Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.
By Kcks Regulus Star
On the 2nd of July I closed my curtains one night before I went to bed but, before they were shut I noticed a strange multicoloured light flickering low in the sky in the northern celestial hemisphere. I Thought to myself if that is a star it looks amazing. The next night (3rd of July) I decided to take another look at this multicoloured light which was still there, Only this time I used my binoculars, I was seeing blues, greens & reds. We have all seen stars by looking up into the sky but, I have never seen a star create multi colours before. It makes you feel excited inside and you think that no one else can see this until you tell them and share the same experience together. I believe I was looking at the Capella Star which is the brightest star in the constellation Auriga and your not kidding it is bright. I cant wait to have another look tonight to see if the multi colours are still there. I would like to have taken at picture of it but I am not setup to do that just yet as I am very new to star gazing. I wish someone here can confirm what I saw and to post a picture of it would be awesome.
Nikon Prostaff 3s 8 x 42
I have a Celestron Astromaster 114 eq (114/1000mm), and I do use it whenever I can, but I'm still quite the newbie when it comes to observing.
My point is, I'd like to observe the planets, but I dont't think the standard eyepieces that came with my telescope (10 mm and 20 mm) are powerful enough for that. For reference, the "furthest" I could see were the rings of Saturn , but they were very small and faint too.
Are there any specific eyepieces you could recommend? :) And of course, any tipps and advice are also very much appreciated.
By LR Watanabe
For Deep-Sky AP of mostly galaxies (and nebulae), what'll give me the best results– a medium-weight 130 P-DS or a very lightweight wide-field WO Z61? I know the "best" telescope is one that doesn't just collect dust all day long, but I just can't figure it out. Supporting said telescope will be the SW HEQ5 PRO Synscan (with the Rowan Astronomy belt attached), which will be supported further by a autoguiding system, possibly a very lightweight CF 32mm refractor with a ZWO ASI 120mm Mini (Can't find the -S model in Japan). On the telescope'll be the Canon EOS 600D, quite a heavy beast IMO.
Instead of leaving it here, I'll say (just blurt out) everything I know about these seemingly-equal telescopes.
The 130 P-DS, clocking in at F/5, will produce fantastic photos of Nebulae and Galaxies alike, although its aperture will slightly limit the galaxies it'll see. It seems this telescope does particularly well when it comes to imaging M81 or M51, and Nebulae like the Rosette. Its price-performance ratio is basically unbeatable, as it's only 250$ over here in Japan and it cranks out fantastic images. The only addition I'll need will be a F/5 SW-issued Coma Corrector; however, I don't need to worry as I'll be getting one from me mum in a few week's time.
The William Optics Z61, which has a slightly higher F number of 5.9. It sports 2 lenses with FPL-53 elements in them, allowing for extremely high contrast images of nebulae like the Rosette, Orion, all that lot. I've previously asked a similar question, and I've been convinced by the answer that "I won't really be able to take images of galaxies other than M31, Andromeda, and M33, Triangulum. So why do I even have this as an option when I could just go with the cheaper 130 P-DS? Well because it's a wide field APO. Everything it supports, whether it be the design to the focuser, is just amazing, so much so I can't emphasise the emotion enough.
On Astrobin, I've checked out what kind of images these telescopes produce, and I encountered a problem– pretty much everyone was using everything but the 600D. They all used the fancy Mono-cooled CCDs like the ZWO ASI 1600MM Pro.
lets imagine I wasn't to see a nice DSO about 15' size and I think it should look good nicely framed with a 1 deg field of view in the EP..
Which would give the better (or higher probability of seeing anything at all ) view from a semi urban light polluted home site (e.g Bortle 6)?
a) an 100mm f/6 refractor (fl 600mm) and a 10mm EP (60 deg afov, gain 60x = fov pf 1 deg)
(and exit pupil of 100mm / 60 = 1.6mm)
b) a 200mm SCT with focal reducer to give f/6 (fl 1200mm) and a 20mm EP (60 deg afov, gain 60x = fov of 1 deg)
(and exit pupil of 200 / 60 = 3.3mm)
My gut feeling is that the SCT should give a better view just based upon its 2xaperture - but Im not sure I understand fully the maths why.
Is the larger exit pupil going to result in a better / brighter / more successful view?
Or will the view be 'roughly' the same ?
Or have I got it all wrong.....
I have just joined and have been looking around, and putting in various searches to find the answer to my question(s).
I have already found some valuable information, but i can't find a specific answer to a question i have relating to exposure times.
I have shot the milky way several times before, from a tripod and a wide angle lens. I am aware of and understand the "500 rule" and that worked fine for me at first when i was shooting with my Canon 6D Mark II. When i moved over to the Sony A7III i noticed significant trailing using the same rule and that led me to the NPF rule (Via the photopills app incase people dot know).
I am heading back to Tenerife once again in about 6 weeks time and want to buy a star tracker so i can get some really detailed images.
I have done a fair bit of research and in principle, the whole thing doesn't seem to be too daunting or difficult.
I have purchased the Polar Scope Align Pro app so i can align Polaris as accurately as possible, i will practise putting the unit together and familiarising myself with the different parts etc, but it is the exposure times that i do not understand.
My best glass is the Carl Ziess 50mm F/1.4 Planar, the 18mm F/2.8 Batis, the Sigma 35mm F/1.4 Art & the IRIX 15mm F/2.4 Blackstone.
I currently do not own, nor have i ever used a tracker, and I cannot find any information relating to which aperture, ISO and Shutter length any of these focal lengths should or could be shot at.
Is there anything similar to the 500 rule or NPF rule that relates to using a tracker with varied focal lengths? or is it just a case of stepping the lens down for sharpness and then trial and error?
Thanks in advance,