Subject:
|
Re: (not quite) Looking at Mars
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Sat, 16 Aug 2003 17:23:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
335 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, David Laswell wrote:
> There should be two adjustment knobs to control
> rotation and elevation. In order to accurately aim it, (McSnip)
Purple Dave,
Thank you for your description!! This will actually help; I knew about
those knobs, but I think I had them too tight, and had to keep bumping the
'scope harder than I should have.
> Should be higher=higher. Test it out on the moon or some local landmark
> just to be sure.
Again, thanks! This echoes Dan's comments above.
>
> > I wear glasses; should I take them off to focus an image in?
>
> It depends. If you've got astigmatism, then absolutely not. (spaceySnip)
There isn't any rubber ring around the lens, but I understand what you're
saying about astigmatism. So, I'll try to do this keeping the glasses on,
though they seem to get in the way.
> > Should I move the actual telescope tube itself, and refrain from touching the >lens tube?
>
> I'm not sure if I understand this, but if there is a focal adjustment knob,
> you should use that, and only that, to adjust the focus. Sliding tubes in and
> out lacks accuracy, and bumping them with anything could knock them out of
> allignment.
Here I meant the directional pointing, not the focusing. You've kindly
answered this above...thanks!
>
> > * Do I need a special camera adapter to take pictures of any images I'm
> > lucky enough to get?
>
> Pretty much, yeah.
Bummer. I tried last night with my Sony DSC-P51, but could only get part
of an image, and it always seemed to move around too much because I couldn't
hold still enough. I suppose I'll have to break down and go find an adapter one
day.
> > (or a very expensive (IMHO) correcting lens.
>
> Yeah, I'm sure they make those as well, and yeah, they're probably not
> cheap.
I remember looking for one of these when I first got the 'scope. The lens
cost more than my little 'scope, so wasn't worth the investment at the time.
Maybe one day when I get a bigger, more whiz-bang 'scope I'll get one of them;
of course if it's all that whiz-bang, I won't need one.
Thanks for all your help! I'll have to practice a little as you suggested
to get the hang of it, since right now I'm probably a bit clumsy. There is a
little spotter scope on the side, but I doubt its accuracy, and so may need to
spend the time to sight it in, if it can be made true enough.
Leg Godt!
Peace and Long Life,
Tony
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: (not quite) Looking at Mars
|
| (...) Fully tightened is great for still-shoot photography, as once you've got it aimed correctly you don't have to worry about it moving. Fully loosened isn't good for much beyond rough-aiming, but I suppose it would work for photographing (...) (21 years ago, 17-Aug-03, to lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: (not quite) Looking at Mars
|
| (...) High-magnification telescopes will have one or two miniscopes mounted to the side to use for pre-aiming, but your telescope probably isn't powerful enough to warrant one of those. There should be two adjustment knobs to control rotation and (...) (21 years ago, 16-Aug-03, to lugnet.space)
|
14 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
