photos v reality

[ollypenrice]

Don't get me wrong Klomoli - I love the astro imaging because of what it can reveal that the eye through the scope can't see - BUT - I have to say that there is a real thrill when you actually see a DSO through the eyepiece and know that you are looking directly at light that set off thousands or even millions of years ago. You are looking straight in to history:) - I rarely do visual work, but I did take the time to look at Andromeda through the scope last Autumn and was very chuffed indeed

If you know what to expect and appreciate it for what it is, then the enjoyment quickly returns.

Best wishes

John

Very true indeed. Although the eyepiece view is not a fraction as deep as the camera view it is vastly sharper as far as stars are concerned. Hey, not bad having both, say I!

Olly

[klomoli]

Don't get me wrong Klomoli - I love the astro imaging because of what it can reveal that the eye through the scope can't see - BUT - I have to say that there is a real thrill when you actually see a DSO through the eyepiece and know that you are looking directly at light that set off thousands or even millions of years ago. You are looking straight in to history:) - I rarely do visual work, but I did take the time to look at Andromeda through the scope last Autumn and was very chuffed indeed

If you know what to expect and appreciate it for what it is, then the enjoyment quickly returns.

Best wishes

John

I really get enormous pleasure for looking through the eyepiece and learning about the object, and wonder if the pleasure (kick) is actually reversed by looking at the object on the screen of the laptop .

What I mean is that if I scored the left photo 10/100 for the outcome but 80/100 for the kick of seeing it (live), what about the astro imaging, once the picky shows up on the screen (laptop) I guess most often than not you would give it a high score, lets say 75- 90/100 but as regards to the actual kick, (since I have no experience in astro imaging I can only assume) how much would you give it 10-20/100

I'm re reading myself, and not too sure it is all very clear....

[Macavity]

I think it of real value to try to convey what others (might!) be seeing. To be honest, I retain a certain skepticism about "Baxter Basics" (qv) observational astronomers. LOL. [teasing] But maybe, one day, I too will see (some of) what they are seeing?

Nevertheless, I think there has to be an appreciation that not everyone is gifted with the same quality of visual apparatus (my eyes!) and other issues come in to it - Financial and Physical fitness etc.

I LIKE to try and see the world "as others see it". Maybe (Carol et al.) sketching is a useful lingua franca? I am persisting too (having bought them!) with the O'Meara trilogy. Despite (initial skepticism re.) a certain "extravagance" in sketching and literary descriptions, again, I'd like to "understand".

[todd8137]

yes thos glossy hubble pics every one looks at whilst waiting for the scopes to come,kills the view they see i say get some good binos 1st have a look with them and see what ya think

[NickK]

I've tried to give an impression of what M51 might look like through an 8" scope - I might be off the mark a bit and it may actually show more detail than is realistic but compared to the 2nd image which is one I did recently I think it gives an idea of viewing expectations compared to imaging expectations. This is why I got into the astro photography as I enjot the "hidden" detail.

That left M51 occular view you've give is very close (slightly brighter) to what I could see through the Pentax (105mm f6.3). Slap a camera on it and you've transformed into... well, once it's stacked and processed (and if filters were used) the result is like your right example.

I looked through a large dob (16" I think) at M51 and the resulting image was brighter than the occular example - shades of blue and a lot more structure.

[ollypenrice]

The thing about imaging is that what comes straight down the spout onto the chip is not in itself much of a picture. This is not so with a daytime camera, of course, where what comes down the spout is opften instantly excellent with modern cameras. The fun in imaging is building up a picture from an incredible amount of data taken, often, over many nights. It is entirely different as an activity from daytime photography though there, too, there is huge scope for creativity. The difference is that all raw astrophotos are utterly lousy!!

Olly

[klomoli]

It would be so interesting to have the same picture of a DSO or even a planet through various Eps of different quality but of the same size to give some idea to what putting extra money into an Eps actually gives you.

