Jump to content



  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sgazer

  1. it's a strange phobia as there is zero chance of a star (or planet) hitting us. I usually think of phobias as being afraid of something that has the potential of happening and being unpleasant or dangerous (eg. spiders, heights, people, etc). I don't know if it helps to know that none of the stars or planets you can see will ever hit us (at least for the next billion years or so). And if they did, it would be over so quick, nobody would notice.
  2. I know, it's like telling my missus "did you plug it in" when something doesnt work, it goes straight over her head!
  3. I'm not clever enough to make stuff up, which is why I'll be forever stuck as an engineer and not an engineering manager.
  4. I'm glad you mentioned that, because we were having a bbq last night (as you do in Oz) and it was a full moon. Later I looked up and it was a tiny crescent which I thought was weird, but unfortunately I'd had a bit too much wine to think about it doh! It was beautiful though.
  5. as you've found, it's not so much magnification, but field of view. Also try ccdcalc, it will tell you your field of view with various scopes/lenses and cameras and also overlay DSO images to you can get an idea of scale. 1.25" tubes are ok until you get really wide angle eyepieces and large camera sensors like your DSLR. You'll get some vignetting (darkness) around the edges and corners of the image, but no effect on the light at the centre. You really need 2" to connect your DSLR. Most people use what's called prime focus. Connect your DSLR directly to the scope with a DSLR to 2" tube adapter, no lens or eyepiece. The scope becomes your lens.
  6. If they're orange, use a light pollution filter, if they're white, you have to block them out, with a large sheet hung up for example
  7. Belper, nice town, use to live there about 15 years ago. Easy mistake to make with the film!
  8. I don't think you'd be wasting much money as you have a dslr already. Not all ccd are better, you have to get a good one and not everyone moves to ccd. Is it worth bypassing something you already have to blow 1000quid+ on something that may or may not work out? The actual imaging device is a small part of the puzzle. Setting up the mount, aligning, tracking, guiding, image processing are all a big part of it too and will apply no matter what the camera. Moving from dslr to ccd is expensive (for a good one), then there are always better ccds for a bit (a lot) more money!
  9. nice image, and lots of nice detail pulled out of the original. It's a target I'm waiting to do myself, also with a 85mm lens, when there's a clear night with no full moon. Nice to see another Victorian, I'm in the Western suburbs of Melbourne. I expect your light pollution is a bit less out there. Lovely area, I often go up to the Lerderderg forest.
  10. Very good, especially in the southern hemisphere with no Polaris!
  11. One way I just thought of looking at it in defense of one shot colour cameras, eg dslr, if one takes a daylight photo with certain settings that looks to me like the real thing (colour etc), then once pointed at the sky, with the same settings it should also capture what I'd see if my eyes were sensitive enough.
  12. If found using drift alignment works well as I'm in the south too. Although now I have celestron starsense, which has an align routine.
  13. Most months for the last 6 years I've gone out on a clear night and wondered who had their flood light on. The full moon definitely clears the clouds on both sides of the planet.
  14. The celestron f6.3 reducer is excellent. However i have the zwo camera and the sensor is tiny, so it gives s very small fov with focal lengths over say 200mm, making dso imaging difficult with an sct. Depending on how much you can spend, I'd recommend a dslr (100 quid+), which would be perfect with the reducer. Despite the specs of the zwo camera, I found it way less sensitive and much more noisy than even a compact camera. I even cooled it to - 5c and still wasn't impressed. Coupled with the small sensor, I gave up using for dsos.
  15. Sounds faulty to me, see if it still does it without an sd card and lens.
  16. I'll try give my thoughts on some of your question; your scope magnification is limited by the objective size and quality of the optics. IIRC, it's roughly double the objective, so your 80mm will work well up to 160x magnification. Adding a barlow to a 30mm eyepiece won't be as good as a decent 10mm eyepiece and I think the more powerful the barlow, the more difficult it is to make a decent one. The more magnification, the darker the image. With your 80mm scope, you'll barely see DSO's even at low magnification. It is best used for wide vistas. It's more expensive (more glass) to make 2" eyepieces so in theory, cheaper ones are not so good. You don't really need 2" unless you are going for wide FOV. Magnifications dependence on focal length is all about optics, read this or just accept it! http://www.olympusmicro.com/primer/anatomy/magnification.html
  17. For deep sky, put your dslr (get a cheap canon 1000d with kit lenses of you don't have one) on the se mount and take 30s exposures (about the limit for an altaz mount) at iso1600. You'll be amazed at what you capture. Use the sct scope for planetary visual or imaging with a Webcam.
  18. The eqmod polar alignment is called eqalign! http://eqalign.net/e_eqalign.html
  19. Not unless using a scope is cheating as it allows you to see more than with the naked eye! With Astrophotography, you are not drawing the image in photoshop as the celeb mags do, you are increasing the clarify of the information that's alrrady there, so the eye can see it, a bit like a scope. You capture photos which are turned into electrical signals and thus an image. You use calibration frames and stacking to reduce the deficiencies of the sensor. Then you stretch the levels so your eye can see a bigger difference between grey levels. Generally, you don't get the paint brush and start adding stuff that was never there in the first place.
  20. It's a very alarmist title for what is basically an inconvenience! It can actually be deactivated by setting the camera to shoot 3 or 5 images in succession, then it doesn't do the darks. Yes, it would be nice to be able to turn it off in the menus, especially as the a6000 is able to. But at least if you do use it, it means the darks are taken at the same temp as the lights, although it does double the imaging period. No its not how they produce such low noise images, the sensor is the same as the a6000 and nikon d3300 and is rated by DxOMark as the lowest noise APS-C sensor available. The camera is simply superb for daytime photography and the image quality far surpasses my canon 1000d despite a 23mp sensor. In fact the high resolution sensor makes it perfect for use with shorter focal length lenses (as opposed to a scope) because the image can be cropped more readily. The low noise, even at iso1600 and 3200, is amazing. Add to that it's about the size of a compact camera, makes it an awesome bit of kit.
  21. Will miss us down here in oz, so no doubt it'll be clear skies! Lol
  22. I have the 4 se and it's great for lunar and planetary. Get a decent orthoscopic 3mm eyepiece for amazing crater views. Forget deepsky visual, best thing you can do is stick a cheap dslr on it with a kit lens, take some 30s exposures and be amazed what it captures.
  23. Yes, i think that's what I had, bought from Dixons, with a 200mm zoom and 35mm prime.
  • 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.