[Docrwm]

I've gotten a Celestron C90 scope and its just too much for the Manfrotto 496 ball head I have. Anyone have any experience with a nice, yet inexpensive, tripod/head for a small telescope they'd like to share?

[bossa]

Surely you'd want a nice equatorial mount or a Celestron altazimuth mount? I wouldn't muck around with camera tripods if I had such a nice telescope.

[Docrwm]

Surely you'd want a nice equatorial mount or a Celestron altazimuth mount? I wouldn't muck around with camera tripods if I had such a nice telescope.

Thanks. I honestly thought tht since its essentially a 1250mm mirror lens that a camera tripod would do the trick.

[bossa]

Do you want to use it as an astronomical telescope or a telephoto lens?

[Docrwm]

Do you want to use it as an astronomical telescope or a telephoto lens?

Both. The kids got a kick out of looking at the moon and Saturn last night. I'd really like to try my hand at some photos of the moon with it too.

[pxpaulx]

True telescope tripods can get into the thousands! Could we get hit with a dollar figure on this one? If you want to use it primarily for astronomy purposes, a dedicated equatorial mount tripod would be the best recommendation (also, speaking from experience, I'd get one that has tracking capability...finding the stars yourself and keeping the telescope aligned is highly likely to lead to frustration and eventually no use). A mount with (or without) tracking capability is likely to run (or, rather, start) in the neighborhood of $300.00. If you just want to plop it on a tripod, look at the moon and try to find a few planets, but want something you can use for photography as well, you'll still want an either heavy (metal, cheaper) or heavy duty (carbon fiber, more expensive), plus a good ballhead, but neither of those will be particularly cheap unfortunately!

[DeadJohn]

I just looked up the Manfrotto 496. It has a 6 kg capacity. I think the C90 + camera weigh significantly less than that.

The moon (and bright planets) is bright enough to allow a small telescope on a camera tripod + ballhead. Let the ballhead slide down into the sideways notch, then connect the scope to the ballhead as close to the scope's center of gravity as possible (you don't need perfetc balance, just good enough so the scope doesn't move due to its own weight). The scope will be rotated 90 degrees; the bottom mounting plate will actually be on the side of the scope. To aim, pan the entire ballhead assembly for left/right, rotate the ball for up/down. You'll need to adjust the aim every few minutes as the moon moves across the sky. The moon is bright enough to use short exposures so there won't streaking in a single photographic exposure.

Some possible issues to watch for with the ballhead arrangement:

1. I use a ballhead in the above manner with my Stellarvue refractor. That scope has a clamshell mount that's very easy to balance. I don't know the specifics of the C90 mounting plate.
2. The scope will not be centered directly over your tripod because the ballhead is in the sideways slot. Tipping over might be a concern depending on how wide and stable your tripod is. Hang a bag or other weight from the center of the tripod to increase stability.
3. I don't know whether the 496 ballhead allows easy panning. I use a Flashpoint F2 head from Adorama with my scope.

If you can't get your existing ballhead to work, maybe buy an altazimuth or panhead instead of a different ballhead. A ballhead can work with a light telescope but the other head types will probably be easier to use.

A tracking mount, a more expensive and complex option, slowly rotates the entire telescope to keep your target centered. It's helpful but not required for the moon and planets. Dim deep-sky objects that are tough to find in the sky and need long exposures greatly benefit from a tracking or go-to mount.

[baro-nite]

I agree that if you will use the scope for astronomy, an equatorial mount will make the activity much more enjoyable, particularly with kids involved -- tracking objects becomes so much easier. However, as a contrary view to pxpaulx, for me a computerized mount would kill the enjoyment of it. I had hours of fun learning my way around the sky, finding and tracking deep-space objects with my lowly 6" Schmidt-Newtonian and basic equatorial mount. I used ash tripod legs, relatively cheap and excellent performance -- stable and great for vibration damping. Heavy, of course. I'd still be using that kit if it hadn't been stolen years ago.

[Docrwm]

Thanks guys. I think the easiest, and quickest, option is to try using the "Let the ballhead slide down into the sideways notch" recommendation on the next clear night and see if that helps. The problem last night was constant loss of sight picture due to creep. If that doesn't solve the immediate problem then I'm going to be looking into a manual setup (I do want us to learn our way around the sky ourselves). I saw this one advertised by Celestron - any thoughts?


http://www.amazon.com/Celestron-93607-Heavy-Duty-Altazimuth-Tripod/dp/B0007UQNY0/ref=pd_sim_p_3

[baro-nite]

It's an altazimuth mount (pan-tilt), not equatorial. Much harder to track astronomical objects.

[Docrwm]

It's an altazimuth mount (pan-tilt), not equatorial. Much harder to track astronomical objects.

Thanks. It was the one recommended by Celestron for the scope. I guess I'll be putting in an equatorial tripod as the search now.

[bossa]

The only issue with equatorial mounts is that they must be aligned with the celestial pole.. otherwise you may as well just use an altazimuth mount.

[baro-nite]

Thanks. It was the one recommended by Celestron for the scope. I guess I'll be putting in an equatorial tripod as the search now.

No surprise, as it's a spotting scope, for daylight use also. So it's a tough choice -- an equatorial mount won't be ideal for daytime use.