Tripod Mount ??'s + Alternatives to No Lens Prime w/Astro-Scope (1 Viewer)

I took this pic at 30 feet from my deck, with the scope, right at nightfall. I LOVE THIS SCOPE. I wouldn't be enjoying this, if it weren't for all the impressive work, all of you here have done. I get to capture these moments, and share them with my kids far away, online. They're all in awe.

I have an 80mm APO Refractor and use a Lumix G3 Camera. I've been using the Alt-Az mount on my deck to practice, but finally sold it and bought a Gitzo carbon fiber tripod, no head yet.

I'm shopping for a head and mount system. I have osteo-arthritis and prefer the video style "fluid" heads because there is less frequent knob twisting. The G3 is very light, but I may want to use a heavier DSLR eventually. The Telescope is approx. 9 pounds. I am thinking about getting a Manfrotto 504hd because of the 16 lb max. weight capacity, but also because of the Long Quick Release Plate, which appears to be very stout. I see that many of ya'all use a gimbal system. Do you think the video "fluid" heads are too unstable?

On my telescope I have a clamshell currently, (came with the scope), that is too long to allow the full retraction of the lens shade. I am thinking of using 2 cradle rings directly attached to the quick release plate of the tripod head, eventually. My question is, will this be strong enough for the stability of the scope, you think? I wish I had a store that I could just go into and try things out, but the nearest shop is Anacortes.

On another subject but also important, my friend asked me why I couldn't use a camera lens on the G3, without a telescope eyepiece, to "stop down" the aperture? I couldn't explain it, but I hadn't seen it done. I'm not the "sharpest tool in the shed" so I thought one of you could help me with this. Could that work? Per the fellow I got the scope from, it's capable of retaining image quality at tremendous magnifications. I believe him. This all started because I am thinking of trying a 20mm Panasonic Lumix Pancake lens, on a two inch eyepiece on the back of the scope, for "digiscoping," just to see how that would work.

thoughts?

The gimbal design is a bit sturdier, which puts the weight more centrated on the head, it comes with the cost of added weight though but not by much.
There are a lot of video heads that don't cut it, having micro vibrations from an unstable construction is horrible and can cause heavy motion blur at slower shutter speeds.
But the ones that are stable can certainly handle the weight, and balance it with a lengthy release plate.
It's mostly apples and oranges, if you like the video heads then you won't go wrong with a good one, but many people recommend a gimbal for long tele-lens photography so it wouldn't hurt if you could try one.

Thanks Oskar! - I bit the bullet and ordered the 504hd and from all the reviews, videos etc, that I've seen, it's going to do the job. I think it's the best bang for the buck, but ya'all have reinvented the wheel here. I'll report how it performs. I'm also needing a two speed focuser. The fellow I got this from had replaced the tube part only, of the focuser on the old Blackhawk, with something more stout, but, he didn't replace the moving parts. It hops and makes fine focusing a challenge. So, that's the next purchase.

I know I'm a bit "chatty," but I am still considering magnification options with this scope and camera. I will get a 2" 1.6 Barlow at the least. But I'm thinking of putting a big eyepiece on the back end of this scope, and digiscoping with a pancake lens or something, on the G3. I know I can use an eyepiece only, but apparently, it's not possible to use a lens only?

I know my questions display a level of ignorance, that must bring up a vicarious embarrassment for a knowledgeable reader. Look how far I've come in so short a while though. Now my noisy, ill focused photos, have tremendous detail, eh? I appreciate ALL the input I've received here.... even when it's a bit snarky. (I'm chuckling).

Thanks again and take care of your glass.

Dan

alternatives

SeattleDan said:

Thanks Oskar! - I bit the bullet and ordered the 504hd and from all the reviews, videos etc, that I've seen, it's going to do the job. I think it's the best bang for the buck, but ya'all have reinvented the wheel here. I'll report how it performs. I'm also needing a two speed focuser. The fellow I got this from had replaced the tube part only, of the focuser on the old Blackhawk, with something more stout, but, he didn't replace the moving parts. It hops and makes fine focusing a challenge. So, that's the next purchase.

I know I'm a bit "chatty," but I am still considering magnification options with this scope and camera. I will get a 2" 1.6 Barlow at the least. But I'm thinking of putting a big eyepiece on the back end of this scope, and digiscoping with a pancake lens or something, on the G3. I know I can use an eyepiece only, but apparently, it's not possible to use a lens only?

