Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

PeterStudz

Members
  • Posts

    983
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by PeterStudz

  1. On 27/03/2024 at 09:44, Bugdozer said:

    Sorry to anyone in the Hastings area, my purchase has now ensured there will be no sunny days for a couple of weeks at least! 

    _20240326_231004.thumb.JPG.af18af189298dd4db1b85286fac4b6e2.JPG

    _20240326_231059.thumb.JPG.627abe22b732b8e120d15ed9e0088439.JPG

    Damn… I couldn’t work out why all the sunspots were disappearing and now I know why!!!

    • Haha 1
  2. Interesting stuff…. Although the video/review could have been better I generally agree with Ed Tring and think he’s made some good points. 

    Towards the end and in summary, he mentions  “are you happy with the quality of the images that this produces? If yes then buy it. If not then don’t” - seems like good advice. For me (I’m not an imager anyway but if I was) I would want something more/better. At the same time the SeeStar 50 is a great gadget and I can see the attraction.  But I’m holding out for the SeeStar X100 Pro Max.

    He also says that he thinks the SeeStar is good at lunar and solar. However, looking at the lunar & solar images it produces I think that this is its weak point. A smartphone with cheap telescope has been able to produce better lunar/solar images for years. For me it looks best at faint fuzzies - DSO. 

    Although I prefer visual I do like to take and experiment with the occasional smartphone snap. Usually to document what I’ve seen. To me the SeeStar is the astrophotography equivalent of point-and-shoot… taking a snap. Now, there’s nothing wrong with that and in today’s world there’s a big market for all kinds of snaps. Eg the young, social media etc is full of them with some making a living out of it. Here, the resolution or producing high quality images doesn’t matter. After all, these things are for tiny little smartphone screens. And apart from pushing through some Instagram filters, playing with the stock camera app sliders, there’s no appetite for processing. Having said that - with the SeeStar you’re taking a snap of something you haven’t seen, so maybe it’s not quite the same as a traditional snap. 

    In Ed’s review he also mentioned people in visual outreach type events wanting to take pictures of what they’ve seen at the eyepiece. The assumption is that this must be easy. After all, they take snaps of everything else. But as he says “it’s not there yet”. I’ve had this before too. Eg one of my daughter’s friends (who said she wasn’t interested in astronomy) ended up being amazed when she saw the moon through our Dob. Here I also got the “can I take a picture?” Fortunately I’m geared up for that and was easily able to take something with my phone and pass it onto her. This lunar “snap” was then plastered on her social media accounts and used for sometime as her smartphone wallpaper. The fact the image was of low resolution did not matter to her and I doubt that she even noticed or cared. It was a snap of something she had seen, something she’d experienced and enjoyed which she wanted to share. There are a lot of people like that. 

    • Like 2
  3. 1 hour ago, Bugdozer said:

    This is one thing that I am always curious about when people talk about really dark skies and the descriptions of them given in the Bortle classifications, because some of it doesn't quite make sense to me. 

    Firstly, a higher Bortle sky is always going to have more light from the sky overall than a lower Bortle sky. No objects actually lose brightness under a high Bortle sky, they just lose contrast against the increasingly bright background glow that is everywhere, until at some point they are effectively rendered invisible. But their light IS still coming down. 

    However, in my experience, once you get down to about Bortle 2.5, there isn't actually enough light to see any shadows at all. The Milky Way could be right overhead, and clear to look at, but I can't distinguish between looking at the ground and having my eyes shut. Basically, the amount of light given off by things like the Milky Way is below the threshold at which my eyes can detect reflected light from objects. I can believe something like Venus could give off enough light to cast a shadow at its brightest, but if I already can't see the ground at all, then having an even darker sky is not going to make shadows on it more visible. Seeing it reflected off water makes sense, but I am dubious of darker skies seeming to make our eyes more sensitive to light which is already below detection threshold.

    This is a smartphone single snap. There’s a lot of noise (to be expected from a tiny camera) and no stacking. Even in this picture you can just make out the reflection under the Milky Way on the water. Visually it was more obvious. My 12 yr old daughter who was with me at the time pointed it out straight away.

    IMG_5149.thumb.jpeg.61f423cca0df437e48ba6bf185f9b792.jpeg

    • Like 10
    • Thanks 1
  4. I have been to a Bortle 1-2 site. There is  no way that aperture can make up for it as under light pollution an increase in aperture also increases the background skyglow. 

    As @bosun21 mentions - there are so many stars and so many bright stars that it’s hard to get orientation. Eg even Saturn was lost and took me time to locate. The Milky Way so bright that it cast a reflection on the water. I could see the Swan Nebula naked eye (I can’t even see that in my 8” Dob from my Bortle 7 garden). All I had was a small 4.5” newt on a wobbly tripod but the Triffid Nebula really bright and wonderful. The Lagoon Nebula was stunning and hard to take my eye away from the eyepiece - better than any photograph. 

