Canon EOS Mounted to Telescope

[Duceman]

I have an old Jason 324 Saturn telescope. I'm guessing it's vintage to be early 70's. It's great for viewing the moon (though it does not have any computerized motor for tracking).

I saw some adapters for mounting a 35mm camera onto the telescope so as to take moonshots. Specifically, I'd be looking for an adapter to fit Canon EF mount. I see that there are several available on Amazon at different prices.

Has anyone ever done this? If so, how were the results?

 

[gone]

reI think most adapters for telescopes are T mount, but check yours first. They should be an adapter for a T to EF adapter. You might want to go to one of the websites that specialize in telescope photography, those folks do this sort of thing all the time.

If old telescope lenses are like camera lenses from that era, you probably have pretty decent optics on yours.

 

[grat]

By all accounts, a nice, solid, metal scope with decent optics. That's the plus side.

Downside is the eyepiece looks to be 1.25". This will probably vignette a bit.

Standard connection is EOS --> T-Mount --> 1.25" eyepiece adapter. This effectively turns your telescope into a lens for your Canon. Note that you're not getting the magnification from your eyepieces-- whatever the focal length is, that's what you've got-- In this case, it seems to be 1200mm, so that's not bad.

It appears to be about f/15, however, so that's a bit dim. Fortunately, the sun isn't, and the light reflected from the moon is pretty bright.

 

[Duceman]

If old telescope lenses are like camera lenses from that era, you probably have pretty decent optics on yours.

Thanks.

The glass on the telescope seems quite nice.

By all accounts, a nice, solid, metal scope with decent optics. That's the plus side.

Downside is the eyepiece looks to be 1.25". This will probably vignette a bit.

Standard connection is EOS --> T-Mount --> 1.25" eyepiece adapter. This effectively turns your telescope into a lens for your Canon. Note that you're not getting the magnification from your eyepieces-- whatever the focal length is, that's what you've got-- In this case, it seems to be 1200mm, so that's not bad.

It appears to be about f/15, however, so that's a bit dim. Fortunately, the sun isn't, and the light reflected from the moon is pretty bright.

Thanks.

There's a reason why these telescopes come with a "moon filter" as when the moon is full, it is quite bright. f/15 shouldn't be a problem for a full moon... at least I don't think it should. The moon is, however, a moving object, so hopefully I can get the shutter speed fast enough without any blur (even if only slight blur).

 

[cooltouch]

Correct exposure for the full moon is 1/125 @ f/8 @ ISO 100. Some prefer f/11 for deeper contrast. At f/15, I'd recommend dropping down a speed to 1/60, or bump up the ISO for a faster shutter speed.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I have an old Jason 324 Saturn telescope. I'm guessing it's vintage to be early 70's. It's great for viewing the moon (though it does not have any computerized motor for tracking).

I saw some adapters for mounting a 35mm camera onto the telescope so as to take moonshots. Specifically, I'd be looking for an adapter to fit Canon EF mount. I see that there are several available on Amazon at different prices.

Has anyone ever done this? If so, how were the results?

I tried this with an icon and it turn out that a camera of the size as far too heavy mounted to a telescope. which makes observation close to impossible. How far better option seems to be a dedicated eye-piece scamera.

 

[cooltouch]

Yeah, dedicated digit*l eyepiece cameras are by far the most popular nowadays, but back in the day, film was the only choice, and 35mm was considered optimum. But because camera weight was often an issue, telescope operators preferred small, light cameras. The Oly OM-1 became a very popular camera for telescope use because of its small size. Also, despite it not having a manual mode except 1/90 and B, the Nikon EM had become popular for the same reason -- because 1/90 and B were enough.