• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

What do you think of this setup for DSLR-scope photography? (1 Viewer)

vkalia

Robin stroker
Hi -

I plan to get a refractor scope for some ultra-high focal length photography with a DSLR. I'd like to be able to try all 3 options:
1/ Prime focus shooting, most likely with a barlow or TC thrown in the midst
2/ Eyepiece projection
3/ Afocal coupling (DSLR + lens attached to telescope eyepiece)

The scope is most likely going to be a Televue 76 or 85, although I'll also use this setup with a Pentax PF80ED occasionally (when I need the robustness and weather sealing of the scope).

The eyepieces are going to be Baader 17mm and 13mm (the former being the most used). These have an M43 thread on them.

So, this is what I am thinking of using:

For Prime Focus shooting:
(DSLR + T-ring) attaches to (T-adapter which screws onto the M43 of the Baader EP)

For Eyepiece projection:
(DSLR + T-ring) + Televue EP Projection Adapter + EP

For Afocal coupling:
(DSLR + lens) + step ring matching the lens thread on one end and screwing directly onto the Baader EP on the other end.

I plan to use camera extension tubes as needed, in order to increase the magnification.

As far as cameras go, I plan to use a Canon DSLR. I already have a 50mm lens for it, as well as a 24mm, and may pick up a 28mm or 35mm lens as well.

So - what do you think of this setup? Am I missing anything?

TIA,
Vandit
 
I've tried all those methods as you probably know and so far I've tried on a William Optics ZS80 and my current Skywatcher 80ED.

In my experience with both scopes the teleconverters/barlows work the best. I prefer teleconverters because they are easy to stack and easy to mount to the camera as they already have the correct mount. The better makes are well color corrected too. Optically they perfom better than the other methods regarding available light, detail and edge to edge sharpness. I'd like to try the Orion Shorty Plus Apo Barlow as many astronomers rave about it. It's about the best barlow you can use before spending high prices on televue ones.

Using a lens through the Baader Hyperion works well though not as good as teleconverters/barlows. Also the Hyperion is a big, heavy eyepiece and coupled to a lens will add a lot of weight to the setup. Teleconverters and barlows are a fraction of the weight. Also edge to edge sharpness usually drops off to some degree depending on the camera lens.

Eyepiece projection is a waste of time. I've tried with various eyepieces including my Baader and photo quality is always very poor compared to other methods.

Usually the best photos come from the simplest optical chain with the least amount of glass to reach the required magnification and the glass that is used is of the the best quality.

Paul.
 
Last edited:
Hi Paul -

Yes, the shots that you've been posting have been the driving force behind this decision to go for this sort of shooting. I am working on a wildlife documentation project which also gives me a chance to photograph some rare Himalayan birds - my original plan was to get a 800/5.6 and add a 2x to it and then crop. The results you've gotten have led me down this track, which is a lot easier on the wallet as well.

I hear you re. eyepiece projection. I'll probably just get the damn thing anyway, as the additional cost of that adapter is quite small once I factor in shipping, customs and everything else. But based on your advice, I will try the other methods.

I was actually re-reading all 12 pages of that thread, now that I've done some research on this subject, and one thing stood out there, which was re-emphasized by your point above, viz: use the least amount of glass possible.

One question, however. For prime focus photography with TCs/extension rings, I was planning on using this erector:
http://www.buytelescopes.com/product.asp?t=&pid=4331&m=49
Would I be better off with a straight/inline erector, or even no erector but just a straight OTA, if that is possible? The latter option appears as though it would be too fiddly (upside down/laterally reversed image), but perhaps a straight erector would be better - Televue's website seems to suggest so:
http://www.televue.com/BirdScope/Tables/Telescopes4DaBirds.htm

Thanks for the info on that Barlow. I'll add that to the list.

Regards,
Vandit
 
Last edited:
With an astro style scope the image is already the correct way up for a dslr type camera and teleconverters/barlows don't alter this fact so all you would need for this method is the OTA. This is another reason why it's the ideal route to take. If you want to use an eyepiece with a camera lens or use a point and shoot camera through an eyepiece then the image will be turned upside down and you will need some sort of prism erector to turn it up the right way.

Personally if I am using my eyepiece/camera lens configuration then I miss out the prism because I can shoot just as easily with everything turned up the wrong way. I started out digiscoping this way a few years ago and I must admit it took some practice but your brain adapts quite quickly. Now I can shoot either way without thinking.

You got me thinking about barlows so I just dug out one of my really inexpensive ones and it worked really well on the Canon 450D. Out of all methods, barlows keep shutter speed really high, I guess because it's just two pieces of glass. I'll post some shots later. I also combined it with the 1.5X and 2X converter and then I tried all three together. Magnification was really high. Shutter speed went down to 1/50 sec at ISO800 but it was quite good seeing as I must have been at around 6000-7000mm. I'll work out exactly how much when I post the photos. Image quality was really good.

Paul.
 
Paul - ah yes, of course the image would be properly oriented with DSLR + refractor... doh. I am forgetting my basic optics :) Thanks for the clarification.

Vandit
 
Warning! This thread is more than 16 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top