Would anyone have such comparaison???

Thanks, klomoli

[Andrew*]

Klomoli, you can get an idea from this link: 6mm Lunar/Planetary Eyepiece Comparison - Review

It gives some simulations of lunar and planetary eyepiece views just over half way down.

I would say especially galaxies are far more dependent on light pollution than aperture, so that simulation of what an 8" would show of M51 might only apply to an observing site a few miles from a city, for example, but it would show far more structure from a very dark location, and far less (may not even be visible) from in the city. It's also dependent on the observer's experience, the altitude in the sky and plenty of other factors, so making accurate simulations for every situation would be very tricky.

And has been suggested, simulations of stars can never truly represent the eyepiece view. For visual, even very bright focused stars pretty much stay as points, but we can perceive the difference in brightness. A camera cannot do this to the same degree as the dynamic range is very limited compared with the human eye. Instead, the glare from a bright star cumulatively exposes surrounding pixels and makes it larger and gives it the impression of brightness at the expense of "sharpness". With sketches, we have to show the brightness of stars with the same effect, so it still doesn't truly represent the eyepiece view.

Andrew

[Vicky]

Really interesting thread. I suppose since I haven't spent much of my life looking skyward I'm amazed by even just seeing the colour of Betelgeuse or seeing the moons of Jupiter through my wiggling binos. My expectation is that I will see better than with the naked eye and at least they won't be wiggling about

I think quite early on in my research I realised the amazing images from Hubble etc were spectacular and something in another dimension.

Its managing expectation- and since mine is low I seem to get a lot out of not very much

Thanks for the comments, very thought provoking!

[MikeWilson]

It would be so interesting to have the same picture of a DSO or even a planet through various Eps of different quality but of the same size to give some idea to what putting extra money into an Eps actually gives you.

Would anyone have such comparaison???

Thanks, klomoli

It's so hard to do, it's probably impossible to convey. The best thing to do is to go to an observing session at an astronomy club and look through a selection of eyepieces to get a feel for what they're like.

Mike

[Sparrow]

The thing about imaging is that what comes straight down the spout onto the chip is not in itself much of a picture. This is not so with a daytime camera, of course, where what comes down the spout is opften instantly excellent with modern cameras. The fun in imaging is building up a picture from an incredible amount of data taken, often, over many nights. It is entirely different as an activity from daytime photography though there, too, there is huge scope for creativity. The difference is that all raw astrophotos are utterly lousy!!

Olly

Couldn't agree more Olly (seem to be agreeing with you more and more:)) - just to add to the end - some of my finished astrophotos have been pretty lousy as well

[ollypenrice]

Couldn't agree more Olly (seem to be agreeing with you more and more:)) - just to add to the end - some of my finished astrophotos have been pretty lousy as well

Some of mine, too. I just don't post them!

Olly

[klomoli]

Klomoli, you can get an idea from this link: 6mm Lunar/Planetary Eyepiece Comparison - Review

It gives some simulations of lunar and planetary eyepiece views just over half way down.

I would say especially galaxies are far more dependent on light pollution than aperture, so that simulation of what an 8" would show of M51 might only apply to an observing site a few miles from a city, for example, but it would show far more structure from a very dark location, and far less (may not even be visible) from in the city. It's also dependent on the observer's experience, the altitude in the sky and plenty of other factors, so making accurate simulations for every situation would be very tricky.

And has been suggested, simulations of stars can never truly represent the eyepiece view. For visual, even very bright focused stars pretty much stay as points, but we can perceive the difference in brightness. A camera cannot do this to the same degree as the dynamic range is very limited compared with the human eye. Instead, the glare from a bright star cumulatively exposes surrounding pixels and makes it larger and gives it the impression of brightness at the expense of "sharpness". With sketches, we have to show the brightness of stars with the same effect, so it still doesn't truly represent the eyepiece view.

