Has anyone had success in attaching a low weight, low light compact
digital camera to a telescope eyepiece for imaging the night sky? I
already have a good attachment using the following

ETX-90
Standard Meade lenses
Digi-T adapter - http://www.scopetronics.com/dtsystems.htm
Olympus C4040Z camera
Cam2com software - http://www.sabsik.com/

The problem is that the camera is slightly heavier than I would like.
At 420 grammes it seems a bit of a load on the telescope. I'd rather
avoid counterweights so I'm looking for a more modern and lighter
camera. The basic requirement is that it have a threaded attachment
like the one shown below so I can couple it directly to the eyepiece,
and be low weight. One that has good low light performance would be
good.

The threading on which the Digi-T adapter mounts is just visible in
this link showing the lens adapter tube that couples the Digi-T to the
camera.

   https://emporium.olympus.com/innards/empProdDetails.asp?sku=200558-410

In case anyone hasn't tried it, the threaded mounting is far more
solid and far easier to use than those awkward rods-and-rings bits of
meccano that hold the camera via its tripod attachment.

--
James

James Harris wrote:
>
> In case anyone hasn't tried it, the threaded mounting is far more
> solid and far easier to use than those awkward rods-and-rings bits of
> meccano that hold the camera via its tripod attachment.
> --
> James

Hi James

It's far too quiet so here are some random thoughts:

Unfortunately not many compact digital cameras seem to have a lens
thread.

The weight of cameras also seems to follow a maker trend.

Weight suggest quality to the ignorant and impressionable. Think Nikon
SLRs and Olympic weight lifters! I thought the Olympus SLRs more than
heavy enough!

My £200 Canon Ixus 860IS  feels like half a brick at 155g. My £70
Vivitar 7388S feels much lighter at 135g. I'd prefer half that for a
pocket camera. My Olde Sony P71 weighed 274g and now feels like two
whole bricks taped together with a postage stamp for a screen.

The Vivitar goes everywhere with me. Even on cycle rides. The Canon
only goes out in the car or around the house and garden.

I have been delighted with the results from both cameras. The Vivitar
is a little jewel for the asking price with a huge screen. A spare
battery is always handy. The Canon battery lasts literally for months.
The Vivitar for a couple of weeks. Both get lots of exercise so I
needed a larger hard drive.  Thanks to these three digital cameras I
now have 12,000 image files worth 10GB. Not all astronomy, I hasten to
add.

If you go into the menus you can set the lens not to retract. The lens
housing could then be used in a simple tubular, eyepiece adaptor.
Though I'd want a short lanyard to catch the camera if it slipped.

Somebody ought to do a plastic eyepiece adaptor with a proper clamping
ring for various compact camera lenses. Rather like they do for
webcams but without the tiny thread.

I made a simple adaptor for my Sony tripod screw hole using a piece of
alloy plate and a Tufnol block bored in the lathe to fit the outside
of my 2" focussing mount. I used it for eyepiece projection on the Sun
during a transit with the Sony lens set to stay out and a full
aperture solar foil filter on my 6" refractor.

Regards
Chris

http://fullerscopes.blogspot.com/

On 16 Sep, 21:22, James Harris  wrote:

> Has anyone had success in attaching a low weight, low light compact
> digital camera to a telescope eyepiece for imaging the night sky? I
> already have a good attachment using the following
>
> ETX-90
> Standard Meade lenses
> Digi-T adapter -http://www.scopetronics.com/dtsystems.htm
> Olympus C4040Z camera
> Cam2com software -http://www.sabsik.com/
>
> The problem is that the camera is slightly heavier than I would like.
> At 420 grammes it seems a bit of a load on the telescope. I'd rather
> avoid counterweights so I'm looking for a more modern and lighter
> camera. The basic requirement is that it have a threaded attachment
> like the one shown below so I can couple it directly to the eyepiece,
> and be low weight. One that has good low light performance would be
> good.
>
> The threading on which the Digi-T adapter mounts is just visible in
> this link showing the lens adapter tube that couples the Digi-T to the
> camera.
>
>    https://emporium.olympus.com/innards/empProdDetails.asp?sku=200558-410
>
> In case anyone hasn't tried it, the threaded mounting is far more
> solid and far easier to use than those awkward rods-and-rings bits of
> meccano that hold the camera via its tripod attachment.

Asking on wider range of newsgroups. Maybe others have already gone
down this road. Not sure if this will invoke derision from the CCD
folks.... :-)

--
James

On 19 Sep, 00:03, "Chris.B"  wrote:
> James Harris wrote:
>
> > In case anyone hasn't tried it, the threaded mounting is far more
> > solid and far easier to use than those awkward rods-and-rings bits of
> > meccano that hold the camera via its tripod attachment.
> > --
> > James
>
> Hi James
>
> It's far too quiet so here are some random thoughts:

It is. Thanks for adding comments.

