Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

pipnina

Members
  • Posts

    1,895
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by pipnina

  1. 1 hour ago, Bugdozer said:

    This is one thing that I am always curious about when people talk about really dark skies and the descriptions of them given in the Bortle classifications, because some of it doesn't quite make sense to me. 

    Firstly, a higher Bortle sky is always going to have more light from the sky overall than a lower Bortle sky. No objects actually lose brightness under a high Bortle sky, they just lose contrast against the increasingly bright background glow that is everywhere, until at some point they are effectively rendered invisible. But their light IS still coming down. 

    However, in my experience, once you get down to about Bortle 2.5, there isn't actually enough light to see any shadows at all. The Milky Way could be right overhead, and clear to look at, but I can't distinguish between looking at the ground and having my eyes shut. Basically, the amount of light given off by things like the Milky Way is below the threshold at which my eyes can detect reflected light from objects. I can believe something like Venus could give off enough light to cast a shadow at its brightest, but if I already can't see the ground at all, then having an even darker sky is not going to make shadows on it more visible. Seeing it reflected off water makes sense, but I am dubious of darker skies seeming to make our eyes more sensitive to light which is already below detection threshold.

    The sky at my home has an Exposure Value (EV) of about -5.5 or so, and it's already dark enough that the ground is very hard to see even once I'm adjusted.

    However a place near me is much darker, dark enough to see the MW core and even sometimes the outer spirals, which means it's probably closer to EV-7 or even EV-8, I can see the ground at this level but not clearly. I would guess if it were just the MW core in the sky and no sky glow at all, I'd struggle to see any ground at all as you say. The milky way just isn't that bright!

    • Like 2
  2. 3 hours ago, tomato said:

    Got an update from Eddie, the damaged PCB is now with the manufacturer (Touptek) for repair. He told me not to worry but I can't see me getting it back before astro darkness disappears, but then we probably won't get a break in the clouds either, so what's the rush?

    It may be different up north where you are, but in devon I can manage about 1.5-2 hours of imaging during the astro dark holiday if weather permits, and with narrowband imaging I can get away with a bit more.

    The brightest sky I see from that period here is when the moon is out, which means a moonless night in that time window is still better than normal full moon conditions, under which I'd either image a target at opposite sides of the sky to the moon, or use narrowband, and my results are usually somewhat decent as the last few years the summer period has had a good number of clear nights so I can make one target a multi-night project (relative to UK average...)

  3. 13 minutes ago, symmetal said:

    I would wait until you see what results you get with your Canon lens with your current camera as far as corner star shapes are concerned before buying a full frame sensor. It wasn't until I bought the RASA 11 that I could take full frame images with the 6200MM with good overall star shapes.

    My Canon 'L' 100-400 zoom gave poor star shapes over the whole frame unless I stopped it down to f8 when it was tolerable. A prime lens should be significantly better than a zoom of course, so hope yours performs well.

    I tend to software bin my 6200 images after stacking, as the full size images can be a bit slow to process, especially if doing a mosaic.

    2x2 software binning gives 2x the noise and 4x the signal, so a 2:1 improvement in S/N. Noise adds by using the square root, so with a read noise of say 2e, the 2x2 binned read noise is sqrt( 4 * (2^2))  = 4e. 🙂

    Alan

    Wait noise adds with the square root?? How does this work?

  4. I want to improve the speed of my setup. I worked out that if shooting only RGB then the ASI 2400MC would afford me effectively the same resolution image as my RisingCam 571 (6000x4000) but with a wider FOV due to the larger pixels, since I am speeding up my imaging with a normal camera lens I expect that would be best for star shapes anyway, while affording me a 1 stop boost to my speed (so 6.2x faster than my RisingCam+ f5 scope)

    However it means narrowband (My main interest turned out to be Halpha only really, not worried about the loss of SII and OIII) becomes much less efficient as only one subpixel gathers data for it.

    If I got the ASI 6200MM I can keep my narrowband capacity but with the 3.76 micron pixel size, the same as my RisingCam, I won't gain the speed increase as I would with the 2400MC.

    Unless, I binned. A 3200x4800 image might be a little small for me but could be servicable. However this increases the effective read noise by a factor of four even though in theory is gives me a 2 stop light sampling boost right? So am I worse off with the 6200MM and should stick to RGB imaging with the 2400MC if I want speed, and simply forgoe narrowband for now?

    Interested to hear thoughts.

