You don't need a telescope

Light pollution.

Inspeqtor wrote in post #17989311
Pardon me.... what is LP?

Light Pollution Charles

P.

oldvultureface wrote in post #17989312
Light pollution.

Pagman wrote in post #17989313
Light Pollution Charles

P.

Thank you both

Inspeqtor wrote in post #17989311
Pardon me.... what is LP?

LP = Light Pollution
DSO = Deep Space Objects
FG = Foreground
BG = Back Ground
FOV= Field Of View
DOF = Depth Of Field
PP = Post Processing

Hope this helps some .

Celestron wrote in post #17989327
LP = Light Pollution
DSO = Deep Space Objects
FG = Foreground
BG = Back Ground
FOV= Field Of View
DOF = Depth Of Field
PP = Post Processing

Hope this helps some .

Thank you - I just wrote them down... a couple I already knew but not all

samsen wrote in post #17986939
Charles:
The only one accessory in astrophotography that suddenly takes your image quality a light year ahead is "Sky Tracker". Period. Assuming you have good, dark pollution free sky.

I think any tracking head will be a great asset. There are a few makes & models.

iOptron makes the Sky Tracker
Vixen makes the Polarie
Sky Watcher makes the Star Adventurer
Losmandy makes the StarLapse
and there's also the AstroTrac.

Prices vary, but so does build quality and load rating (basically you get what you pay for.)

samsen wrote in post #17986939
Charles:
The only one accessory in astrophotography that suddenly takes your image quality a light year ahead is "Sky Tracker". Period. Assuming you have good, dark pollution free sky.
There has been several threads, specifically on iOptron and Roys suggested entry level is quite fine. Here is an eg, if you like to take the discussion to the proper channel:

Samsen,

When you say "Sky Tracker" are you referring to an iOptron or similar device or something different?

Also, sadly no I do not have a dark pollution free sky. Sure wish I did, and I have no idea where to go in my area to find that, and to be sure I was also safe not being in my "back yard"

Reference is to any Tracker device that can move your payload fine and smoothly. Not any brand in particular.
In general most people, start with a small device like:
- iOptron 3302w > LINK
- Vixen POLARIE (Currently discontinued by still available on line or used). > LINK

Thank you. That is what I thought you meant.

What defines a telescope? I'm not being sarcastic here, honestly, what defines a telescope? It's not an eyepiece. Besides, a DSLR or even mirrorless camera presents a way to look through the lens attachment. Some of the lenses these days actually better than the original "telescopes". I mean, the first telescopes only magnified 3x. The word telescope itself means "far-seeing". And some of the lenses here are more powerful than products which are labeled "telescopes" by the marketing teams.

Maybe the premise behind this thread is that telescopes are expensive and you don't need to drop that much coin to get these shots. But some of these lenses cost more than my telescope did, way more. There is one awesome lens that I'd love to have that costs about 20x as much as my telescope. Even the off brand lenses like the Tamrom SP 150-600 costs almost twice as much as my telescope.

Honestly, I think it's fair to call a lens with a 600mm focal length a telescope. There are many shots in this thread made using a setup that has a greater focal length (and thus reach) than my telescope. People using a Canon 100-400 & a 2x extender have greater reach than my Meade LXD-55 6" telescope which only has a 762mm focal length. And that lens alone costs way more than my telescope, without even taking the extender's cost into account.

One major difference between a lens designed for a camera and a telescope is that the telescope has a big opening to catch lots of light. The advantage of that is being able to see & photograph faint objects, because it's collecting so much light from that one object. But when it comes reaching far distances, or resolving fine details on the surface of the moon, many of these "lenses" are superior to telescopes, and you have to pay for that superiority as well.

Perhaps we should start a thread, "You don't need a $1000+ lens" (Okay, I *am* being sardonic there.)

heldGaze wrote in post #18000394
What defines a telescope? I'm not being sarcastic here, honestly, what defines a telescope? It's not an eyepiece. Besides, a DSLR or even mirrorless camera presents a way to look through the lens attachment. Some of the lenses these days actually better than the original "telescopes". I mean, the first telescopes only magnified 3x. The word telescope itself means "far-seeing". And some of the lenses here are more powerful than products which are labeled "telescopes" by the marketing teams.

Maybe the premise behind this thread is that telescopes are expensive and you don't need to drop that much coin to get these shots. But some of these lenses cost more than my telescope did, way more. There is one awesome lens that I'd love to have that costs about 20x as much as my telescope. Even the off brand lenses like the Tamrom SP 150-600 costs almost twice as much as my telescope.

Honestly, I think it's fair to call a lens with a 600mm focal length a telescope. There are many shots in this thread made using a setup that has a greater focal length (and thus reach) than my telescope. People using a Canon 100-400 & a 2x extender have greater reach than my Meade LXD-55 6" telescope which only has a 762mm focal length. And that lens alone costs way more than my telescope, without even taking the extender's cost into account.

One major difference between a lens designed for a camera and a telescope is that the telescope has a big opening to catch lots of light. The advantage of that is being able to see & photograph faint objects, because it's collecting so much light from that one object. But when it comes reaching far distances, or resolving fine details on the surface of the moon, many of these "lenses" are superior to telescopes, and you have to pay for that superiority as well.

Perhaps we should start a thread, "You don't need a $1000+ lens" (Okay, I *am* being sardonic there.)

I can relate fully to what you say but from a slightly different standpoint - today i was outside doing some aircraft spotting and photography of airliners flying above me at 6 miles up and sometimes as much as 10 miles away, i was using my X-S1 at its full normal optical range of 624mm(35mm eqv) i was in man focus and would use the man focus assist tool in the cam that magnifies the image another 10 x.
I was blown away as i was watching a plane about 10miles away ane was able to read the airline logo on the side and make out the individual windows, this was amazing as in real life it was just a dot with a trail

P.

Pagman wrote in post #18000409
I can relate fully to what you say but from a slightly different standpoint - today i was outside doing some aircraft spotting and photography of airliners flying above me at 6 miles up and sometimes as much as 10 miles away, i was using my X-S1 at its full normal optical range of 624mm(35mm eqv) i was in man focus and would use the man focus assist tool in the cam that magnifies the image another 10 x.
I was blown away as i was watching a plane about 10miles away ane was able to read the airline logo on the side and make out the individual windows, this was amazing as in real life it was just a dot with a trail

P.

Hans Lippershey would be blown away, both by your amazing telescope and by the heavier than air flying machines you were viewing through it. (Bernoulli was born 81 years after Lippershey's death.)

You know, on thinking (slightly) more about this, I would say that a telescope is (perhaps partly) defined by its eyepiece. As the magnification power is given by the ratio of the focal length of the telescope to the focal length of the eye piece. However, when using a telescope for astrophotography, the eyepiece is removed and the camera is attached where the eyepiece would be. Effectively making the telescope just a large lens. So while yes, a telescope is different when simply viewing objects, and you can change the magnification power by swapping out different eyepieces, this is unrelated to the subject matter of this thread which is astrophotography. When using a telescope and camera via prime focus, it's just a different lens design… mine has mirrors

Perhaps the actual fov would have an effect on things aswel imagine supporting a Full Frame 1000 - 2000mm lens and keeping it sharp and lack of movement, then compare that to say(if i can bring binoculars in) a pair of 20 x 50 bins with what roughtly eqv to a 2000mm full frame?


P.

first ever attempt at imaging antares and rho ophiuchi, quite happy with how it turned out

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/G5kG​Vt

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/GRrG​sb

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/GRqT​KU

Really nice, what are your acquisition details (camera, lens, exposure settings, etc)?