Update: Ordered a Slik Pro 700 DX Tripod with 700DX 3-Way, Pan-and-Tilt Head (Titani

[JBW]

I really do pay attention. I liked the Tiltall but with the cautions that I read about twist grip legs I looked for a different tripod.

The Slik Pro 700 DX Tripod with 700DX 3-Way, Pan-and-Tilt Head (Titanium) carries nearly 20 pounds, comes with a tilt and pan head and weighing in at 7 pounds is by all the reviews very stable.

Along with it I have ordered the Vello FreeWave Plus Wireless Remote Shutter Release for Sony Alpha. It works with the a58 and will save me a lot of fumbling in the dark.

Next on the list is a lens (zoom or prime) in the 300mm Fl area.

Then if i feel the need to get long multiple exposures the Skywatcher.

Give it a year and with a little luck and a lot of learning I could be doing some good shooting for a price that I can afford.

Thanks for the help.
Brian

Ps maybe it's my ancestry but except for the Skywatcher everything ordered and on the wish list will be doing triple duty; studio, garden and deep space

[Stagecoach]

Next on the list is a lens (zoom or prime) in the 300mm Fl area.

Then if i feel the need to get long multiple exposures the Skywatcher.

If you were to go for a 300mm Brian is this going to bring your shutter speeds too short to be able to get a reasonable exposure without a tracker?

[JBW]

If you were to go for a 300mm Brian is this going to bring your shutter speeds too short to be able to get a reasonable exposure without a tracker?

Probably. Which means maybe I save a little longer and buy them at the same time.

[rpcrowe]

Brian, if you are looking for a GOOD reasonably priced lens for your Sony, A Canon FD 300mm f/4 with an adapter "might" be the trick.
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odk...rs&_sacat=3323

The Canon FD manual focus lenses were of excellent quality. I shot with the 300mm f/4 FD lens when I was using a Canon A-1 SLR camera and it produced stellar results. The reason that these lenses are relatively inexpensive is that it is difficult to mount them on a Modern Canon EOS DSLR and still maintain infinity focus. However, I don't think that this would be a problem with another brand camera such as your Sony.

Of course, you would be restricted to manual focus but, I don't think that should be a problem with the uses you plan for this lens...

Here are the adapters for Canon FD to Sony:
https://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&ke...wu0bzn85_b_p20

BTW: I had been hesitant to purchase a piece of used gear from Japan but, I was quite happy with my recent purchase of a Canon 1.4x Mark-3 teleconverter. It came through quickly and was in pristine shape...

[ajohnw]

For astro work you might be better off with a telescope mount Brian. The payload the camera platforms can take is pretty low really so you would need to keep an eye on that aspect. I've not looked at them for some time but from what I can see all may well need a counter weight to balance a camera and lens like that. That and probably an equatorial wedge will up the price from the headline figure plus even more if you find you need a heavier built tripod for it. Than at some point you might find you want an autoguider - even more weight and for instance from a review the skywatcher platform only auto guides on one axis so the polar axis needs to be set pretty precisely.

There is a problem with mounts. The german equatorials are designed in way that helps them vibrate. Fork mounts are much better but tend to come with more expensive telescopes. Half fork mounts are cheap but I sold one I bought to try very quickly so you are probably stuck with skywatcher eq's. The problem with those is that the tripod they come on lets them down especially at the smaller end. It's an "odd" area. Years ago having had one I mentioned that the tripod on an eq4 really lets them down. It's proved to be a popular idea, even the manufacturers sell alternate tripods now. Some makes are better than others as they come - they are usually fitted with telescopes that are a touch too heavy for them really in other words you might expect it to be the equivalent of an eq4 and it will be an eq3 really.

As I have never done it I can't really make any further suggestions. Do watch the weight capacity of what ever you buy and realise that this needs to be balanced on 2 axis. One by moving the camera and lens about and the other with the counterweight. Also make sure that camera style mounting plates are available that are suitable for the lenses you want to use. I'd guess that the suggested 300mm F4 would best have a tripod mount on it to help with the balancing.

