Thread 4464258

Got this for $50, near mint for $20 with all attachments. Any idea how to use a cameras ith it and what camera to get?

>>4464258 (OP)
You want a t-mount adapter for whatever DLSR/MILC you get. Hell, you could use a smartphone camera if that's all you wanted to go with.
The t-mount adpaters are like $30 and will let you chuck an ILC on it directly, normally with a slot attatchment to throw an occular lens in to increase your magnification. The scope you have seems to be fairly long and narrow, which means you'll be pretty limited to planets and bright stars unless you want high ISO ladden shit.

Welcome to astrophotography. Your wallet weeps, but you reward your peeps

>>4464259
I just really want to take long range terrestrial photo with the cheapest digital camera that will work and doesn't completely suck, maybe a few of the moon and a few of whatever planets i can mange to locate when i learn how.

>>4464263
Alright nigga, astro is super fun but beware it can be a money sink depending on what you want to do. Terrestrial photography is going to be less demanding. The moon is easy since it's lit well and your gear will suffice. Planets are a bit harder but it mostly comes down to planning and having a clear night available.
For terrestrial photos you need a *giggity* errecting lens, since telescopes invert the image vertically by default. You probably got one with that $20 accessory pack you spoke of.

Set your budget and buy whatever Nikon, Canon, or Pentax DLSR floats your boat. Preferably full-frame but APS-C will do as well if you're on a budget. Get the camera and the T-mount and you're basically set to take some motherfuckin' photos. Telescope elements generally aren't held to the same standard as camera lenses in terms of image quality (to a certain point; expensive telescopes get fancy AF), so keep that in mind.

>Full frame
Something like a Canon 5D II or Nikon D700 would be sub $400 USD and a mount adapter would be $30.
>APS-C
If that's too much for you a Pentax K30 or Nikon D7000 would be half as much.
>Phone
And finally you can get away with just buying an adapter for your phone for $20 if you'd rather not spend anything.

>>4464280
>Set your budget and buy whatever Nikon, Canon, or Pentax DLSR floats your boat. Preferably full-frame but APS-C will do as well if you're on a budget.
lol, that's like shortening your telescope unless you get a 50MP+ camera.
24MP APS-C is better for astro than most other options including 5D II and D700, is this a troll recommendation or what? 5D II has awful FPN too.
D3200/D5200/D7100 should be the bare minimum.

alright shut it down, OP needs to buy a William Optics pleiades or basically kill himself

>>4464280
It's the entire package with everything included, it even has the plate for looking at the sun. Adjusted for inflation this thing cost $1500 when it was new and it pretty much still is. Apparently it was/is a pretty good find, Tascos used to be good 60 years ago.

Already used the erecting lens, note the op image.

I'll need something better than my cell phone that's for sure.
>>4464285
Hahaha hell no muggle, you are talking to a guy who just made his first post on /photo/ with a image taken with a 5 year old $40 tracphone.

>>4464289
>>4464263
To elaborate: There are several lakes where i am (Northern Maine) where Cougars have allegedly been spotted in the winter eating scraps out on the ice but no one has gotten a good shot of them.

Not quite bigfoot but you get the idea.

>>4464292
Like bigfoot but not a fucking hoax you mean?

>>4464334
Pretty much.

Maine has a few mountain lions that wander in and a population of released pets but no modern breeding population. The ones on spencer lake have been recording as existing (DNA from scat) but they are always bad photos half a mile across a frozen lake taken from cell phones.

The thing is some of them report kittens but none of the footage is good enough to prove a breeding population, the cell footage is bad enough that they might be big Lynx or Bobcats.

I want to set something up where we can get a decent photo/footage across a mile of ice with range poles in the background to prove what they really are in terms of size, for that i we need a telescope with a camera.

I have the telescope, i just don't know how to hook a camera or IR monocular up to it.

Please ignore my accidental trip usage, forgot it

>>4464419
>>4464334
Here, early January or February. Just ice, i figure we can set up bait and lurk for 48 hours waiting for a shot:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_Lake

>>4464419
Beware atmospheric distortion and the amount of light required. I'm sure it'll be orders of magnitude better than whatever a phone can take though.
What you want to do is usually called "digiscoping", I suggest you do a search with that term for a quick rundown. T-mount adapters are commonly used but your telescope needs a T-mount for that. They're pretty cheap.

Yeah as cANON said, astmospheric haze and distortion are going to assfuck you regardless of your choice of optics or kamera. You can normally slap a CPL filter on and it helps (but can't solve) the issue, but with a tele you can't do that afaik.
Low temperatures help reduce it, so shooting in early morning (even better during golden hour) or in winter can help you procure clearer shots.

>>4464258 (OP)
>op has become astro man
prepare for the wallet shock, this is only the entry drug

>>4464542
>digiscoping
Thanks

>>4464551
>>4464542
It will be well below 0 degrees across a 4-5 foot thick sheet of ice, this is a frozen lake in northern maine in January. Any advice for that?

>>4464542
Oh the adaptors are like $20-25, i just need to figure out a camera.

Could this could work with a IR camera or even camcorder? We had the idea to put up 2, 4 and 6 foot range poles behind the bait sites so if we get it we will have a size reference.

One idea was that we would put angled reflectors on top of the range poles with IR glow sticks behind them, the idea being they would illuminate the bait sites while preventing the glow sticks from having a direct line to the camera so they didn't blind it.

>>4464733
Test for hotspots in the lens first

>>4464750
Elaborate please, no idea what you mean.

>>4464753
Use a thermal camera to check for uneven heat distribution on your sensor. The cooler your sensor stays the less noise youll get on long exposure shots.

>>4464766
Ah, got you. Googling that right now.

>/p/ doesnt know what IR hotspots are
LMAO
https://kolarivision.com/the-science-of-infrared-hotspots/
Photography board only knows how to lie about sony and shill shittier cameras

>>4464780
>t. severe autism

>>4464780
Dude before posting this thread i knew literally nothing about photography, /p/ obviously does know since they just told me. Touch grass, ect.

>>4464780
Nigga OP literally hit the board up as a first timer. Fucking god forbid we actually teach the people who want to learn

OP here.

So basically for terrestrial usage i need to educate myself then then get a IR capable DLSR with a T-mount yes?

It doesn't have to be great, it just has to work well enough.

>>4464876
don't blow your wad on an IR DSLR for wildlife ID. they make much cheaper IR "night vision" video cameras and monoculars for that.

IR DSLRs are for artistic/forensics/scientific/astronomy use.

night vision digiscoping has 0% in common with photography

>>4464912
I'm aware a IR DSLR is probably overkill but they don't seem to cost much for basic versions, it would be nice for it to be able to be used for basic astronomy and also i can be sure to be able to get a T mount for it.

>>4464929
>>4464912
As an addendum while the primary goal is wildlife ID if we pull this off the kid will almost certainly be in the news so decent quality is a big plus.

The pictures will be taken across Spencer lake in January or early February, i don't think thermal distortion will be a problem across a perfectly flat 5 mile wide 8-10 foot thick sheet of ice at zero to -20 degrees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_Lake