Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_annual.thumb.jpg.3fc34f695a81b16210333189a3162ac7.jpg

rocketandroll

Members
  • Content Count

    1,054
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Good

3 Followers

About rocketandroll

  • Rank
    Sub Dwarf

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.rocket-fx.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Astrophotography, amateur rocketry, fantasy/sci-fi modelmaking, (target) rifle shooting
  • Location
    Norwich, Norfolk

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I got a reasonable pic of the Rosette using a 340mm or so focal length scope (just about right to fit it all in) with about 2hrs of data in 5min guided subs.... it's a feint object (in comparison with M42 for example) and I doubt you'd get much even at high ISO at 30 sec exposures and at 300mm fl on a tripod you'd get star trails after a second or two.. As has also been said, an hour or two of data would be needed to see much at all... save it for when you have a motorised mount and, even better, when you have guiding. Ben
  2. Hmmm... that looks rather nifty :-) Waiting wise, I'm not buying till the end of this year at the earliest anyway, so that's not an issue.... it's a little shorter focal length than I was aiming for but could certainly be a good cheaper option. Thanks for the link :-)
  3. Cheers both.... James, I assume you mean that having to take multiple channels isn't necessarily going to take longer than capturing the same data with a OSC camera? Obviously I know mono CCD's are more sensitive... it'd be an interesting consideration if the extra sensitivity outweighed the time cost of having to take multiples of each shot for each channel. My biggest concern is having short windows of opportunity and having to accurately guess how long I have so I can get equal numbers of exposures for each channel. I liked the ability to just 'grab a bit more' when I was imaging with a DSL
  4. Yeah, I am certainly tempted by the OSC/Ha option to bring out more in neblae before, as mentioned, maybe moving on to full narowband work later, so having a built in filter wheel sounds like a nice option to avoid getting to know a camera then having to change again after a year or two. Ideally I want something with quite a physically large sensor but with small pixels, sub 5nm ideally and at least 6-8mp. Gonna have to do some serious homework on what's out there and what suits my needs best :-)
  5. Actually, Swag... do you have any specific recomendations on CCD's? Or maybe Olly does? Having been 'out of the loop' for a year and a half it seems some new things have come along. I have been quite a big fan of Starlight Xpress cameras and their very good customer support but I'm happy to look at all makes for such a high cost purchase. I am keen to carefully match overall resolution with chip size and pixel size to get what I need for the targets I want to capture. Ben
  6. Cheers mate... Nope, not seen Olly's recent work, but not seen anything bad come from him ever so I certainly trust his opinion on equipment :-) Budget wise, the FSQ106 and Veloce are both about the same sort of price range, around the £4K mark so that is roughly what I was aiming at. Total budget for the rig is about £10K so, assuming a NEQ6 will do as a mount (never had any problems with my HEQ5 and I have no intention of mounting anything heavy enough to warrant a paramount or anything massive like that) and allowing a grand for guiding equipment that leaves about £4K for a CCD though if I
  7. Hi folks... Well, it's been a while since I've been on here! Having had to sell most of my equipment and not been living anywhere viable for imaging I'm now just a few months away from hopefully moving house and getting a permanent obsy set up. My plan is to get back into deep sky imaging but in a much more serious way. In terms of scope I was veering towards the fastest option I could go for as my imaging time (and innevitably the weather windows) will be short. My plan had been to get an Oficina Stellare Veloce RH200 at f3 but having been looking in more detail I've seen quite a few images
  8. Thanks all... and I am planning on powering everything off the mains and a 12V converter so it should be fine. I have been talking with Ian at Ian King and been recomended that the SX version of the same camera, although a teensy bit more pricey, may be a better bet as I can use their slimline OAG and my Lodestar directly with it with less hassle than the Atik. Will see but I certainly think that chip is the one for me. Just got to wait till next year when I can afford the OS Veloce it's gonna be attached to and start getting some serious results from it :-) A cooled CCD through a f3 scope sh
  9. I think it's just a result of using a very wide-angle lens... anything below 20mm and it'll really show up the distortion around the edges..... cracking image though!!! I'd just crop it a teensy bit :-)
  10. rocketandroll

    Astrophotography-2012

    My astro-images from 2012
  11. Thanks all for the thoughts.... the physics of CCD operation are not my strong point so it's good to get some extra info. Again, to be honest... I am aware that ultimately better results can be obtained with a mono camera and filters, however, I am also aware there is a lot more work involved in getting that right and there is always the risk of not having enough data for one chanel if an imaging session is cut short. I've been really happy with the results I've got from DSLR imaging the last couple of years and have progressed in my processing of colour deep sky images... and what I am lookin
  12. See above reasons for NOT going mono :-) Without a filter I guess the mono camera is way more sensitive... the moment you put a filter in it though it's throwing away most of the photons so isn't as sensitive any more... isn't it? Tell me... which would produce a better result: 4 X 15 minute exposures on a one-shot colour CCD 1 X 15 minute exposure each of LRGB on a mono CCD I'd be genuinely interested.... I assumed the former? My concern is, given the time I have and our intermittent weather, plus this being one of several time consuming hobbies I have... I don't want to HAVE to comit to capt
  13. Helen Many thanks for the link and encouragement..... your 'quick' image of the iris is about all the encouragement I need :-) I assume those pics are through the 123 not the 72? Or a bit of both? The M31 image looks quite wide angle for that chip size and 590mm fl? Out of interest... how recently did you buy the camera and scope? FLO's website is listing the FLT123 as 'Customers also bought this' with that camera :-) I know myself.... and I know my circumstances... and I am unlikely (given this last year and a half's efforts) to be able to commit more than one, maybe two nights to a subjec
  14. Hi all Ok.... I've made the decision to get a full new imaging rig and go the CCD route having done a year of imaging with a DSLR. I want to go for a colour CCD for the simple reason that I know I will struggle to find the time to capture data to do LRGB or narrowband and will most likely end up with hours of unfinished data sets and no completed images. I will be using the camera with frac's between 350mm and 600mm focal length mainly but would like to be able to get something with a sensor size that allows me to fit reasonable sized targets in such as the whole of M42/running man etc. I am a
  15. the below is with an Eos 500D and a 345mm focal length (Meg72 with reducer) and fits it all in.... well, i say that, I know it is actually much bigger still than this but the outer areas are very feint and don't show up in my pic. Someone told me when I started out that I wouldn't fit it all in with a DSLR unless I went down to 200mm FL.... that was nonsense :-) I tried it with my 200mm lens and it's a bit lost in the middle of the frame.... 300 - 400mm seems about right for DSLR sized sensors. Ben
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.