To be honest as astronomy tends to attract people with buckets of money I have mostly bought used mounts. The early ones that were new taught me what to look out for. The worst problem I have had with a used mount was that a grub screw needed tightening up otherwise the drive slipped. I'd guess that the seller knew this but perfect excuse to satisfy his wife when he bought a much more expensive one. The other point is that some try and give up pretty rapidly. The lighter weight items don't fetch high prices. For instance if it wasn't for the street light change round here I would be using and eq3 head mounted on an eq5 tripod from time to time. The seller had paid for the tripod change.It's goto and pretty easy to move around. All I have done as many do on these mounts is stripped it, used a decent grease where needed and adjusted it carefully. From playing with it I expect it to be ok with scopes up to about 5kg plus the attachments and will be ok for photography providing that the scopes aren't too long. I'll very probably find I need an autoguider though. Most people seem to but no harm trying without.

John
-

[JBW]

Brian, if you are looking for a GOOD reasonably priced lens for your Sony, A Canon FD 300mm f/4 with an adapter "might" be the trick.
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odk...rs&_sacat=3323

The Canon FD manual focus lenses were of excellent quality. I shot with the 300mm f/4 FD lens when I was using a Canon A-1 SLR camera and it produced stellar results. The reason that these lenses are relatively inexpensive is that it is difficult to mount them on a Modern Canon EOS DSLR and still maintain infinity focus. However, I don't think that this would be a problem with another brand camera such as your Sony.

Of course, you would be restricted to manual focus but, I don't think that should be a problem with the uses you plan for this lens...

Here are the adapters for Canon FD to Sony:
https://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&ke...wu0bzn85_b_p20

BTW: I had been hesitant to purchase a piece of used gear from Japan but, I was quite happy with my recent purchase of a Canon 1.4x Mark-3 teleconverter. It came through quickly and was in pristine shape...

and for me buying from Japan can be cheaper. Tamrons are about half the price that they are in B&H

[JBW]

For astro work you might be better off with a telescope mount Brian.
John
-

I've looked at telescope mounts and any that would do what I need (tracking manually or motorized) come in at %00US and up and weigh about 40 pounds. The price is I can handle but the weight I can't.

With a magnetic deviation of just over 1* getting things lined up accurately even without being able to see Polaris should be doable.

As you say astro-astronomy tends to attract people with buckets of money. Which is one of the reasons I'm going with DSLR astrophotography.

The Skywatcher will be the way I go if I go motorized. It can handle a camera with a big lens, a finder scope and an auto guider. Although for short exposure tracking an auto guider is not really needed. The price new for it and all the add on's is under 800US Which means I have the potential for some serious astro-photography without breaking the bank.

I can even put in a pier and have permanent polar alignment.

For now i have the new mount and the wireless shutter control to take me to the next level

[ajohnw]

I wondered about one of these for you Brian

http://skywatcher.com/product/eq3-synscan/

While you may not want goto it has other advantages. Aligning the goto can correct for some misalignment of the mount. The hand controller means that there isn't any need to touch the mount or scope. The focal length you intend to use is a lot less than many telescopes but people often add electronic focusing to telescopes to make that job easier as the image bounces about when they try to focus. I'd say you can forget manual guiding due to this. I tried it a long time ago on an EQ4, wasn't long before I bought the motor drives for it - both axis.

I can't find a weight for the eq3 head. I should be able to grab mine and weigh it however when my son went to a nursery they mentioned that they would teach him to be tidy and that it would stay with him for life. I should have made the sign of the cross and gone some where else 'cause it has. He's tidied it away for me. I'll see if it can be found later and weigh it. He's out at the moment. My Vixen head is where it should be.

When I bought it I took a 6" F5 newtonian with me, mounted that and fitted a very short focal length eyepiece to give an insane magnification to see how much the mount shook around. I was impressed - i could focus it pretty easily at a magnification way over what can sensibly be used.. It is on an EQ5 tripod though. The link shows the head on a tubular tripod not the usual one made up of square sections so there has been an improvement if they all come with tubular types now. The other may be ok with a just a camera etc. I bought the newtonian specifically for photo work but the street light changes have put a hold on that. All sorts of reasons for going for a 6" rather than the usual 8" or more. I wont know how well it will all work out for photography until I use it. I was going to mount it on a pier in the garden. For a sensible portable set up for cold winters nights I ideally need the gear in the cloudynights link also dew heaters.

