June 13, 2010 at 5:34 pm #1867
But the question is, did I do well?
Most of yout’s know (I tink) that I have a Celestron CPC 1100 telescope, and it’s grand and all that (I posted a couple astro shots in the gallery; I’m getting better at my astrophotography–which is good–‘All Night Long’ is coming up and since I don’t have a social life due to my night job…).
I saw an ad on CL for a 1000mm f/11 Celestron scope and, after talking with the seller, decided to buy it. It’s set up for use as a telephoto lens. 1000mm trumps my 300mm Tamron, no?
For the $$, oh, greater-farktographers than thoust, did I do okay? I plan on using it for earth-bound pictures; I have better equipment for stellar stuff, but you know. I can always resell on e-Bay, they go for $99-$300.
It’s circa 1980 (seller bought it before marriage, married 28 years; did the math). I downloaded a July ’78 catalog that touts it as being their ‘newest’ product line, and ‘judging from the response’ one of their most popular. Cheezy catalog, but it was 1978–F. Fawcett was still on the walls of every pimply-faced non-gay boy teen in America, FCOL.
Anywho, liked the idea of a camera mount, came with a Canon adapter (which I knew wouldn’t fit MY Canon, 30 years later, but the T-adapter part should let me hook up with my T-A current setup used f/the CPC scope.)
It’s a pretty early version; checked the e-bay currents and completed; my serial # is 99631; found 3 earlier (all 90K, the first ‘9’ probably indicated 90mm series); most were 800K plus.
Also found some forums where they used it for macro stuff–albeit from 10 feet or so, but 1000mm….
Thoughts? Suggestions? Opinions?June 15, 2010 at 11:02 am #29540LeicaLensParticipant
Well, it might look a bit clumsy on the beach…
Otherwise, if it works ok, good deal. Though F11 is pretty slow. Manual focus only, right?June 15, 2010 at 12:53 pm #29541
Yep, manual only. I don’t plan on capturing moving subjects or such, just stills. Wildlife, perhaps, if it will keep from moving, long enough to capture it at least.June 16, 2010 at 12:33 pm #29542staplermofoParticipant
Full resolution sample images or it didn’t happen.June 16, 2010 at 2:23 pm #29543
Full resolution sample images or it didn’t happen.
Currently, my t-adapter ring is with the telescope, 20 miles away at my parents home (much darker skies, no point using a telescope in downtown Phx. I am working the next 4 nights, 12 hours each–and just got off a 12 shift, as well, so I won’t be out to the folks before Sunday) If you’d like a picture taken through the 18mm kellner lens, that has been arranged.
The picture linked was shot with the 1000mm, using a 18mm lens, for a total mag. of 55.56 (rounded). The camera I held up to it was my xTi (sensor diameter 22mm), using an effective 40mm lens (80mm halved via the ‘macro’ who’s cover I modified to allow me to view through telescope lenses more easily), effective magnification of the set of 1.8, for a grand total of about 100x (I think; anyone can contest my math as I’m not sure camera magnifications are the same as telescopes)
Shot in haste, no editing, no bracketing, quick and dirty; sorry!
Original CR2 canon image (inverted and reversed, of course):
For comparison, same shot just through the camera; the notch in the mtn most centered in the frame is what’s in my telephoto shot:
And the original of that:
Feel free to count the pixels, view the exif info, whatever.
And if you can’t right-click-and-save-as, send me an email address that will take 2 10.9 meg files.June 16, 2010 at 2:57 pm #29544nobigdealParticipant
Wow! Thats pretty clear for that distance.June 16, 2010 at 3:45 pm #29545
I imagine, NBD, that with a camera actually hooked onto the lens, I could do better. The image was taken at f5.6 1/60 second, but just held up to the 18mm lens, and focusing the camera to the image in the scope was no mean feat. Direct focusing would have been better, though the magnification would have only been 45x. Still, 45x makes Jupiter as big as the biggest full moon. This shot is from 4 miles away (give or take 1/2) a bit. Here’s a ‘web’ sized image that gives the scale pretty well.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.