memoryman

Multi spectral imaging sounds interesting! Where can I find that?

DoctorD and Don Great images from both of you thanks for sharing them. I've got a lot to think about now!

Hi everyone, Thanks for all your advice. It seems like although the Infinity and Ultrastar use the same chip and are similar there are significant differences regarding sensiivity. The main reasons that I thought the Ultrastar C would be better was the reduced size and weight, plus no need for a separate power source, the renowned software and the thought of immediate results. After reading what you all say though the Lodestar seems like a viable option for LP affected sites. Up until now I'd have preferred a colour model as I have a perception that using filters (or filter wheels) involves a lot of faffing around etc, but now I'm not so sure. Is there a thread where I could check up on images from the different cameras and setups?

Thanks DoctorD. My main interest is not in imaging as such, but just on seeing faint objects more easily from my present location. I would have though that a fast scope like my Meade SN10 @ f4 would have been ideally suited for live viewing (or building up and image within less than a minute at least) as it was originally optimised by Meade for imaging by being capable of gathering a lot of light quickly. I looked at the link you suggested which was interesting, but seemed to be mainly concerned with using the Hyperstar equipment to allow much quicker exposures for long focal length scopes like Schmidt Cassegrains. As my scope is pretty fast anyway (you'd need an expensive Astrograph scope to beat it) therefore I'm a bit confused? Perhaps I'm missing or misunderstanding a basic fact?

I am considering buying either an Atik Infinity or Starlight Xpress Ultrastar and am somewaht dismayed to hear of some people's experiences with the latter (does the Atik Infinity produce similar results?)! I would have thought that my Meade LXD55 SN10 scope would, at f4, be fast enough (in my opinion) and with a large enough aperture to gather decent images from my light polluted back garden. If I use my OVX8L, which at f6 and smaller aperture, I wouldn't expect results to be quite as good, but I'm not an expert in this field. I've seen results from a member of my astronomy group (RAG) whose small scope with a Phil Dyer camera attached has produced (in light polluted skies and from behind double glazing would you believe!) in a relatively short exposure time quite bright B&W images of objects that he's always struggled to see even in big scopes in reasonably dark skies! This he said is the main reason he's so happy with it. I would expect that either the two cameras above with their much more sensitive chips would produce even better results? I'm not into imaging as such, but was intrigued by the cameras which would enable me to observe faint targets from my own back garden without having to lug my gear about over large distances to try and see them properly. My rationale since seeing the cameras is that if I was to become really interested in imaging then I would invest in a specialised camera and associated gear. Of course convincing my wife that the expenditure was justifiable would be a different proposition!