Goto can have other advantages. Sometimes light pollution means that objects can't be seen easily or people may not know where they are. People who have solved that problem often use the goto to help setting up and then disengage the drives and slew manually as the goto slew rate is generally rather slow. Goto's often have a button press that is used when it's slewed to an object and it's been manually accurately centred - this improves tracking. Setting them up initially varies. It's best to look at the manuals before buying as some are easier than others. In some cases a spirit level and compass can help. The problem with alignment in some ways is that the base of the mount ideally needs to be dead level. Not and easy thing to do. Polar scopes can be pretty difficult to use at some latitudes as well. As I am south of B'ham I have to drift align but if I get on my knees, crawl up to the scope and tilt my head back to look through a polar scope it's a real struggle - in fact I can't really centre my eye on the eyepiece. I've played with attaching a camera right angle finder and it looks like that could help.

I don't want to put you off Brian but would hope to get you to think carefully before buying. In the astro world reviews etc often gloss over things and equipment is priced to suit all pocket depths father than functionality. I did do a search on a site to see what a 300mm telephoto could do in the hands of pretty capable people who in most cases will have mounted them on pretty expensive equipment. You might find posts relating to specific mounts and dslr's as well. The shots can give an idea of best results and exposure times etc.

https://www.astrobin.com/search/?q=3...se=5&license=6

There are also some goto alt azimuth mounts about. These tend to be lighter. They will track but to keep stars exactly centred the camera would need rotating. I have looked at photo's taken with one of these but wondered about the exposure times that were used. Some one on here bought one but doesn't appear to have posted any result. You can find the post by searching Ioptron. I am not sure of the prices of these. These are also available using a 1/2 fork mount. There is a skywatcher camera mount that functions this way

http://skywatcher.com/product/allview-mount/

:-) I might get tempted after selling an Ioptron. Compact and light appeals to me too especially after the doc found that statins were not a good idea in my case.

Another
http://skywatcher.com/product/az-gt/

but notice that they are coy about the carrying capacity. These crop up 2nd hand as people buy them complete with a scope and then go for a heavier stand. I bought one but wanted to use it on a wedge in an equatorial mode. The weight carrying capacity like that would be extremely low also the hand controller didn't have an equatorial mode but after mentioning this on a forum I believe they added one. You could get an idea of what they can carry by looking at the scopes that are fitted with them and I'd guess halving the weight of the scope to get a real idea of what it can handle reasonably well. That may apply to anything you buy if it's going to be used for photography. It's not possible to be totally sure in this respect. For instance I have a mount that states 27lbs some one who takes lots of photo's reckons 17ibs max and that will have been with careful balancing. There is a video about of the same mount swinging a much heavier scope about, 60lbs if I remember correctly. That head weighs 10.4lbs less the counterweight. The counterweight is the same. This mount is by Ioptron. The tripod weight is about 13lb and isn't stiff enough for the mount really. I'm not keen on the goto alignment. I should have read the manual more thoroughly.

As I mentioned though a lot depends on the final size of the photo.

John

[ajohnw]

Just nosing about Brian there is a general consensus that the allview mount isn't suitable for photography - not astro anyway. I'd say that rules out any alt az mounts. Should have checked first but I had seen photo's taken with mounts like that but did wonder if they were genuine.

John
-

[ajohnw]

The EQ3 head alone weighs 3.9kg, no counterweights and no bar fitted to carry those. That wont add much weight. The counterweight weights are in the link. It looks like they are fitting the same tripod as I have now. That weighs 5.2kg.

That's 8.6lbs and 11.5lbs in old money.

I can't find the bar for the counterweights It's been tidied away but am pretty sure it's tube not solid bar.

There are a few shots taken with it on astrobin

https://www.astrobin.com/gear/149/sk...r-eq3-synscan/

Out of interest scopes and tripods don't have to be that big before people take them out in stages. Tripod, mount, telescope. That's even with SCT that use a fork mount so doesn't need counterweights. The mounts are also hollow which helps. With german types the counterweight may be put on after the mount has been fitted to the tripod too.

