Louis D

2 hours ago, sophh6699 said:

wow i love those photos !! What telescope did you use? i’m thinking about selling the scope i have right now and possibly just getting one that’s already got the tracking and everything included. Is there any specific software you could recommend for this? Also if I get a fully automatic scope will i need the guide camera still? Thank you

You could pick up a ZWO Seestar 50 and have an integrated solution.  They are not yet generally available, though.

1 hour ago, Don Pensack said:

Living in a dreamworld, Louis.

No one said I can't dream about what I'd like to see for future eyepieces.  The OP did ask "what even are we lacking?".  Clearly we are lacking an affordable and compact line of light intensification eyepieces.

It also depends on how bright your skies are already.  If you're under Bortle 7 and up skies with lots of humidity as I am, about the best you can hope for is to be able to identify the coma amongst the murk by using a comet filter to suppress some of the background sky glow.

I'd like to see an integrated light intensification line of eyepieces at a reasonable price.  I know there's EEVA and nightvision stuff, but it's so hodge-podge right now.  Some sort of elegant, compact system.  I mean, if they can offer that ZWO Seestar 50 for $500, you'd think someone could offer an eyepiece sized light intensification/collection unit for $500 to $1000.

My Zhumell OIII filter is actually right shifted enough that it picks up the Swan bands better than the OIII bands.  I used it to help pick out C/2022 E3 (ZTF) in Bortle 7 skies.  It was all but impossible to pick out without it.  Of course, not every comet is as green as ZTF, so it may have been a special case.

You can see below how right shifted the Zhumell is relative to old and new Lumicon OIII filters.  If they are all this way (no guarantee), a used one might make for a good poor-man's comet filter.

Eyepieces, binoviewer, Barlows, various correctors, diagonals and any other small, expensive optics go in pick-n-pluck foam cases of various sizes and quality.  These blow molded plastic storage cases are tough enough that can be stacked feet deep in the back of a coat closet.

Filters go in photography filter wallets for easy access.

Finder scopes, both optical and unit power, go bubble wrapped in relatively shallow cardboard boxes.  Nothing gets piled on them in the closet, so I don't have to dig for them, and so they don't get crushed.

Scopes stay in cases if they came with one.  Bigger ones (6" and up) rest vertically in the backs of coat closets.  Some with nice finishes are bubble wrapped inside duffle bags.

Filter wallets (see above), collimation tools, Allen wrenches, red flashlight, cleaning cloths, laser sights, laser pointers, multi-finder stalks, adapters, spare parts, distance-only observing eyeglasses, compact sky map, and various small random bits and pieces I might need for observing or snapping quick pics go in a large plastic toolbox with a lift out top tray for the smaller, most often used things.

Things I rarely need or have retired but not sold or given away are stored in cardboard boxes on a high shelf in my bedroom closet.

2 hours ago, Kon said:

It is so easy to go overboard.

You mean like this? 😄

I used massive oversharpening and pumping up the color saturation along with pulling in the highlights side of the histogram.

Your rendering is much more reminiscent of how Jupiter looks visually, which is refreshing and pleasing to this visual observer.

I think I made it look a bit like an old school webcam video frame capture from the 2000s. 

Keep up the good work!  I look forward to seeing more of your images.

Looks great to me.  Nice job!

What have I started with my ruler photos?!?!?

On 05/03/2021 at 14:38, Starwatcher2001 said:

John Dobson's original design used an LP record as it has a grooved surface. The Sidewalk Astronomers, founded by John, later moved to a pebbly finish much as you describe and found a product called "Ebony Star" gave a smooth action.

I had the pleasure of meeting John in Pontefract in 2002, courtesy of the West Yorkshire Astronomy Group. He was quite a character and told a good many fascinating stories, not just about astronomy. He was a very knowledgable guy.

 

My photographic OCD side kicked in when I saw that picture and decided to see what I could do to clean it up a bit.  Here's the result:

So, wouldn't insulating the metal tube outside and inside (with flocking) slow down dewing?

I have a sonotube OTA on my Dob, and I've never had dewing issues like those shown in @Mike Q's image.  Does painted "cardboard" dew more slowly than metal?

I'll leave your last question to the imaging experts on here.  I only dabble in afocal projection imaging on solar system objects.

