages of an "on lens
barrel" adapter rather than a "tripod thread" adapter.

The reason I ask is that the few "zooming" digital camera's lens barrels
that I've seen, do look a little flimsy. They look and work OK, as result
show, when you hold the camera body for conventional shots, but, would
hanging the weight of the camera (and batteries) from the lens cause any
out-of-alignment effects, or stress?

Cheers, Bob.


Best solution I found was to have a bracket that holds the camera
using the tripod socket, yet which attaches directly to the eyepiece.
The bracket is adjustable for setting the distance between camera lens
and eyepiece (my Canon has one of those zoom lenses which pop out).
I would not want the weight of the camera to be supported by it's lens
housing even if it had a suitable thread - which it hasn't.
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~chrish/canon1.jpg

ChrisH

UK Astro Ads: http://www.UKAstroAds.co.uk

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 01:07:17 +0100, "Bob Letsche"
wrote:

Looking at Stephen's and David's replies, I was wondering if they (or
others) have any comments on the advantages/disadvantages of an "on lens
barrel" adapter rather than a "tripod thread" adapter.

The reason I ask is that the few "zooming" digital camera's lens barrels
that I've seen, do look a little flimsy. They look and work OK, as result
show, when you hold the camera body for conventional shots, but, would
hanging the weight of the camera (and batteries) from the lens cause any
out-of-alignment effects, or stress?

Cheers, Bob.


Best solution I found was to have a bracket that holds the camera
using the tripod socket, yet which attaches directly to the eyepiece.
The bracket is adjustable for setting the distance between camera lens
and eyepiece (my Canon has one of those zoom lenses which pop out).
I would not want the weight of the camera to be supported by it's lens
housing even if it had a suitable thread - which it hasn't.
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~chrish/canon1.jpg

ChrisH

UK Astro Ads: http://www.UKAstroAds.co.uk