Stargazerslounge is a good place to go for general info.

John
-

[ajohnw]

I lost some of that post.

People say that the goto can be aligned via the camera. Best way to check that is to look through your camera and lens and see what can be seen. The manuals usually state what stars can be used and how the mount is initially set up. I've used Meade's arrangement most often so would need to re read Skywatcher. On meade it's point scope ew and level and press a button. Then manually centre the star, another button and onto another star. They do pick bright ones and offer several. Some scopes show stars so well in very dark skies it's best to use the finder as they all look bright. Vixen may be the best. The moon can/could be used on some but their mounts are expensive.

You'll need something like this
http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/...-4--Screw.html

Or adapt a standard vixen dovetail bar somehow. Or maybe if aligning is a problem graft a finder onto it's own dovetail bar. Some finders can also be used for guiding. A bit of diy on astro stuff can often be put to good use. It might just involve drilling and tapping holes in things that are readily available or pieces of aluminium plate.

If these posts are no use to Brian they may be to others.

John
-

[JBW]

I lost some of that post.

People say that the goto can be aligned via the camera. Best way to check that is to look through your camera and lens and see what can be seen. The manuals usually state what stars can be used and how the mount is initially set up. I've used Meade's arrangement most often so would need to re read Skywatcher. On meade it's point scope ew and level and press a button. Then manually centre the star, another button and onto another star. They do pick bright ones and offer several. Some scopes show stars so well in very dark skies it's best to use the finder as they all look bright. Vixen may be the best. The moon can/could be used on some but their mounts are expensive.

You'll need something like this
http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/...-4--Screw.html

Or adapt a standard vixen dovetail bar somehow. Or maybe if aligning is a problem graft a finder onto it's own dovetail bar. Some finders can also be used for guiding. A bit of diy on astro stuff can often be put to good use. It might just involve drilling and tapping holes in things that are readily available or pieces of aluminium plate.

If these posts are no use to Brian they may be to others.

John
-

Your posts are of help because they offer different solutions and perspectives to me and to others.

The thing to remember with me is that I am doing DSLR astro-photography. No telescope. So far my shots have been taken with my Sony Alpha a58 mounted on a Slik U8000 tripod with hand tracking.

With the new tripod and wireless shutter control things should improve.

If I decide that I need a motorized eq mount then will be the time when I need to decide if I want to stay DSLR or move into telescope astro-photography.

If it is DSLR then the SkyWatcher is as good as it gets right now. It handles my camera a 300 zoom lens, a small refractor as a spotting guiding scope and a lightweight auto guider. Fits nicely on my new Slik and it weighs in at under 4 pounds. Giving me an all up weight of under 15 pounds.

Brian

[ajohnw]

It was an alternative for you if suitable or others Brian. A slightly messy one in some respects. With the EQ3 I'd be inclined to mount the camera on top of a small scope if I could. Something short, light and compact.

There are plenty of posts about the Star Adventurer on the forum I mentioned. It's pretty well received there. Comments on tripod stability but the only test some one had done that I saw were a bit extreme but did measure the settling time on a particular tripod. All that means in practice is how long you must wait if you touch it. The other aspect that concerned me was only being able to autoguide on one axis. The fix is to check that polaris is on the circle in the polar scope periodically and nudge it back if it's off. The need for that will be down to how accurately the mount has been levelled and how accurate the indicator on it is etc and how long you spend shooting the shots. Autoguiding on both axis can help a bit with that but if things are a bit off things will drift. A max focal length of 200mm is mentioned but people have clearly gone to 300mm also small scopes. The periodic error in the drive without autoguiding isn't bad on the sample that was measured. It is possible to get better on mounts in general but costs skyrocket so more realistically priced mounts are likely to be similar. Some comments about the polar scope reticule illuminater including how to set it up. Skywatcher manuals confuse people. Lucky people if things around them are dark enough to really need that.

You can read the posts yourself if you want via google.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?sour...k1.8r8rA_2QPT4

There are also loads of shots taken with the mount on astrobin. Just set the mount search section.

John
-