Jump to content



New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


2 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  1. Many thanks everybody for your replies. Sara, I have to admit, I don't fully understand your post. Are you suggesting that the Sony sensors may prove worthwhile in the long run? From the looks of my budget, I don't think I can afford to spend on upgrading the camera for next few years, once I have made the purchase. Hence I'm really keen on making sure that I get something that will produce decent results.
  2. Hi everybody I have a 80mm refractor and am going to drain my wallet further by purchasing my first ccd. I came across a reasonable deal for the SBIG and was hoping for some feedback. I've read generally good reviews about this, but have also heard that the KAF sensor is slightly outdated. I had emailed Atik mentioning my setup and they suggested the 414ex or 460ex. The 414ex is about the same price as the SBIG, but checking the FOV calculator, I'm a little concerned with the pixel size. Here's what it would look like with both CCDs. Please note that although it says Atik420, I've manually keyed in the values for the 414. This would be my very first attempt at imaging and I've decided to choose a mono CCD (I 'm aware of the requirement of filters) as opposed to a DSLR. Thank you!
  3. Thanks for sharing you workflow. This sounds like a ridiculous question: for the 15 hours of exposure, what do you during that time? I mean, do you just set it to shoot automatically and then come back or do you have to be involved every now and then?
  4. Thanks for you input and those links. Thank you for this bit of information. I'm guessing that the technique used by each astronomer will produce varying results for the same scope. In the M51 pic, the galactic centre itself is sharp but the surrounding stars seem a bit out of focus. Was this shot this way?
  5. Would it be wrong to say that aperture makes more of a difference for visual observation, where we are limited to what 'adjustments' our eye can make? How does one find a scope like this? Based on user reviews, sample pictures and vendor data? Or can you just take any scope which has good quality optics and a fast F ratio? What I had in mind was a Espirit 80mm (400mm FL, f/5). Trying to read up more about this. I'm wondering if the 400mm is 'too wide' for galaxies, and make small objects very tiny in the final image.
  6. Thank you for the replies. I think I'm getting a hang of it. F ratio is more important compared to aperture when shooting DSOs. 80mm tubes generally have shorter focal length than their 100mm counterparts. This means wider swaths of the sky and shorter exposure times. However since we are trying to capture point or multiple point sources of light, won't that extra bit of aperture help resolve those really faint sources?
  7. I guess what I'm asking is why not choose a slightly larger 100 or 102mm? Is it just the price and f stop?
  8. Hello everybody I am reading up on AP and have noticed that a lot of the forum members choose 80mm EDs for their work. Why is 80mm so common? Why not something larger in aperture like 100 or 102mm? Is this a cost vs utility factor? Or is it because you can get pretty decent pictures with the 80mm? Davis
  • 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.