Uh-oh… Orionid’s been a bad boy
-
One thing learned from my own short time playing with the T-adapter I have is that I had to move my primary about an inch up the tube to reach focus at the camera’s sensor. The T-adapter adds some length to the imaging train (which is why many astrographs require extension tubes to be used visually).
If you get to the point where you want to use this OTA for more serious astrophotography, look into replacing that eyepiece mount with a 2″. The 1.25″ mounts are not large enough to allow for full illumination of a full-frame sensor, but should do well enough with an APS-C sensor.
Worth getting to know, orionid. I assure you, every little breeze does make a difference in a scope of your size. The counter weights should help a great deal–more mass stabilization, though. I envy your FOV and F/ratio, though. Looking forward to seeing some images!
Would a focal reducer work with something this long? Or would I end up clipping the edges of the image with the sides of the tube? Something like a 0.5x has me salivating over the thoughts of 900mm f/3 for wider targets like Andromeda or the Orion/running man nebula.
You’d probably wind up with a circle exposure. Which isn’t necc. a bad thing; you’d know you’re getting all the view you possibly could. And you do gain some 1.6 brighter exposure (or thereabouts? My scope went from f/10 to f/6.3) I’m currently contemplating the conversion kit to take me to an f/2 with a FOV about 5-6 moon-widths for just that purpose. I’d lose minor details–but seeing is limited anyway, and I’d love the shorter exposure times and wider FOV. I’tll be about another $800 to do so, but it’s on my bucket list for september when I get more stock to sell (maybe sooner, if I do well at the casino).
- The topic ‘Uh-oh… Orionid’s been a bad boy’ is closed to new replies.