Andrew

Thanks for this Andrew, just what I was looking for, I have since looked AGAIN on the net but have not found very much in term of comparaison apart from this link which is quite interesting but probably slightly buyest

Siebert Optics - Converters

and although I understand from reading the latest posts that it is not easy to covey as MikeWilson kindly highlights but I would have thought that I would have been inundated with links and examples.

It's so hard to do, it's probably impossible to convey. The best thing to do is to go to an observing session at an astronomy club and look through a selection of eyepieces to get a feel for what they're like.

Mike

Totally agree that I must go to an astronomy club and see for myself!

It seems that on the whole, better Eps gives you a more contrasted and crisper view that in a way equals to higher definition

klomoli

[Andrew*]

Thanks for this Andrew, just what I was looking for, I have since looked AGAIN on the net but have not found very much in term of comparaison apart from this link which is quite interesting but probably slightly buyest

These are biased in a way, as they focus only upon distortion (bending of straight lines further from the centre of the FOV). TeleVue Panoptics are well known to have distortion - it was a conscious decision of the designers so as to combat astigmatism. The theory goes, when looking at stars it's more important to have sharp stars than to have straight lines. What they do not show in those pictures is which eyepiece is sharper in fast focal ratio telescopes, which is what matters more.

I think eyepiece aberrations are pretty difficult to illustrate or even photograph, and that's why we don't see so many examples like that in the link you just posted. User reviews are the best way to get an idea of an eyepiece before you purchase, but unfortunately these rely on subjective observations.

HTH

Andrew

[MikeWilson]

Totally agree that I must go to an astronomy club and see for myself!

It seems that on the whole, better Eps gives you a more contrasted and crisper view that in a way equals to higher definition

klomoli

For what it's worth, I think my experience is only just slightly ahead of yours since I have been to an astronomy club and looked through some nice eyepieces for the first time only a fortnight ago...

First up - the Skywatcher standard eyepieces. You can see the moon and on star clusters you get a reasonable view, nothing amazing, it looks like as you'd expect it too.

Second up - the Revelation/Celestron Plossl eyepieces. These are nice, giving lovely rich, reasonably wide views. A nice first starter eyepiece(s).

Third up - 2" Nagler/Ethos "hand grenades". I looked through a small refractor for this comparison but even so you could tell the quality of the eyepieces instantly. As your eye approaches, the stars pop into a field of view that is more like a dinner plate than a looking glass. Close-up your eyeball has to do a little work in order to inspect the edges (or inverted vision) of the field. Very, very good.

Fourth - I was most impressed by a Baader Clickzoom eyepiece. Not quite as amazing as the hand grenades but easily better quality than the Revelation/Celestron eyepieces at a cost between those and the high end eyepieces. It gives a very crisp view across all the focal lengths and 8mm-24mm are built into one eyepiece. That's quite handy.

Just a few pence worth!

[NickK]

My experience of EPs has mostly been around Baader Hyperions, however I got to borrow a couple at SGL6 when viewing saturn through the Pentax. In order of impression:

1. Nagler 7mm - the view was 3D in appearance.

2. Baader Hyperon 13mm & 3.5mm - both showed curvature of saturn itself, the 3.5 showed saturn much better arbiet darker than the 13mm.

3. William Optics 7mm - seemed quite flat.

[NickK]

Here's a great youtube vid. What's nice is that it shows you the sky (orion and you can make out M42 with the naked eye) then switching it what he sees through the EP.

OseEtWIki8A

[klomoli]

Here's a great youtube vid. What's nice is that it shows you the sky (orion and you can make out M42 with the naked eye) then switching it what he sees through the EP.

OseEtWIki8A

Thanks for sharing this!

So interesting this idea to simply record over the Eps with a cam corder!!! As soon as the moon goes away, I'll give it a shot!

[cervesca]

Like many I love the pic of M42, just confirms that you bigger the mirror the bigger the view, starting to look like the photographs in that pic.