MaJiC79

I've been messing around with observing since August last year - familiarising myself with the setup process, aligning and finding targets. I have a simple goal - take a picture of the moon with a raspberry pi camera I'm still keeping on target with that goal, but I've got a hankering to go after some other targets. So with cost in mind, I started hunting for some deals when I saw a Ritchey-Chretien 6" scope up for sale at what looked like a bargain price on eBay. @Richard136 sold me a lovely EQ5 at a nice price from here (sorry, pic is of ny EQ3-2 which I won't be using for observing/imaging with this scope) Earlier this week I found a similar bargain on London camera exchange (used Canon EOS M100), and today aunty @FLO sent me the goodies to bring it altogether

That's been very good discussion, thank you, it sheds a lot of light (pun not intended) on the matter. I've seen mentions of looking for 1-2 arcsecond resolution in the system, and I've wondered the why of it - and I take it that if I aim for something larger, I'm more likely to have "success" but at the price of a lower detail image. Whereas a higher detail image will require improved performance in the tracking and system, in order to deliver the required performance, and all subject to the conditions on the night. From what I can tell, MagicLantern is currently only supported on a specific firmware for the Canon EOS M mirrorless, and the M1, M10, M100, M200 are iterations of the same design. I've got some experience with firmware (from small PIC16 devices, up to ARM Cortex 9 MCU) and sufficient motivation that I will at least have a look to see if it's something I can contribute to if I can find a suitably cheap mirrorless to play with. I'd rather go for something a bit newer, but I'll keep my eyes peeled for an opportunity. I'm pretty much committed to Canon now, mainly because of that third party support and better astro community support - and as I'm not currently invested in another ecosystem, it's a no brainer

Yes, it's what I've discovered these past few days. I just don't get @900SL's comment about cheaper lenses (although, if I use it for daytime photography, then it applies). Really I was trying to understand the practical differences of the major brands with entry into astrography - acquisition (breadth of market/models), tooling (software specific to the brands), other technical reasons to prefer one over the others I've just discovered (new to me, surely not new to some others) a piece of software called MagicLantern that unlocks a host of features on some Canon models - and if I can find a suitable mirrorless and get it working on that, then maybe that's the low cost route (not low effort, but I don't mind spending time on a hobby)

So as far as I can tell, the APS-C sized sensor, is a "Cropped" sensor - is that what you mean? and in reality, all "Full sized" lens means that you get a cropped image? You can tell I'm not a photographer, as I'm learning a lot more here about the history of these things!

I'm leaning more towards mirrorless right now than DSLR, but I'll take a look at the cropped sensors, thanks for the info

I'm looking at the used market, so I can trim my budget back a bit (Christmas coming up, I need to make sure the little kids are taken care of before this big kid), and I'm no stranger to fixing things (usually because I broke them) and making tweaks. Actually, I want both, but I want to try a mirrorless camera (canon m10/m100/m200 as these are reasonably priced used, for quite large sensors) before I look at a dedicated camera (probably mono)

Well, I think I can answer my own question. Canon and Nikon have some entry level equipment, but Canon has a much greater range of entry level stuff. Sony seems to start a bit higher up the range, with all three brands competing for the top spaces. As I'll be tinkering, there's a certain amount of risk involved, taking out filters etc, and that lends itself to the cheaper end of the market. So Canon wins out for me

I've been doing my research and I'm wondering if there are any practical differences between Sony, Canon and Nikon DSLR's/mirrorless cameras? Canon looks like the well travelled path for IR filter removal, with Nikon coming next, but I don't see so much with the Sony equipment - yet it's Sony sensors in use elsewhere.