    Thanks

  5. 7 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

    I don't know much about this, but from what I've gathered, rated voltage of stepper is not important as it is used. This I've gathered from 3d printing forums as steppers are used to move the mechanics of 3d printers.

    In any case, stepper can be driven in two different ways, if I'm not mistaken, and most modern stepper drivers are current drivers. They just pump enough current (depending on settings) to get the motor running. I think that max voltage has something to do with holding torque in that case - if you want more holding torque (or is it max speed?) - you need to provide higher voltage. Some stepper drivers work with 48V - and you can use those drivers with 3.5V motors for example.

    With current drivers - you really don't care about declared voltage.

    See this answer for more details:

    https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/200324/how-to-interpret-the-stepper-motor-voltage-requirement

    I only have a cursory knowledge of electrics in motors in general, but I think as a motor spins faster the magnetic back force increases which means you need yet higher voltage to move the motor. I'd guess if voltage correlates to max speed it's because of that. Holding torque I'd guess would be current based as the strength of the magnetic field is proportional to current and not voltage.

    • Like 1
  6. 21 hours ago, wimvb said:

    Btw, does anyone know if this is a 0.9 or a 1.8 degrees/step motor?

    The number of bars on the rotor shows you the step angle. A 1.8 degree motor will have 100 bars on the stator and 98(IIRC) on the rotor. A 0.9 deg motor will have twice as many.

    Yours certainly looks like an 1.8 to me

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  7. I bought one of these and it seems to be quite good

    Of course it will be most effective once the sun goes down. You can position it some distance away while your camera is on a tripod, focus on it and the picture will show you the sharpness you can expect from stars. Just adjust the camera's orientation to position the fake star at different parts of the frame: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/other-collimation-tools/hubble-optics-5-star-artificial-star.html

    For smaller camera lenses (nifty fifties?) I'd guess the larger holes will be suitable and nice and bright once more than 10m away. For bigger lenses ideally you want as much distance as possible. Most lenses will decrease in quality as you focus closer.

    • Like 1
  8. 10 minutes ago, Bugdozer said:

    I believe not every Canon lens is even possible to fit with an adaptor, due to Canon's "innovation" of making the auto focus motor part of the lens rather than part of the camera body with some models. I don't know whether that applies to this particular lens.

    This lens does have a built in motor, and given it was designed in 1987 that's definitely way ahead of its time as Nikon would use the in-camera motor until I think the 2000s. I suspect the need for the motor to be insanely fast to track sports and wildlife led to this design choice. The lens from reviews I've seen almost literally snaps into position on subjects, and this lens is big, so moving it (and quickly too) would put a lot of strain on a wimpy in-camera motor I think.

    Regardless, all manufacturers use in-lens motors now and only pro tier nikon DSLRs have the built in motor for legacy lens support (Nikon D850, D7500 and similar). The bit that irks me is not being able to manually focus the lens AT ALL without it being powered. But then the lens wasn't designed for people who would care about that I assume...

  9. 7 minutes ago, symmetal said:

    Hope the one you're buying from Russia works out for you @pipnina. In your first post you said the lens was non IS and non USM, though it does say Ultrasonic on the label implying it's USM focusing. Did you get it cheap because the USM isn't working? How will yours focus if that's the case?

    As they are quite inexpensive I've bought a set of these EF extenders to make it easy to get to the lens connections and have a go at interfacing with an arduino. I programmed my current arduino based autofocusers to use the Moonlite autofocus driver, to avoid having to write a separate Ascom driver, so it should be fairly easy to adapt it to create EF protocols I would think. 🙂

    An official Canon extender is £170 for one, but these are £38 for all three so no great loss if I ruin one of them. It'll mean drilling a hole in the side of one of them to solder wires to the rear of one set of contacts.

     

    Alan

     

    Ah yes you're right there is only the original lens (the one I got, from 1987 https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/ef270.html)

    Which is not IS but does have the ultrasonic motor. Then the subsequent 2 versions are simply IS USM and IS USM II.

    I just re-checked the ebay listing and they don't mention broken motors. I suspect I got it uncontested because of the very minor damage to the front element (two small chips, noticable but I suspect not ruinous to the image, won't know for sure until I can test it though!)

    I still have my fingers crossed (now that I've been re-injected with hope due to this adapter) that it'll prove a very suitable replacement for my telescope.

    • Like 1
  10. On 14/03/2024 at 05:54, wxsatuser said:

    There is

    Astromechanics Ascom Canon lens controller.

    May be hard to get one as they are Russian and importing might be hard.

    Plus not cheap.