5 hours ago, sophh6699 said:

I have a Barlow lens with my telescope, would you be able to expand any more on what you mean - do you mean that if you add the Barlow lens while using a camera then the photos will come out more magnified? 

The Barlow lens is inserted in the focuser and then the bare camera (no taking lens) is inserted in the Barlow.  The magnifying effect is dependent on the focal length of the Barlow and the separation distance between it and the imaging plane.  Since Barlows never list their focal length, just know that a 2x Barlow is roughly 2x in magnification if the focal plane is at the top of the Barlow's eyepiece holder.  Since the imaging chip will be somewhat to a lot farther back from that plane, the magnification will be higher than 2x.

As others are alluding to here, increasing magnification demands increased tracking performance.  On bright solar objects like the moon and Jupiter, you can get away with poorer tracking by letting stacking software handle the details of stacking thousands of short exposure images.

1 hour ago, RT65CB-SWL said:

There are two types of astrophotography...

• Prime focus. You use the OTA/‘scope as the camera lens and a 1.25” or 2” nosepiece adapter with a T-thread.
• Afocal. You use an eyepiece in an eyepiece projection unit or eyepiece projection adapter... abbreviated to EPU or EPA with a T-thread. Mostly used with a DSLR or digital compact camera and appropriate adapter. [image below].

You left out telenegative projection which adds a Barlow lens to regular prime focus photography for greater magnification and eyepiece projection where the eyepiece directly projects its image onto the imaging chip (or film for old schoolers).  Neither of these use a taking lens on the camera/imager.

Afocal projection is what most beginners do first when they hold their phone's camera up to the eyepiece.  It is the only technique requiring a taking lens on the camera/imager to form the final image.

A separate finder scope can be nice to have to avoid eyepiece swapping and possibly upsetting the aim on an undriven alt-az mount.

21 hours ago, Kenneth Spackman said:

Any way, the seller has arranged collection next week and for the mak to be looked at. 

Yay! Glad to hear you're getting some sort of resolution from the seller.

Keep us informed.

4 hours ago, vlaiv said:

What phone are you generally using for this?

For most of the images, I use a Samsung Galaxy S7's rear camera.

For complete ultrawide images as in the SAEP/CAEP comparison collage and for the older "full view" images, I used the ultrawide camera of the LG G5.  The screen died on this one recently, so it's been retired.

I recently switched to the ultrawide camera on the LG G6 for higher resolution and sharper images just before the G5 screen died.  I'll have to either get another used LG G5 for new SAEP photos or retake all of them with the L6.

I haven't noticed that low power eyepieces are rendered sharper, but I have noticed that the depth of field of these cameras renders eyepieces as having much flatter fields than they have in reality.

Here's the longest eyepieces comparison image.  The Meade 5000 Plossl 40mm looks worse than the Meade 5000 SWA 40mm both to the eye and in the image at f/6 in a 72ED.  If the camera is making it look better than reality, it isn't by much.

Here's a side project image that I haven't updated in years showing performance in a 127 Mak with many of the same eyepieces:

In this image, even the Rini Erfle 42mm is sharpening up nicely at the edge, just as it appears to the eye.

And here's the 29mm - 30mm comparison image showing how "flat" the Agena UWA 80° 30mm is.  In reality, you have to refocus quite a bit for the edge to get that same sort of sharpness:

Again, some of the same eyepieces in the 127 Mak:

Here, even the awful Rini 29mm and Kasai 30mm look usable.  Even to the eye, they are both much improved.

All I'm saying is that if the combined pupil is being reduced, I'd expect the images at f/6 to move somewhat noticeably toward the f/12 images, but they don't seem to move much if at all compared to what I'm seeing with my eye.  It's not like I'm ignoring any mismatch with reality because I do see the massive flattening of curved fields in the camera images.

Just to toss in another option, look at a 150mm (6") f/5 GSO Newtonian OTA.  I picked up one used for about $300 with a GSO CC.  It's light, has no cool down issues, gives sharp and color free images, holds collimation really well, can give low power views, can have a dual speed focuser (mine does), and has the eyepiece in a position easily used while sitting with it mounted on a mount with a low tripod (more stable than using a fully extended tripod with a long frac).

Here's some comparison images of the moon I recently took through several of my scopes.  Any of them except for the 6" f/5.9 achromat work well for lunar observing.  However, even to my eye, the Newtonian was showing finer details than the smaller scopes (or the achromat).  No surprise, the 90mm APO had the highest contrast images either to my eye or in a photograph.  However, that triplet takes over 30 minutes to equilibrate for high power work.

