don4l

You can take fairly impressive photos of the moon by using a mobile phone camera just held up against the eyepiece. Controlling the exposure might be the biggest problem, but you would learn some valuable stuff without incurring expense. If you have a DSLR, then the T ring and adapter would be a good way to go.

That Fishead raises the bar a bit. Superb.

I've never checked my setup for cone error. My guide scope is on it's own alt-az mini mount which is mounted on a crossbar. I just get it pointing in the same general direction and it seems to work OK. So, I've definitely got loads of cone error on my guide scope. I can see that if you are not platesolving then meridian flips would be greatly speeded up without cone error. It doesn't seem to be an issue for me at 2000mm focal length and 10m subs. When I do a meridian flip, my target is always way off, but a quick platesolve and mount sync sorts things out in less than a minute. Of course, without platesolving, finding the target after a flip can take ages.

You can always get quote that include collection from your premises. This will add a bit to the cost(Usually about £15). If you are shipping to other businesses, this isn't usually a problem. Joe Public, though, hates paying any delivery charges at all

There are two options for shipping high value goods internationally. You can try to negotiate good rates with one of the big names like FedEx, UPS or DPD. This can be difficult, because they all have hugely variable rates. There are companies who specialise in shipping who act as a middleman. They are much better at getting a good rate than I am. I've been using this method for years and I've never lost a package. We also use DPD for shipments to Europe, but we also use them on a daily basis for UK shipments. We still get a quote for every European shipment.

I think that you have raised some very valid points about filters, equipment, sky quality etc. We often read that the answer is to simply gather more data, but it is more complicated than this. Last year I tried to capture the elusive squid in the flying Bat nebula. After 2 hours of exposure I had something recogniseable. I decided to carry on. I would usually look at the data after each night's efforts, but in this case I decided not to look until I had 8 hours of data. This took a couple of weeks. When I combined the complete 8 hours, it wasn't any better at all than the two hours of data - and the additional subs looked to be the same quality as the first subs. One thing that I think you have nailed is the issue with OIII. My first 3nm filter was a Ha. I justified this on the basis that I use a lot of Ha, so it made sense to spend the money on that. In fact, the 3nm OIII filter is much better value because 7nm OIII from my light polluted area is not much good at all. For people(like me) who cannot justify the cost of Astrodons, there is the option of Chroma. Many people swear that they are exactly the same as Astrodons.

I've got family in Spain with dark skies, but I have never been tempted to have a remote observatory. I wouldn't rule it out on principle, it just wouldn't appeal to me at the moment. I think that we all get pleasure from different aspects of the hobby. For me, at the moment, it is all about learning.

Ahhh. I see what the fuss is about. I will have to sign the petition then.

I wonder if this isn't a case of the Internet getting all worked up about nothing? These satellites are going to be in fixed positions on a narrow line across the sky. Has anyone ever even photographed a geostationary satellite?

If you can get platesolving to work, then I would say you should do it. The easiest solver that I found for Windows is ASTAP. I use platesolving in a few different ways. I make a note of the Ra, Dec and rotation angle so that I can get back to exactly the same spot over several nights. I also use the fact that Cartes du Ciel can display platesolved images. This means that if I platesolve my current image and do a Sync, I can see if I am exactly on target. I use CCDCiel for my image acquisition and CCDCiel can display a platesolved image "frame" in CdC. If this frame precisely matches the image that is already displayed in CdC, then I know that I am on target, and my camera is rotated to exactly the correct angle. This framing only takes a couple of minutes and doesn't involve anynumbers. Everything is done just by looking at the screen. I hope this makes sense.

Fantastic. I'm very jealous.

Click "Open" and then hold the Control key while you select the files. You should be able to select several files before you click the "Open" button.

I've also got Chroma. I don't think that you will regret your decision. They have made a phenominal difference to my photography.

The first image looks like it was taken on a different night to the other two. I wouldn't try to combine this with the other images. The moon is constantly changing, so stacking images taken at different times will not work well. You will need a bunch of images taken at the same time. They should preferably all be similar to each other. In your Canon, set the JPEG size to "L". There are astronomical societies in Basingstoke and Farnham/Aldershot. I know that there are some astrophotographers in the Farnham group, and they are happy to help.

CCDStack isn't free and you are absolutely right to look for something easy. That's why I didn't mention it before. A couple of people have mentioned Autostakkert. It is available here:- https://www.autostakkert.com/ Why don't you put up one or two of your jpegs and people can give their opinion?

Ahhhh... I use CCDStack, and it has a very good manual alignment mode. You just drag, rotate and scale until you can see that the frames are aligned. Is there nothing that is freely available that will do the same?

The minimum is two. It depends on what you are trying to do. I've also got a Canon, and you are correct. It produces either jpeg, or raw. Raw files are much bigger because they contain all the information that was collected by the CCD chip. Jpegs have already had some processing done, and are also compressed, so they contain a lot less information. This will become important as your imaging improves, but it is extremely unlikely that it would matter at all for your first images. Once you start to process RAW images, then you will probably have to convert them into a format that your image processing software understands. This might be FITS or TIFF. I've used Registax in the past to process a AVI files which contained many hundreds, or even thousands of relatively small images. It would automatically select the best images, and combine them. In this instance, most images are rubbish, but it is too much hard work to go through them all yourself. Registax would pick out the best 10, 20, 30 or 40% and use them. However, when using images from a Canon, you probably want to use all of them - or you can manually choose which ones you will use.

The only reason that jpeg is no good for stacking is that jpegs have already lost some of the data, so you could get a better result using a different format. However, this is irrelevant if you cannot get stacking to work at all. I wonder if you wouldn't be better off using something like Deepskystacker to stack these images?

How many images are you trying to stack?

That is just superb.

A new A3 Light box which should make a cost effective flat field source. Having tested it, I'm also thinking that it would make a decent light for an observatory or shed.

I have it in Cartes du Ciel. It is in an add on catalogue called "PGC". If you can add catalogues to Stellarium, then look for one with "PGC" and it should be in there.

A bit too much weight perhaps? I keep meaning to get a lighter finderscope an put it on the Tak. Of course, if I did that, then I would consider having a dual rig!

Well done! That looks much better to my (subjective) eye.

Why not get the Gimp for free. You can learn all about how to use a graphics program, and you will then be in a much better position to decide exactly what you need.