AstroPhotography?

[whistles]

Is that even the proper name for it...?
I want to adapt a telescope to my camera for some moonshots (no, not Tang and Vodka). I bought a Galileo CataDioptric telscope that was missing the eyepiece from a local Pawn Shop and a T-mount and adapter from a pretty reputable online dealer. It seemed like a pretty simple idea. I didn't want to tie much money up in a simple experiment and truthfully, I don't even know if the only thing missing from the 'scope is the eyepiece.
I'm not seeing anything looking down the tube and , of course nothing at all in the camera. Belle and I are wanting to explore this briefly before deciding to put any real capital into it....anybody out there been up this alley before?

[NCPhotoTrekker]

If I remember correctly Stari is pretty well versed with the astrophotography. I seem to recall him posting some very interesting information about hooking a camera up to a telescope on the old board. He is posting here, but not too often. Shoot him an email or PM with your question. I'm sure that he will be able to help you out.

[OrcaBob]

Hi Whistles,

Is this what the scope looks like?

<can't seem to get the image to show up...>

If so, you should be able to get an eyepiece for the scope for a reasonable price at: www.opticsplanet.net/telescope-accessories.html

To get the magnifying power of the scope with a particular eyepiece, divide the focal length of the scope by the focal length of the eyepiece. (Suggestion: Don't go for the highest magnification. Higher power results in a dimmer, lower-resolution image.)

You won't be able to see anything through the telescope without an eyepiece.

As Greg mentioned, Stari can advise you on the configuration required to hook a camera to the scope.

[whistles]

Thanks, Bob...The one I bought is similar to this (if it uploads for me), except it doesn't have the motorized drive for automatically tracking the celestial bodies movement. Also the one I have is missing the counterweights. I was going to add that I got a really tremendous deal on it, but that's a little suspect yet (ie Jack and his magic beans....)

I know I can buy replacement eyepieces but they would actually cost more than I paid for the 'scope itself...still, if it's necessary, I will, and by the way, your recomended site is much better than the one I was looking at, thank you for sharing.

Supposedly I shouldn't even need the eyepiece to get an image into the camera. If I understood it correctly this adapter takes the place of the eyepiece and the camera sensor becomes the retina....or more accurately said...the scope becomes and adapted lens on the camera.

Let's see if we can get Starri to comment too.....

Attachments:

[jimhobson]

Sept 27, 2009 8:16:05 GMT -5 whistles said:

Supposedly I shouldn't even need the eyepiece to get an image into the camera. If I understood it correctly this adapter takes the place of the eyepiece and the camera sensor becomes the retina....or more accurately said...the scope becomes and adapted lens on the camera.

Let's see if we can get Starri to comment too.....

That's right.
Your scope is a reflector, mine is a refractor. The adapter fits into the space the eyepiece went. T-adapter on that, camera on that. That's all I did. Try viewing in daylight at a distant object and see if that works. The effective f-stop of the scope may be too small for you to see through the camera/scope combo. Also at night it is difficult to focus on a star when you are new. It keeps moving.
BTW: for star and moon viewing I've had better success photographing through the eyepiece with my wifes P&S. Had I known, I would have sold you my 1 1/4" adapter for a song and a dance.