Dan

Click to expand...

I have only been birding for two years but have found my Celestron Onyx 80EDF to be good quality for imaging with nice features. I recently bought a Manfrotto 498 ball head with the larger than normal RC4 plate. Nice and sturdy. However, carrying it around the field might work loose, not sure how the fluid head attaches the scope to the plate. The RC4 uses a large screw that I use a quarter to tighten with.

Also using a Benro carbon fiber tripod fully extended with the legs pointed together, using it like a monopod. Very helpful when maneuvering through tall grasses and such. Pentax DSLR camera has image stabilization built-in (like your 4/3's camera), so I keep all controls on the manfrotto head loose, the ball head completely tilted over to one side all the time - a poor man's alt-az head. Fortunately, the scope has a fully rotating base which compensates well for the 90* tilt. Works pretty well and only discovered this trick when I had to use it the first time - did not like the time it took to constantly tighten and untighten the ball head. But flipped over to one side, it acts just like an alt-az head. Perhaps there will be wear and tear on the ball head or the shaft attached to the ball head, but seems ok so far.

Not done much with barlows. Have liked more portability on group bird walks and getting closer to the subject instead. I do own a Takahashi Extender-Q, which is superb quality, but have not needed it much in the field yet. Also not done much with digiscoping eyepieces, my early attempts were not quite as sharp as I wanted. I love the simplicity of attaching camera directly to the scope ("prime focus" photography). Camera, pod, scope setup is 10 lbs. and about the limit for carrying for a few hours. Love the pics though (see attachment).

Good luck with the fluid head and barlow. Let us know how it goes.

GA

Is that a song sparrow?

Yes, I am way happy with the magnification the telescope provides, and mostly, it's crisp enough. It would be nice to have aperture options, and this is a special scope, I must say. I think it will be very useful over greater distances... while allowing me to focus quite close. That poor Chickadee filled the frame almost though. I am less able bodied than I would like to be, so long treks or difficult hikes aren't going to happen, with or without gear....

I tried one trek, a couple of miles down, and up on the way back... mild climbing with lots of boulders, to a trout stream last Summer. I used to do that all the time. I realized then, I had no business by myself down there, out of cell phone service. My sons would scold me to death if they'd known, just for being an idiot.

I get some of my best bird viewing, right from where i sit at my computer, up over this river. My deck is covered, so I get the illusion of being "out in it," without getting wet... lol.

Grasshopper Sparrow. Sometimes hard to capture. That's why I like the bird club I belong to, they allow me to bring this goofy camera equipment with me without scolding me and I try to stay out of their way and not whack them with the tripod!

Yes, I wish this stuff weighed a lot less! Been looking at alternatives over the weekend and there really are not any unless you want a 60mm takahashi but it only saves about 2 Lbs.

I use a gimbal head and a sliding quick release plate. See picture in post #94 in this thread.

The advantages:
- Balance, setup is designed to return to the horizontal position rather than tilt
- Smooth operation and panning, can be locked in any angle if needed
- Adjusting the sliding plate up to +/- one cm or so fully compensates for focuser position and/or adding extras such as teleconverter.

The drawback is the extra weight from the gimbal head.

/Tord

I am also using a Gimbal head - could never use anything else for big lenses/ set-ups myself but each to their own I guess.

For the first few years of owning my scope I just had it on a basic, cheap, Jessops own brand tripod with a simple pan/tilt head so I'm generally of the opininion that you can get a good photo on anything. 99% of the photos you see on here with my scope were taken on that old tripod. I'm not an equipment type person and tend to make do with what I have. I've got a decent tripod now but it's still got the ball head on it. I'll change that for a pan/tilt type again, in about 10 years knowing me. :t:

Paul.

I am using a rock solid, 40 year old Slik steel legged tripod with a pan/tilt head. The head is not great, but I like the one hand locking, and when taking pictures I never have it locked down anyway. I don't see that an expensive gimbal would make my pictures any better or worse, for that matter. Besides, with a gimbal on it I wouldn't be able to get it into my backpack with the scope and camera.