    • Like 7
    • Thanks 1
  5. Just come in after a clear evening/night - totally unexpected. Nice relaxing time observing the moon. Seeing also decent too. However, work tomorrow so couldn’t spend too long. Mind, Good to brush away those cobwebs at last! 

    • Like 4
  6. For my 8” Dob I use the PushTo feature in an app called PS Align Pro. Finds targets within a low power eyepiece every time. I’ve even used it to find planets, eg Venus, Jupiter, Saturn and Mars in daylight. Astro Hopper is similar but this works better than Stellariaum.

    IMG_3774.thumb.jpeg.0bd228d10bf0031ebced5932d1f466a3.jpeg

    For tracking that’s good enough for visual I made an EQ platform for about £85 from these instructions. It’s easier than it looks. Then you’ll have PushTo and tracking for a bargain price. 
     

     

    • Like 2
  7. 12 minutes ago, RamJacCorp said:

    Thank you very much, to everyone who responded. While I'm a little disappointed to hear the less-than-stellar reviews of this telescope, it's certainly better than no telescope (maybe). Unfortunately, I have no budget for this hobby, so I can't spend a lot to replace the missing mount and rings (nope, I didn't get the rings, either). Thanks for the suggestion, PeterStuds! I'll look up the dobs base, and see if I can rig something up. Still have to find some rings, though, unless there's a way to come up with a suitable replacement. I wish I could take one of you up on your offer (like MrCat), but since I'm in the US, the shipping would probably kill me. 

    I had a feeling that you might be in the US - no worries and thanks for the reply.

    If you are strapped-for-cash then it can be a difficult hobby to get into. Mind, if you live in a location that’s blessed with dark skies it will help!

    You can make a Dob base without tube rings. You just need to make something called a “tube cradle” - basically a simple plywood box. 

    This is an old site but it explains everything. Inc making a Dobsonian telescope from scratch. But at the end there are details about making a mount. However, It can be made even simpler than shown. Might be worth having a look at the link near the end “Photos from Builders”. Good luck! 

    https://stellafane.org/tm/dob/

     

    • Like 3
  8. 32 minutes ago, LondonNeil said:

    What does the ota weigh? If it's under 3kg with ep, I've a az3 mount and tripod that could suit and you could have for a few quid.  You'd need rings to attach the ota, that's all. However heavier tubes are just too much for the mount and it just sags/slips in altitude...  hence why I've upgraded. 

    The AZ3 would be an upgrade compared to the EQ1 that the OP is missing. Well within the weight limit too. Although from what’s been said I’m not sure that they have the tube rings?

  9. If I was in this position (In fact I’ve had a much larger reflector that came without a mount) I’d make a Dob base out of a bit of cheap plywood. Which is exactly what I did.

    For this size of reflector a table top Dob base would the easiest. Really easy to make and you could knock one up over a weekend. There’s plenty of instructions/examples on the internet.  Although a cheap option it’s not difficult to end up with something far more stable and straightforward to use than many rather more expensive commercial alternatives.

    But of course some people aren’t into DIY. 

    • Like 3
  10. 24 minutes ago, bosun21 said:

    Does anyone else appear to have this streak?

    One of my most memorable and satisfying nights included locating the galaxy M81 from my Bortle 7 back garden. This in the early days and my first galaxy. All using a 4.5” reflector on a wobbly EQ1 at near zenith with just a cheap red dot finder. I was over the moon!

    • Like 2
  11. 42 minutes ago, Peter Drew said:

    The Andromeda Galaxy is a large object, as the telescope is increased in aperture it no longer fits into the field of view.  Using my 30" Dob it looks more impressive in the 80mm finder as there is a fair bit of dark sky surrounding the galaxy.      🙂 

    This is a very good point. And for me Andromeda looks more impressive in my 10x50 binoculars than my 8” Dob.

    • Like 1
  12. 19 minutes ago, bosun21 said:

    I love Glenmorangie 18 year old although it's very expensive followed by Glenmorangie itself.

    Very nice! I have a soft spot for Laphroaig. Not so much the taste, although I do like it, but the fact that my late  mother gave me a bottle as a Christmas present from when I started drinking until she passed away. So it has memories! 

    • Like 2
  13. 19 minutes ago, bosun21 said:

    I tried the tour of the distilleries on Islay in which you have a dram at each of them. Needless to say I never made it to them all.

    I haven’t done that. But the above involved plenty of tasting. Mind, it was free as it was part of “work”, so that encouraged the “tasting”.

