Posted on 10/20/2023 7:20:11 PM PDT by MtnClimber
Forgot to mention- if you go for a camera and scope mount etc, you will want a tripod, and a remote release to stop most of the shake. If you get a camera that isn’t mirror less, but rather has a shutter mechanism that opens and shuts, this will cause some shake, but the better cameras have “mirror lock-up” function which reduces shake further- but do invest in a remote release- they aren’t too expensive and well worth it.
Yep, hobbies are expensive- I’ve taken up several very expensive hobbies in the past- photography was really expensive- like an idiot, i bpught my main camera for $7000 at the time and Secondary camera was $3500. Not to mention all the lenses, tripd, filters etc etc etc- had I known them what I do now, I would,have made much wise decisions, had just as good if not better gear, and saved tons of money.
Then I got into art- another very expensive hobby, but less so,than photography. I just got back into art- doing pastels now, and wow do they add up quick in price.
Glad I didn’t get into stamp collecting lol
Yup. Some fellow club members take pictures through their telescopes. One gent has an Astro-Physics Traveler and takes some dynamite pictures of the Moon with it. But he’s been doing it most of his life, before digital cameras came along. He has a Pentax and really likes it.
The camera I’m interested in has a built-in intervalometer. It’s not mirrorless. I have 3 refractors, and 3 tripods, but 1 motorized mount.
The 115 f/7, 80mm f/6, and 72mm f/6.
I did a little coin collecting in the past, sold everything, and bought some more.
It’s not much, but the kids will get it when I’m gone. If money was no object, I would love to collect early American coinage, but that ain’t gonna happen, lol.
I want to get a lens for mostly terrestrial photography mostly, but I do plan on using on a tripod for lunar shots. I certainly want to get my money’s worth out of it. PLUS, where I live, there is some wildlife in the area-we live close to a river, so there’s herons, eagles (rarely), ducks, geese, turtles, squirrels, you get the idea. I’ve been giving my cell phone camera a workout, getting nice pictures, but I want to go a bit further. Plus it’s really difficult trying to photograph anything through a telescope with a cell phone. I do have an adapter made by Celestron just for that purpose, but it’s not easy to line up.
I bought the 50-500 lens from sigma- not a prime lens- and the quality isn’t the greatest- but it does reach out to distant animals pretty well- with photoshop i can boost the detail and color a bit - for wildlife, you’ll want anywhere from a 200 (a little on the short side in my opinion) to a 500 mm lens- If you can get fairly close without spooking the birds and animals, a 70-200 might be fine, and cheaper to buy- I do enjoy the 50-500 as it has a huge range, but the photos aren’t top quality- but not too bad- it was a worthwhile investment in my opinion- that and something like a 24-70mm lens is a good combo for closer shots with a good range for more options for composition of subjects-
Thanks for the info. I watched a Bald Eagle scoop a fish out of the river this past spring, that would’ve been a fantastic shot, but I couldn’t get my cellphone out in time…
Nice ‘scope!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.