6 hours ago, John said:

My 12 inch dob was in tube rings so I could have the focuser at whatever angle I liked. After some experimentation I went for this:

I observe standing using my left eye and I am left handed. 

I got the finders and focuser positioned so that I could shift between them with minimal head movement.

It worked well for the 10 years that I owned the scope.

Beautiful scope.  It really looks like a yard cannon with those giant altitude trunnions in black contrasting against a white OTA.  😉

I hope the current owner is making good use of it.

3 hours ago, Elp said:

I wouldn't have thought so, all my eyepieces are close to being parfocal even though they're different brands.

Reading up on it I believe is has got to do with eye placement and my issue might be known as "the ring of fire".

Definitely not ring of fire.  You get a rainbow effect when photographing it.  Below, see how the ES-82 30mm (6th row, second from left) is exhibiting classic CAEP (rainbow ring) but no SAEP (black ring), and the Meade MWA 26mm (5th row, far left) shows massive SAEP and in the second image from the left shows slight CAEP with the camera pulled back from the exit pupil midpoint to defeat SAEP.

The Morpheus 14mm (second row, second from left) has barely any SAEP and no CAEP at all.  There's also no obvious color cast relative to other eyepieces not exhibiting either SAEP or CAEP.  Strong SAEP really throws off my camera's auto white balance, making things more yellow.  The Morph 14mm also shows a nice, sharp field stop.

I'm not doubting what you're seeing, it's just that I don't see the same thing in my copy of the eyepiece.  Perhaps yours is faulty/defective in some manner?  How long have you had it?  Did you buy it second hand?  Was it always this way?

This is a brand new scope?  You might want to contact your credit card company (if you paid using one) to file for a chargeback based on the seller selling faulty goods and refusing returns.

4 hours ago, MalcolmM said:

Just for comparison,  here's a Nagler 16mm in the same setup. This time the FOV goes from 0 to 33cm.

Apologies to @Louis D for using his technique; I don't think I have achieved the quality of his images.

Malcolm 

It looks like you don't quite have the camera's entrance pupil lined up with the eyepiece's exit pupil.  I generally keep an index finger and thumb between the top of the eyepiece (with eyecup rolled down or removed) and the back of the phone to maintain a steady alignment and distance.  I vary these two by carefully rolling/repositioning my finger/thumb slightly.  It helps if you can wedge your butt up against a wall to steady your whole body while doing this, or use a sitting position.  Regardless, it takes practice and taking lots of shots to be examined on a big monitor later to choose the best of the bunch.  Sometimes I'll reset and start over if the images are coming out terrible on the camera screen.  Sometimes, if SAEP is at work, there's just not much you can do to get a good image because there is no one best distance for the eyepiece's exit pupil.  If the alignment isn't perfectly centered and the camera isn't perfectly level to the eyepiece, you'll get kidney beaning instead of a perfectly circular black ring midway from center to edge.  If you pull the camera back slightly, you can get another set of images demonstrating what is visible without kidney beaning.

The key to getting a sharp field stop is to start too far away and slowly move the camera in closer until the image edge suddenly snaps into having a sharp edge.  Go too far inward, and you start getting blackouts.  Too far away, and you get vignetted edges.  Off center, you get non-circular images with asymmetric vignetting.  Tipped, you get blackouts on one side.  However, this is useful for getting straight on images of the edge using the center of the camera's imaging field to eliminate the camera's contribution to distortion or aberrations.

Practice, practice, practice. 😁

You want some stiction to allow it to hold its position when you stop moving it.  Perhaps you're expecting no stiction?  Just make sure the ground board and pads are clean.

The GSO CC has a design distance of somewhere around 70mm to 75mm between the optics section and the eyepiece focal plane.  I use the original eyepiece holder and add a 25mm spacer ring (48mm thread) to mine to get it in the ballpark of the correct distance.  The design tolerates about 5mm of variance on either side of optimal spacing without changing correction all that much visually.  With the Clicklock instead of the original eyepiece holder, you'll need to measure the change in separation distance to figure out the best spacing ring length.

You'll probably want to remove the CC for high power work because it introduces some spherical aberration visible only at high powers.