    Be aware although a very nice lens old versions may have issues with CA etc.
    You may get a good one or not.

     

    On 14/03/2024 at 09:25, Adam J said:

    One of these adaptors from Astromechanics would solve your problem. 

    Astromechanics

    You might be able to find one that is in someones old stock, I know FLO used to sell them. Apart from that it may be a problem importing. 

    Maybe a wanted notice in the forum and on Astrobuysell uk. 

    Adam 

     

    Sergey from Astromechanics replied to me earlier, managed to work out a way for me to pay and that the UK does not impose the same restrictions as the EU so they can deliver it to me directly. They suggested 12-20 days on average until it should arrive, I await it patiently and thank you guys for letting me know of its existence!

    Feels a bit wrong to buy from russia at this time but alas it seems they are the only ones who have made the exact part I need.

    • Like 1
  11. 8 hours ago, wxsatuser said:

    There is

    Astromechanics Ascom Canon lens controller.

    May be hard to get one as they are Russian and importing might be hard.

    Plus not cheap.

    Be aware although a very nice lens old versions may have issues with CA etc.
    You may get a good one or not.

     

    4 hours ago, Adam J said:

    One of these adaptors from Astromechanics would solve your problem. 

    Astromechanics

    You might be able to find one that is in someones old stock, I know FLO used to sell them. Apart from that it may be a problem importing. 

    Maybe a wanted notice in the forum and on Astrobuysell uk. 

    Adam 

     

    My goodness! If I can get my hands on one of those it'd be just the ticket! It would solve the challenge of autofocusing as well which requires some jury rigging on manual focus lenses.

    I've sent them an email as their website seems to suggest the UK doesn't impose the same level of sanctions as the EU... I await their response.

     

    I'll hold onto the lens for a bit to see if I can get hold of the adapter. If I can it might just push me over the edge to buying an asi full frame camera haha. It's been my plan to downsize from my big scope to something faster and more portable so if this lens and adapter work... I'll be over the moon!

    Thanks for the links both of you!

  12. I thought I scored a real deal when I won the bid for a Canon 300mm f2.8 L (non is non usm) for only £600. Given the lens was originally over 4000 I felt pretty good about it.

    Until I got my hands on it today. And learned that it WILL NOT manually focus and cannot be focused AT ALL unless a canon DSLR is attached to it. So it may as well be a brick as far as my astrocam is concerned!

    I am beyond disappointed and to make matters worse, my normal DSLR is a Nikon so I can't even use it on that. I guess I can only hope that I can return the lens to the ebay seller and find another set of optics to try for compact and fast astro imaging unless anyone knows a way to hack it lol :(

    https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/731417683022577664/1217584650587865250/rn_image_picker_lib_temp_f21c6a78-bde1-4039-8b70-e1b5b659c8af.jpg?ex=66048f12&is=65f21a12&hm=3171d739e652bf345a066d84c77dc070b4359a20f89057e790cd1c8f998d2cf5&

    • Sad 3
  13. I have tried to do astro with my Pixel 6 in a similar way with the same app. I also ran into the same flat calibration issue.

    I suspect the lens suffers too greatly from internal reflections. I also noted that despite the images supposedly being RAW, it appeared as though the camera was still imparting a white balance into the image which may affect matters.

    I also struggled a LOT with hot pixels. Did you succeed at removing or handling them in your phone? In my case I was shooting in summer so it was 15c outside.

    I also did not have BlurX or NoiseX. Certainly however many differences in technique (or hardware from P6 to P7) your result is miles ahead of what I achieved!

     

  14. 1 hour ago, Ratlet said:

    I did a quick google to check that statement.  Honestly I think it already does!

    https://hubblesite.org/contents/media/images/2006/14/1876-Image.html

    If it weren't for the diffraction spikes I think you'd struggle to tell them apart.

    I think Alan has created a more pleasing level of contrast and balance of colour than the photo editors of the hubble project. However one cannot deny how impossibly detailed and sharp the hubble image is (and always will be) in comparison to our meak sub-meter telescopes!

    Hubble images often have an almost greeny tint to them and sometimes squander the red colours. Alan has captured a beautiful blue hue in the galaxy with maybe a slight magenta lean and has produced incredibly vibrantly scarlet hydrogen.

    That's my take at least.

  15. Just got my first roll of Kodak Ektar developed in 35mm format. I took some astro shots and while i can't get them quite right I feel they're still worth sharing!