I appreciate all your input on this. I realized, after ordering, that my tripod lacks the 75mm bowl necessary for the 504hd head, and in any case, it's just too heavy. I'd have to spend another five bones on tripod, when I've barely given the one i have a try. So, it's on it's way back and I'm getting the GH2720. I'll get the 200mm long QRP and use the original clamshell I have to mount it. Balanced right, I think it will be safe enough... but we shall see. The head has good weight capacity, but looks diminutive. Even with more adaptable mounting rings, I think my shade is going to stay extended. This river I live on is not a major migration route, but it's close. I never know what I'll see when I open the curtains, and now, I'll be able to share it. Thank you all.

Hello Dan, I disagree with you about not getting any quality return from using a good head... if you try a fluid video head you'll know what I mean. Long focal photography is much sensitive to any case of shakening, and reducing them will lead to a significative improvement in your IQ. Or at least, I felt it that way when changing from a normal head to a used Manfrotto 701.

By the way, I've just ordered a cheap chinese gimbal head; I have read some threads in other forums claiming that this particular one works fine, and is soooooo cheap that I haven't resist the temptation of trying it:

http://www.ebay.es/itm/150680611805?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649

Yes, Carlos (cango) has one from India like this one and swears by it. But does a gimbal have any kind of "fluid damping"? Maybe the more expensive ones do, I don't know. Certainly the balance adjustment would be nice compared to my old style tilt/pan.

DanC.Licks said:

Yes, Carlos (cango) has one from India like this one and swears by it. But does a gimbal have any kind of "fluid damping"? Maybe the more expensive ones do, I don't know. Certainly the balance adjustment would be nice compared to my old style tilt/pan.

Click to expand...

I have a Jobu HD Gimbal (relatively expensive) and there is no fluid damping, you do not need it with a gimbal. As long as you balance the set up you can just slightly tighten the pan and tilt axis so that the gimbal can be put into any position with a slight push with just one finger. If you want you can also lock it right down. Most Gimbals come with Bearings so that that panning and tilting is very easy.

DanC.Licks said:

Yes, Carlos (cango) has one from India like this one and swears by it. But does a gimbal have any kind of "fluid damping"? Maybe the more expensive ones do, I don't know. Certainly the balance adjustment would be nice compared to my old style tilt/pan.

Click to expand...

Hi Dan,
No, Gimbal heads have no "fluid damping".

The idea with the Gimbal design is that the center of rotation is above the center of gravity of the lens/camera combo. This means that the setup will tend to return its balansed, horizontal position. The metacenter is just a few mm or a cm, which means that the torque is low. In turn this means that if you tighten the knobs you can semi-lock it in any angle. If you loose the knobs you can rotate it with the finger tip.

Because of the design of the scope, with a focuser that extracts 15 cm or so, you should use a long quick release plate. +/- 1cm adjustment of the plate is enough to compensate between infinity focus and close focus.

I use a GH2 gimbal from Lensmaster (UK made). Here is a video where it is demonstrated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03TPpr6IZPU&feature=player_embedded

/Tord

So for me the question is still open as to whether a "fluid" head is an advantage over a gimbal/unlocked pan/tilt head. I actually like not feeling any resistance in the camera/scope while shooting stills. But I have never tried a fluid head so who is to say I wouldn't like it better? Not willing to spend €120 to find out.

DanC.Licks said:

Yes, Carlos (cango) has one from India like this one and swears by it. But does a gimbal have any kind of "fluid damping"? Maybe the more expensive ones do, I don't know. Certainly the balance adjustment would be nice compared to my old style tilt/pan.

Click to expand...

well, swears at it, at least ;-)

For the record, mine is not the same as the one cruedag ordered. That one looks more expensive, finer.

Mine is/was cheap, small and light. What I did not like was the panning knob/movement. When loosed it was not a smooth panning. That has been taking cared of by a panning base from feisol (ordered with the a tripod when my old broke down) http://www.feisol.com/0823panningbase.html
Now I'm happy with it, and no, no fluid movement. I know these gimbals are big/bigger than many heads, but they work really great with these scopes.

I ended up sending that fluid head back. The least wind or other vibration required so much time to resolve, it rendered it unusable with the telescope. It took a lot of searching, but I found a second hand Jobu Gimbal Head in Connecticut, within my little budget, and had it sent to Seattle. It appears to be rock solid. I'm very happy, finally. One might do with a video head and tripod, a level or two up. I don't know; but the weight would be annoying for a walk out and about. Thanks though, for all your input here.