    • Haha 1
  14. On 06/03/2024 at 07:18, Saganite said:

    That's a lovely image Peter, and amazing that you got it with a smart phone !

      I tried to see this on Monday but failed , transparency simply not good enough.

    Thanks! I prefer visual, but do find the smartphone only images fun and interesting. And to see what I can do with something that I already have. It doesn’t cost anything and if I need to use a computer or laptop then for me it loses that straightforward simplicity. Not that I have a computer or laptop! They are also handy to help record my sessions - especially if I tag an observation report to the image. 

    Transparency is one of those things that you learn to appreciated with experience. On that night I’d already taken a look at M81 and M82. Something that I’m familiar with. And this confirmed that transparency could have been better. I’d certainly seen these two better in the past from my back garden.

    The app that I used - AstroShader - does a good job of keeping the background sky dark when under an urban sky. When taking a smartphone image through a telescope, using the stock camera app, it also magnifies the surrounding light pollution. And you then need to go through a load of hoops trying to minimise it. Which is why you are always at an advantage (aren’t you always!) when taking a smartphone image at a dark/darker site.

  15. I really enjoy seeing what you can do with a smartphone. And apart from an adapter (which cost me £9.99) and a few apps of around £2.99, it hasn’t cost me anything. Just about everyone has a smartphone and it’s something just about anyone can do. Even without a telescope.

    Your image reminds me of the first time my daughter saw the Orion Nebula. She wasn’t impressed! Although it was in Bortle 7 with a small 4.5” reflector and I doubt that her eyes were dark adapted. However, just hovering our phone camera over the eyepiece showed colours and literally had Alice jumping up and down. And that was without even taking a picture. It kind of saved the night and got her very much interested in Orion.  

    • Like 1
  16. Nice little session on Sunday 3rd March that included testing/trying out a secondhand Astronomik OIII filter which had just arrived in the post, well, on the very day, from @bosun21. It arrived with some clouds, but not enough to completely stop play! This to add to my Astronomik UHC, also purchased secondhand from SGL. And to make things more interesting I chose a target I hadn’t successfully seen.

    I’d not yet been able to see M97 - the Owl Nebula - from my light polluted Bortle 7 back garden, which is the only place I’ve tried. Conditions on the night weren’t great with poor seeing and below average transparency. But at least the moon was out of the way and M97 at a good altitude. I used the PushTo feature in the smartphone app PS Align Pro which always gets me on target. But looking through a low power eyepiece M97 simply wasn’t there. I tried averted vision and at one point, but only for a brief split second, thought I could see something. Mind, I couldn’t be sure it wasn’t my imagination. But, when I tried the OIII filter there it was -  M97 - right in the centre of the FOV. Sure, it was just a faint fuzzy circle without detail, but no averted vision necessary. Really surprised that it would make the difference of not seeing anything to seeing something. Looking forward to trying it out again & experimenting (plus the UHC). Hopefully at a dark(er) site too.

    I was going to play around with different eyepieces, but clouds were coming in and I decided to try and take a smartphone image. First without the filter and then hopefully with. I did this via the AstroShader app which I’d last used properly and described here way back in May. Using the apps live view quickly showed the outline of M97 on the phone screen. It’s like a simple EEVA and in this case showing something that I couldn’t see without a filter. I took a shoot using a few subs, but that clearly wasn’t enough, so took a few more and by luck got a decent image. I’m still not sure on all the app settings. And I could see the “eyes” of M97 in the image! A bit of editing in the app and on the phone gave the resulting image. Honestly I’m pleased with that. I don’t think It’s an easy smartphone target! 

    Unfortunately thicker clouds soon rolled in and I called it a night. I had work in the morning, so probably just as well. Would the image be any better using a visual OIII filter? I’m not sure. 

    03/03/24, Southampton urban back garden, Bortle 7. SkyWatcher 200p Dob on DIY EQ platform. BST StarGuider 25mm. iPhone 14 Pro on no-brand smartphone adapter. Image taken via the AstroShader app. Cropped plus basic editing only on the phone using AstroShader, WaveletCam & Lightroom. 

    IMG_5198.jpeg.9ecc81e02bfb17ad4ee41fecb938f3e5.jpeg

    • Like 10
  17. For deep sky objects the night sky isn’t dark enough for most targets during the summer months. So most observations are outside of summer anyway. 

    Personally  and in my location (I’m in an urban environment) the sky is darkest between 1 and 3am. So you can always do what @Stu suggests.

    However, I also do white light solar which is obviously daytime and even some planetary (eg Venus) during daylight hours too. It doesn’t need to be all nighttime stuff!

     

     

    • Like 1
×
×
  • 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.