    WeburyStarTrail.thumb.jpg.d9981cbdb1189c78af0582610130aef1.jpg

    First is this star trail shot from a local beach. 24mm lens so pretty wide angle. I can't get the shadows to stop looking red though. I don't have a proper negative scanning software so I am just trying to fix it manually. All I did here was colour balance and some contrast enhance. Was about a 40-50m exposure.

     

     

    Orion50mm-pix.thumb.jpg.44355e1ad1ecb178589dd6c3b545fae0.jpgOrion50mm.thumb.jpg.d36a9cdf9ec5aea2abc71ae999d1ecba.jpgThis was a tracked shot of orion with my 50mm lens. My scanning job again seems less than perfect with it being a bit out of focus. Nonetheless barnard's loop, M42, flame, horsehead, rosette, and SH2-264. I dare say either my brain is wishfully thinking or the witch head is in there too!

    I provide it here both with only contrast and colour balance improvements and with a pixinsight gradient removal, to show how the film natively recorded the scene as well as what I was able to extract from it easily. Even the new pix gradient tool didn't tackle this image perfectly, I am not experienced enough with it yet to get perfect results.

    Orion135mm-pix.thumb.jpg.634720398d0b54ac837b388250cd9ce2.jpgOrion135mm.thumb.jpg.b93a871a9915f4a653d0da7c366d4280.jpg

    Finally I have one with the very nice 135mm f3.5 canon FD lens. Aside from a bit of blue fringing this lens handles astro very nicely. Nice detail starting to show up in M42 and the horse's head itself becomes visible as well as some veins in the flame. I couldn't get the image to look neutral in pix so I had to settle for it either looking blue or orange... Not sure why!

    I intend to try shots like this again but with my medium format kit. Ektar proves to be a very capable film stock for astro and the raw sensitivity to h-alpha puts any unmodified DSLR or mirrorless to shame.

    My RisingCam 571 is still the much more sensible choice of course. But I am having a lot of fun with film anyway!

    • Like 3
  16. I noticed a strange vignette on my halpha filter during the last imaging session, and shon a torch down the tube to see if it were a spider or some such. Horrifyingly I saw spiderweb like fungus had grown to cover a sizable portion of the filter. I images RGB that night but the other day I opened the filter wheel to see Multiple filters affected, red in particular but none as severely as the halpha. On chroma's website they say acetone or pure alcohol is suitable but while my acetone did remove fungus from one filter, it left a misty haze behind and so I stopped in case the impurities caused further issues!

     

    During this operation multiple filters seemed to have snapped or cracked retainer rings. I have to  admit they looked cheap rubbish when I installed them from the zwo kit but I didn't expect to find £3000 worth of chroma filters held in by the screws alone...

    I don't seem to have any spare clips so if they're available I will have to find replacements I suppose, as I will need to remove the filters properly to give them the thorough delicate clean they need to avoid damage but I can't reasonably put them back with broken retaining clips.

    My next idea was to use distilled water from my film development station, which is very good stuff and leaves my negatives in pristine conditions of cleanliness as the final rinse. Pipetting it onto the filters to cause remaining dirt or residue to rinse off.

    Maybe using the acetone or a more pure acetone or alcohol would be better?

     

    At the same time I have to find a way to remove dried super glue from a panic repair to my EAF bracket that spilled onto the filter wheel. Acetone seems to dissolve it but so slowly I'd be there all year. I am terrified of damaging the paintwork and am trying to avoid scraping or sandpaper...

     

    Oh dear oh dear. I've often cursed myself for buying chromas instead of far cheaper but nearly identical Baader or Astronomik but now with fungus issues I'd really really rather have cheaper filters that would be less stressful to clean!

    Thanks in advance for advice!

    James

    PXL_20240216_143829124.jpg

    • Sad 1
  17. 6 hours ago, Nightfly said:

    This is two 50 minute exposures combined to form a mosaic.  This resulted in an  increases the field size, and provided an output at the level of large format. 

    The film is Superia 100 which was $5.00 a roll at the time.

    The image highlights LeGentil 3, which is often confused with the Northern Coal Sac in Cygnus.  Because of its high density of low level information,  we can make out the delicate tendrils within this dark nebulae.  

    This was 12 years ago with color film.  Compare with modern digital efforts to appreciate the prowess of this process.  That, and the color fidelity of analog. 

    One key difference touted with digital is the lack of reciprocity failure.  While this is true, how much does the digital work flow depend on stacking to counter accumulated noise?  And while taking light frames, dark frames, bias frames, etc... do we really have shorter exposures after all? Film may suffer from the effect, however - once the single exposure is registered on film, it is full of information that can be extracted from within.  

