Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Can a really good camera substitute for a dark stargazing site ?


Can a really good camera substitute for a dark stargazing site ?  

11 members have voted

  1. 1. Can a really good camera substitute for a dark stargazing site ?

    • Yes
      2
    • No
      9


Recommended Posts

A standard DSL camera is all you need, and a tripod. You can experiment with Iso and subs of different length of time. You should find a happy balance. Further post processing on computer will allow you to tweak images til you get something that you will be happy with. I'm guessing you mean you want to image the night sky. Perhaps you mean view the sky via live view on camera, or hook it up to computer? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer has to be no but there are things you can do to help.    Narrow-band imaging will cut out a lot of light pollution but then you need expensive filters and an expensive camera.  Well, mainly the filters, you can get away with relatively cheap cameras these days.  ZWO produce an excellent range of CMOS cameras which, in general, are easier to use than CCD cameras.  But this is a huge subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Camera, with fixed focal length lens (non zoom). ability to control shutter\speed etc. will help, but in the end it all comes down to what the quality of light can be gathered, dark sites give the best quality....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, not really. Narrowband photography will help a lot, but you will get false color images. Does a good camera improve imaging in a light polluted area - not really. Only filters will. Does a good (cooled) camera improve imaging at a dark side? Yes, because you can get longer exposure times without heating the sensor and causing artifacts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understand the question correctly, you are asking if a camera 'sees' more on a bad site than your eyes on a good dark site?
the answer is 'yes'

Your eyes only catch the light of the moment (± 1/18 of a second, that is why you need at least 18 fps to get a flowing image in a movie. The filmindustries standard is 24 fps), while a camera gathers the light over a long period of time and therefore catches far more photons and  'sees' more. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • 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.