> Unfortunately not many compact digital cameras seem to have a lens
> thread.
>
> The weight of cameras also seems to follow a maker trend.
>
> Weight suggest quality to the ignorant and impressionable. Think Nikon
> SLRs and Olympic weight lifters! I thought the Olympus SLRs more than
> heavy enough!
>
> My £200 Canon Ixus 860IS  feels like half a brick at 155g. My £70
> Vivitar 7388S feels much lighter at 135g. I'd prefer half that for a
> pocket camera. My Olde Sony P71 weighed 274g and now feels like two
> whole bricks taped together with a postage stamp for a screen.

That's only 20g of difference. Does it really change the perceived
weight so much?

> The Vivitar goes everywhere with me. Even on cycle rides. The Canon
> only goes out in the car or around the house and garden.
>
> I have been delighted with the results from both cameras. The Vivitar
> is a little jewel for the asking price with a huge screen. A spare
> battery is always handy. The Canon battery lasts literally for months.
> The Vivitar for a couple of weeks. Both get lots of exercise so I
> needed a larger hard drive.  Thanks to these three digital cameras I
> now have 12,000 image files worth 10GB. Not all astronomy, I hasten to
> add.
>
> If you go into the menus you can set the lens not to retract. The lens
> housing could then be used in a simple tubular, eyepiece adaptor.
> Though I'd want a short lanyard to catch the camera if it slipped.
>
> Somebody ought to do a plastic eyepiece adaptor with a proper clamping
> ring for various compact camera lenses. Rather like they do for
> webcams but without the tiny thread.

You mean to clamp to the lens barrel? That could work. I still prefer
the idea of mounting on a thread but your suggestion sounds far better
than the tripod mount.


> I made a simple adaptor for my Sony tripod screw hole using a piece of
> alloy plate and a Tufnol block bored in the lathe to fit the outside
> of my 2" focussing mount. I used it for eyepiece projection on the Sun
> during a transit with the Sony lens set to stay out and a full
> aperture solar foil filter on my 6" refractor.

OK. Here's another mounting method using the tripod mount that sounds
similar (but not such good value!)

  http://www.scopetronics.com/kit-images/type3-dt.htm

--
James

The following site might help James:

http://www.weasner.com/etx/menu.html

Regards,
John.

James Harris wrote:
> Has anyone had success in attaching a low weight, low light compact
> digital camera to a telescope eyepiece for imaging the night sky? I
> already have a good attachment using the following
> 
> ETX-90
> Standard Meade lenses
> Digi-T adapter - http://www.scopetronics.com/dtsystems.htm
> Olympus C4040Z camera
> Cam2com software - http://www.sabsik.com/
> 
> The problem is that the camera is slightly heavier than I would like.
> At 420 grammes it seems a bit of a load on the telescope. I'd rather
> avoid counterweights so I'm looking for a more modern and lighter
> camera. The basic requirement is that it have a threaded attachment
> like the one shown below so I can couple it directly to the eyepiece,
> and be low weight. One that has good low light performance would be
> good.
> 
> The threading on which the Digi-T adapter mounts is just visible in
> this link showing the lens adapter tube that couples the Digi-T to the
> camera.
> 
>    https://emporium.olympus.com/innards/empProdDetails.asp?sku=200558-410
> 
> In case anyone hasn't tried it, the threaded mounting is far more
> solid and far easier to use than those awkward rods-and-rings bits of
> meccano that hold the camera via its tripod attachment.
> 
> --
> James

>>On 16 Sep, 21:22, James Harris  wrote:
>> Has anyone had success in attaching a low weight, low light compact
>> digital camera to a telescope eyepiece for imaging the night sky? I
>> already have a good attachment using the following
>>
>> ETX-90
>> Standard Meade lenses
>> Digi-T adapter -http://www.scopetronics.com/dtsystems.htm
>> Olympus C4040Z camera
>> Cam2com software -http://www.sabsik.com/
>>
>> The problem is that the camera is slightly heavier than I would like.
>> At 420 grammes it seems a bit of a load on the telescope. I'd rather
>> avoid counterweights so I'm looking for a more modern and lighter
>> camera. The basic requirement is that it have a threaded attachment
>> like the one shown below so I can couple it directly to the eyepiece,
>> and be low weight. One that has good low light performance would be
>> good.
>>
>> The threading on which the Digi-T adapter mounts is just visible in
>> this link showing the lens adapter tube that couples the Digi-T to the
>> camera.
>>
>>    https://emporium.olympus.com/innards/empProdDetails.asp?sku=200558-410
>>
>> In case anyone hasn't tried it, the threaded mounting is far more
>> solid and far easier to use than those awkward rods-and-rings bits of
>> meccano that hold the camera via its tripod attachment.

One thing you might try is to remove the batteries and use the
external 120V power adapter. 4AAAs weigh 120 gm. Even if that leaves a
heavy camera, it'll lighten the requirement for the counterweights, if
you feel you still need those.