    Look around.  At the top of the frame, the icy blue of the Iris Nebula is clearly visible in this wide-field image - so is the Cacoon on the lower left.  As are so many more.  Check out the delicate colors of each of the stars, especially the brighter members seen.  Each star has its own subtle color and brightness.  That,  and the immense magnitude penetration of the image, which exceeds 13th magnitude. Nothing is lost in the noise or mottle normally associated with modern digital subframes.

    The delicate red and blue shadings of the stellar background are real.  The film is picking up lots of low level information. But, it is the delicate tendrils of LeGentil 3 that do it for me.

     

     

     

     

    To what extent do you process a mosaic like this? I would need to do complex things like background extraction for wide field work like this normally.

    I assume this was with your dual pentax 67 rig, what lenses and aperture did you use, and if you stopped down did you use special stop rings instead of the in-lens blades?

    It's certainly better than a lot of DSLR images I've taken, albeit those were on an old camera at APS-C format so about 9x less capturing area per exposure.

    If I had skies as dark as yours presumably are I'd be most pleased too haha.

    • Like 1
  18. 1 hour ago, Swoop1 said:

    To my eye, celluloid film is far better for background gradient. GHoing to the cinema to watch a Sci Fi film, the stepping down from bright to dark on a passing space ship for example is very obvious whereas well managed celluloid has no noticeable gradient.

    I used both film and digital cameras professionally on covert surveillance work and public order evidence gathering.

    The benefit of instant result checking was a major plus for digital as was only having to shove in another card on a bad day at a protest or football match. Trying to load a fresh film whilst wearing double layer fire retardent gloves, cowering in a shallow doorway or hiding behind a shield whilst looking through a very fogged up visor (anti mist treatments are only so effective) and having bricks, bottles, petrol bombs etc landing all around was certainly an experience and aquired skill- and that was only training. Follow that with hours (or sometimes days) of paperwork once you receive back the product of sometimes 30 to 40 36 exposure film canisters to sort out the correct exhibit handling procedures and collating the product with audio commentary and recordings from radio transmissions etc.

    I'd do wet film evidence gathering work again tomorrow though, given the chance. A sadly declining skill as most EGT seems to be video these days.

    Sorry- a bit of a diversion from film based astrophotography.

    Impressive nonetheless

    Sort of surprised if you'd shoot so many rolls in one go that you didn't end up with a camera that had one of these bad boy backs on it haha Nikon F3/T, 35mm, Professional SLR with bulk film back. | Photography ...

    • Haha 1
  19. 11 minutes ago, tomato said:

    I remember a TV programme discussing the advent of digital photography (late 1980s I think) where it was resolutely stated that pixel counts would never match the grains in a film emulsion…

    I'm not so sure about this horseless carriage business either, sounds like a fad to me! 🤣

    23 hours ago, Nightfly said:

    Agreed.  The technology today is simply astounding, and the results beyond the dreams of amateurs even just 20 years ago.  As the self-appointed spokesperson and modern day practitioner of analog astrophotography, I yield to digital.  

    That being said, I have not been able to let go of my craft.  If I had made the leap to digital twenty years ago, I'm sure I would be making "better" images.  But, since this my avocation, and in that I find my work gratifying, there's really no reason to change my ways.  

    One big reason for me personally is the amount of gear, software, computer equipment, and lots and lots of acquisition time necessary to make a good go of it.  My sessions are quiet and dark, as it was done in the days when Edward Emerson Barnard made his great images atop the new Mount Wilson site in 1905.  I find the sessions very relaxing and my mind quite still during exposures.  No screens or bleeps to ruin my attitude.  A respite from technology, which surrounds each and every one of us.

    I recently made investments to continue my analog work flow.  My work has no peer, as I am pretty much alone in this field.   I do communicate with about three others that are still doing it.  I happen to have pristine skies, and that makes the work very much worth the time I invest in each image.  

    For those outside of the analog photography community,  it would seem film is dead.  That's far from the truth.  There is a renaissance that has been happening for many years now.  Film is very much alive. 

     

    I've just had a proper look through your Flickr and I have to say your collection of BW film images, not to mention the astro ones, are simply inspiring.

    I am still early on in my film astro attempts (despite working on it for a year now, cursed weather!) but having poured over datasheets it seems either Ilford Delta 400 or Fomapan 400 would be the best choices for astro work despite their high reciprocity failure, simply because they are the rare black and white films that have the deeper red sensitivity for Halpha.

