Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

stargazine_ep33_banner.thumb.jpg.75d09b4b1b4e5bdb1393e57ce45e6a32.jpg

Recommended Posts

Does Focal Ratio affect brightness or is it all about field of view. Will an f/5 scope show the Andromeda galaxy more brightly in the eyepiece than an f/12 scope, or is it just about fitting Andromeda in there and seeing more of the sky? Also does the Focal Ratio of a scope have any effect on the amount or length of exposures taken in astrophotography? Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Visually no, aperture X is aperture X regardless of the focal length.  However with the same eyepiece a short focus X will give a brighter image than a long focus X as the latter will be providing a higher magnification.  At the same magnification the brightness from both X's will be the same.  I'll leave the photography issue to the imagers, can of worms and all that.    😆

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Peter Drew I agree for extended objects but for stars I was led to believe a higher magnification darkened the background while leavig the "point source" stars largely unaffected.  

However, it's so long ago that I looked through a telescope I am relying on hear say.

Regards Andrew 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ andrew s.  Higher magnification does increase the contrast due to the darkened background making the stars look brighter, I think it would be a similar case for both X apertures assuming they were the same.    🙂

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The telescope itself matters. Modern coatings and optics can outshine old ones regardless of the number of optical components.
I have very recently compared my 85mm spotting scope with my trusty, Vixen M90mm f/11 achromatic refractor at the same magnifications.
Absolutely no contest on brightness, sharpness and field of view on terrestrial subjects. The Vixen was well behind at 30x, 40x and 60x.

I shall be grabbing my spotting scope, with a freshly baked solar foil filter, for scanning the sun for visible sunspots in future.
It is only 1/3 the length of the Vixen and needs no special set up. Its very shortness means it can be quickly plonked onto a tripod with video head.
The Vixen's meter-long tube has enough moment to make a decent old tripod and video head look downright flimsy. Boi-oi-oi-oi-ng.
Mounting long telescopes is a real pain in the wallet and often one's back from lifting them into place.
Ask me how I know?  [6" f/10 and 7" f/12 refractors plus a 10" f/8 Newt.]
The best view I have ever had of M42 was with my first, home-made mirror. An 8.75" at F3.8. With more flying gulls than a sunny seaside. [Coma!]

Now what was the question again? :happy72:

 

P1410836 rsz.JPG

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For astrophotography the difference in f ratio is very important, especially for the exposure times.
For example a Celestron C11 at f/10 needs 10 minutes (600 seconds) for a certain DSO image.
The same C-11 with a HyperStar at f/2 will only need 600 (10:2)² = 600:25 = 24 seconds for the same image,
but in this case the image size will be different as well. 
Note the square in the calculation, which is caused by the fact that the f-ratio is the quotient of focal length and aperture.

So the difference is huge and the possibilities of fast scopes are great. 

Edited by Waldemar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Field of view is determined by focal LENGTH not focal RATIO.

For visual, get the largest aperture you can afford (certain potential exceptions for solar, lunar, and probably other targets and observation methods).

James

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/04/2020 at 10:37, Peter Drew said:

Visually no, aperture X is aperture X regardless of the focal length.  However with the same eyepiece a short focus X will give a brighter image than a long focus X as the latter will be providing a higher magnification.  At the same magnification the brightness from both X's will be the same.  I'll leave the photography issue to the imagers, can of worms and all that.    😆

Perfect! Thank you 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By gstallichet
      In market for a good quality, reasonably priced long focal length 1.25 eyepiece to increase fov and help locate and view large objects. Celestron makes a 32mm for @$45.00. Is it any good? Price seems too good to be true. What are good quality/price options?
    • By rockmattstar
      Background info: I have 2 scopes a nexstar 6se (150mm aperture and 1500mm focal length - f10) and a evostar 72ed (72mm aperture, 420mm focal length - f5.8).
      I haven't had chance to use the evostar yet thanks to the clouds. 😡
      Question: Does the f5.8 mean I'm going to be able to reduce my exposure time or is it cancelled out by the fact the aperture is so much smaller?
    • By avodcap7
      I have a celesctron nexstar 8SE OTA, to which I attach my focal reducer (0.63x by celestron), the a T-Adapter-SC, a t-ring and then my dslr. Does the T-Adapter affect the performance or use of the focal reducer?
       
      Emilis
    • By Lewtron_Stellae
      Hi All, 
      I wonder if someone can please help, I'm fairly new to astrophotography and confused about aperture. Basically I'm looking at a Canon EF-S 55-250mm lens. It has the specs
      f4-f5.6 does this mean that the lowest point of aperture possible is F5.6 or will it go lower. What I find confusing is that I have a lens that's the EF-S 18-55mm lens which has the specs of f/3.5/5.6 however My camera does allow me to set the aperture at f/8 The reason I ask cause it is advised to use a low aperture of f/8 to capture images of the moon.
      Any help and guidance would be greatly appreciated!
    • By Matty_C
      Hello all,
      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,
       
      Matt.
       
       
       
       
       
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.