I guess my only concern about consumer sensors is the IR filter - having an unfiltered sensor that I can put my own filters onto would be number one on my list - I'd like to image high hydrogen emission nebulae, and that Canon looks interesting, but can I remove the stock filter, protect the sensor somehow and still be able to put my own UV/IR filter in the optical path? I should also say that this is more a question of where am I better off spending my money? I have a mount (it's a DIY job) and a selection of telescopes - mostly observing, but I've been playing with a small sensor (Sony IMX477R) which I've removed the stock filter on and put a more permissive IR filter - hacky, it works, but the field of view is far too small, and it's fairly noisy (I've been toying with a peltier cooler on it to see if that improves things, but I have seen dust on the sensor and I'm wary about cleaning it with anything more than a light puff of air) I've just put some money into a Ritchey-Chretien (6" - I'm not made of money) with the intent of upgrading my imaging at the same time. If I have some success here, then I will look at a bigger purchase later. I think I might be able to use my current imaging solution as a guide camera as well - and if I can't, I've learnt another way not to do somethings, and expanded my experience along the way (that's what this is all about - the journey, but it's nice to collect some pretty memento's along the way)

I've been looking at the bundles on FLO for the small 9x50 star tracker as well

Ah, ok - maybe I'm reaching too far with an APS-C size sensor then - I've just been using that to try and profile the field of view. I'll adjust my expectations down a bit

I was looking at circa £400 but I can stretch it a bit. Not sure what you mean about dedicated cameras starting at over €1000? I don't mind tinkering, and removing an IR filter for example is not beyond me, but I want to plug this into a raspberry pi, so really I'm looking at something with USB interface so I can pile up my images on my NAS. This is what I've been doing with the pi camera, as I'm too lazy to faff with SD cards

As the subject says - what's the best starter camera for imaging? I've been playing with the raspberry pi high-quality camera, which is quite a small sensor, and results in over-magnification I've found. I'm looking for something around APS-C sized, but something with good bang-for-buck. What do you recommend? ZWO ASI 485MC?

As I understand, super keeps that aberration down over a much broader range. I start to question the need unless you are looking outside of the visible spectrum, although it occurs to me that if you shoot narrowband, can you refocus for the band you're shooting in?

I'm the first to admit that I'm not an experienced user (enthusiastic amateur at the best) but I'm trying to learn and keep my mind open. The only stupid questions are the ones that aren't asked - I'll try to keep my questions sensible, and I thank everyone for their input so far. I'm really glad I joined

It sounds like a minefield and I'm glad things have progressed since then

One of the attractions for me is that this is a science - every aspect and adjustment can be measured. Judging a scope on its merits means having some quantification of those merits. That very nice looking scope does publish those merits, and I think when I buy an APO (ED or triplet) I will be looking for that same information so I can make the judgement

I've not come across semi-apo, but I have seen super-apo. I'm wondering how much this can be modeled and measured. Yet another project (black hole) I may dive into

Thanks, that's a really interesting article - it's a lot more detailed than I was expecting! Ok, so I'm more reassured now than I was. As always, it's buyer beware - so I will need to know a bit more about what I'm buying into before I commit some significant cash into anything

That's the thing, I have read that article (and several related ones) which point to a common Achromatic design using a doublet, and a common Apochromatic design using a triplet. And yes, I know there is more than one way to skin this mouse, and that's the reason for my question. Can an ED doublet truly offer apochromatic colour correction, or is it snake oil marketing?

So I'm perusing astrogear for sale (pick a site, there are many) and I see people listing ED Doublets as Apochromatic. As I understand it, the doublet brings two wavelengths to a common focus, and a triplet converges three. Can an ED doublet really focus three wavelengths?

Resin printers tend to require more post processing and chemicals, but also are usually much higher resolution and somewhat faster to print (it depends on a few factors). The resins are usual more expensive as well.

For a cheap starter package, I don't think you'll beat the Ender 3 V2. I'm not sure if they come with a heat bed or of the box, and only a few materials will let you print on a cold bed (PLA will). There are many upgrades as you become more familiar with it

Fair point about the network - I can see good reason to want to control that specification. You can use a program such as Motion to capture the frames and act as a layer between your USB source and the software

You're running them on your computer with your hardware, why do you need his permission?