SW Esprit 80 or WO 80/480 LOMO?

[wuthton]

Although I agree with the quality of the Lomo optics, I understand that there are many other factors that weight on the quality of a telescope. These include the appropriate use of the optics, the design, the construction, the tube, the focuser, etc. That a telescope uses FLP53 (as is the case of three of my telescopes) vs a one that uses FLP51, will depend on the quality of the aforementioned factors. So, having FLP53 or any other type of lenses does no guarantee optimal performance. The same goes with triplets vs doublets. An excellently designed and built doublet may perform better than a poorly designed and built triplet. Thus, the type of lens and the amount of lenses foes not necessarily guarantee excellent optical performance.

The other (and I am not mentioning a lot of other factors) factor is the observer/photographer. I am into visual and plan to enter astrophotography. I know that my photos will not be of the same quality of other highly experienced photographers. I have seen many photos taken with telescopes of exceptional quality and renown, and the photos are really bad. And I have seen photos taken with commercial quality telescopes of no renown at all, that really shine in their artistic and precision.

I am new to astrophotography, as I already mentioned, but I have been reading, studying and consulting about the hobby a lot. I mentioned three of my telescopes, bit I own two other that I consider of exceptional quality. One is a William Optics FLT-123 which uses Lomo optics, which I obtained on the used market (exceptionally mint and clean). The other is a Takahashi FSQ 106, acquired from a friend. BTW, my other telescopes, which I acquired prior to these two are: SkyWatcher Esprit 120 and SW Esprit 80, and a WO FLT98. This week I ordered a TS APO65Q just for the fun of having a small scope. Now, I know that my photos, even with the WO FLT-123 and the Takahashi, are not going to be better than those of a friend using an Orion 80ED, because he has more talent and experience than I have, at least at the present time.

I hope these words contribute to the ongoing dialog here at SGL.

Very valid and true but you missed a point. I've been dabbling in astrophotography for the last 10 years and the for last 2/3 years with some reasonable commitment. I'd say I'm a reasonably advanced beginner at taking a sub.

BUT, my post processing is useless, it bores me intensly. Without expertise and a willingness to devote time to it a good picture will never be raised to excellence.

Luckily I'm easily pleased or on second thoughts that might be the problem.

[Jose Auger]

Great. That is exactly one of the problems that I was considering. I have minimal experience not only in astrophotography but in post processing as well. And when I look at some of my friends pictures and they say "post processing 12 hours" I am shocked by it. But I am willing to learn and I consider I have a lot of patience, so that I accept the challenge. I am buying this week a modified Canon camera from Hutech and will start doing dome trials as soon as I receive it. Oh, and if the weather gods do permit. For weeks we have been faced with polluted skies from dust that arrives from the Sahara. Yes, it gets up to the Caribbean. They are forecasting worst conditions for next week and warning to old persons and children to stay inside their homes as much as possible. Thus, I will have to wait till this is over to go out and try the equipment with the camera.

Clear skies.

[ollypenrice]

Oh! Oh!! Once you understand it and have a knowledge of the tools available to you, post processing becomes by far the best bit. Capture is routine. Frame, focus, guide. Not much to it. But it is in post processing that you can start to tease out the delicous little delicacies that you didn't know you'd captured. And inventing a new technique, which you will if you stick at it, is insanely rewarding.

GIve post processing another try, please, please!

Olly

[ChrisLX200]

I agree with Olly there, once you have the data capture down to a routine it's actually a very boring process, best thing to do is get outside and do something else (like observing )  I can't get on with PiInsight though, well - not as a whole anyway. Bits of it are useful to me but the rest is so long-winded and fragmented I'd rather use something else.

ChrisH

[wuthton]

Oh! Oh!! Once you understand it and have a knowledge of the tools available to you, post processing becomes by far the best bit. Capture is routine. Frame, focus, guide. Not much to it. But it is in post processing that you can start to tease out the delicous little delicacies that you didn't know you'd captured. And inventing a new technique, which you will if you stick at it, is insanely rewarding.

GIve post processing another try, please, please!

Olly

It's getting better, I'd say my processing skills are much like those of a sushi chef with a fine fillet of fish. A sushi chef who only has an axe to work with.

[ollypenrice]

It's getting better, I'd say my processing skills are much like those of a sushi chef with a fine fillet of fish. A sushi chef who only has an axe to work with.

Heheh, yeah, but a dead fish is a dead fish. Twenty hours data on a DSO is more like it!

Chris, like you I like Pixinsight for what it does well and is comprehensible. I couldn't live without it but I couldn't live with it as 'family.'

Olly

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Heheh, yeah, but a dead fish is a dead fish. Twenty hours data on a DSO is more like it!

Chris, like you I like Pixinsight for what it does well and is comprehensible. I couldn't live without it but I couldn't live with it as 'family.'

Olly

A dead fish is not just a dead fish once I have finished preparing it

And if you cannot cook, there is always the Lowestoft Fish-Slapping Dance

[wuthton]

A dead fish is not just a dead fish once I have finished preparing it

And if you cannot cook, there is always the Lowestoft Fish-Slapping Dance

Cracking, haven't seen that in ages.

I am a little disappointed though that it took 32 posts to get from which telescope to fish slapping dance, you lot are slipping

[Gina]

If I may be so bold as to return to topic, I agree wholeheartedly with Olly - a good image is at least 90% processing.  Once set up, capturing is boring and (in my case) automatic, while I sleep

[ollypenrice]

Yeah, well all you IT gurus can sleep as much as you like. Me, jealous? Nah. Hah! I like staying up all night doing it by hand. (Believe it or not as your intelligence directs...  )

Regarding Lowestoft and fish, I once won a competition for which first prize was a weekend in Lowestoft. (Second prize a week?) Don't let's look a gift horse in the mouth but in one particularly pretentious restaurant (part of the prize) the waiter asked me this curious question; 'Does Sir wish peas?'  Very odd. Was he asking if I was caught short? On a regular basis? Or did I wish peas did or did not exist?  Or what?

I said I did and they were, of course, frozen (at least until shortly bofore I ate them...)

Olly

[rowan46]

I have discovered that the best way to get good images is not to process them. Mine are up up there with the best until i start to process. if I really want perfection  it's best if I don't use a camera and just imagine. good choice on the Lomo I reckon.

[Jose Auger]

I don't know, but 90% seems to me a lot.  There are many factors involved in the process of capturing an image and some of them are difficult. Even if you are an expert, there are instances where the process of capturing an image requires undivided attention. If the capturing is not up to par, there is little you can do with processing.