    I can imagine Acros/Acros II being pretty good in that it's fine grain and has no reciprocity failure up to 120s and only 1/2 a stop is lost afterwards, but if we factor in the removal of reciprocity from your 60 minute image (45min?) and then take into account the improved sensitivity of Foma400, meaning it would need about 20-ish minutes of exposure, and then factor in my estimate for Foma400's reciprocity failure factor (roughly MT^1.454) we come to about 15 minutes saved in exposure time, at the cost of some grain, but in doing so we also gain a lot of hydrogen sensitivity which Acros lacks entirely. The difference would be even more stark (I intend to verify once weather improves) with Delta400 as it can reach 500 iso in microphen vs Foma400's 320, and has a lower reciprocity factor of 1.41 while (if the datasheet is accurate) still having Ha sensitivity.

    Not intended as a lecture, but I am curious at your process and reasoning, maybe you leave out hydrogen purely for artistic purposes?

    Thanks for your time.

    Here's a negative (Foma400) I am not yet ready to scan properly and as such can only provide a simple phone scan. But I have high hopes for it.

    Foma400 in microphen, 16m at f3.5, Bronica ETRS with Zenzanon 150mm pe.

    https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1008099350968275076/1196264943612338226/Screenshot_20240115_012858.png?ex=65d2af0c&is=65c03a0c&hm=fdbfb17b450b1bca50ded9b2cc3e8a0f0a59d5d0d3a447d2623cbb77edf28328&

    • Like 2
  20. 19 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

    In most circumstances it seems to me that digital is the hands down winner, but not in absolutely all. A well-made slide film image, seen projected, has a scale and intensity, a verisimilitude, a feeling, which digital doesn't have. It's like being under the night sky, only more so.  The digital images that I and others make go deeper, contain more information, etc etc - but a projected slide can have a little something else.

    Olly

    I shot a roll of Velvia 100 last year and although I butchered the exposure on most of the images I have to agree with your assessment 100%

    Looking at one of the good slides I have placed on my flat panel is pretty magical. No manipulation required besides that which was baked into the emulsion at the factory.

    I think when HDR tech catches up we'll be able to make a similar effect on a digital screen. I think velvia has a contract ratio of something like 3/4k:1 whereas a very good SDR digital screen has 1.2k:1, and looks washed out in comparison. I tried viewing my astro photos on the OLED TV but the peak brightness isn't there to make it pop, and the TV has a not-exactly-calibrated contrast curve which made my deep grey sky background black clipped which looked quite ugly.

    A bit like how it took LCD screens a long time to truly surpass CRTs on all fronts, I think we still have a bit left to go before digital displays beat the last edge case holdouts of slide quality.

  21. 34 minutes ago, Nightfly said:

    Hello,

     

    I happened to see this thread from last year.  I concur.  Film is truly dead.  I don't recommend that anyone even try it.  It's a lost cause. 

    That being said,  a shot from last October from my home observatory. 

    I may post a new thread with some images I've made recently.  

    Cheers!

    Jim

     

    Is that a large format sheet? I'd love to know what your setup is!

  22. I have never used either of those scopes, however I started out in a similar price bracket with a skywatcher 130/900 newtonian on an EQ2 mount. For £140 total it wasn't bad but like you it did cause me to tug at my hair and often I went back home unsatisfied because I didn't know what I was doing yet.

    But really just because a piece of kit isn't optimal for a task, doesn't mean you can't enjoy it for said task!

    I enjoyed trying to take photos of jupiter and M42 through my 250PX dob with my Nikon DSLR, despite it very much not being the right piece of kit for the task! With time you'll get to know the scope you already have, the strengths and weaknesses and eventually the time will come where a bigger and undoubtedly more expensive kit that improves on the "strengths" or excels at the "weaknesses" will meet both your eye and your wallet. As happened with me after a year or so of using the 130/900 when I sold it and moved on to my 250PX which I've used for the last 10-ish years.

    Try not to get too stressed out and move at the more comfortable pace, the sky will always be there (even if we can't always see it...)

    • Like 1
  23. I hope a good alternative to the ASI Air is released by someone. I am quite tempted by the device but since I have a ToupTek-based camera (RisingCam 571) I cannot use it, and find the idea of being restricted in terms of equipment manufacturer a little upsetting. Albeit somewhat understandable since as a developer you cannot control quality of other manufacturer's equipment with your control device.

    I have had no end of trouble with other forms of control so I welcome any decent additions to the market!

    • Like 1
×
×
  • 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.