Saturn

This image was created with my Meade LXD-55 SN-6" using a 2x Barlow T-mount and my Canon 40D several years ago. I am planning for the opposition of Jupiter on March 8th and considering getting a stronger magnifying Barlow to image that, perhaps a 5x or 6x. That image is not resized down, so I'd like to be able to get something larger out of the camera with Jupiter next month.

If anyone has recommendations on those Barlows, I'm all ears (or eyes in the case of internet forums).

High mag barlows are not my favorite but then that might be because I never use them.
I highly suggest to use them ahead of time for optimizing your result.
All I can say, Post processing/ those tiny sensors with large number of pixels per small area (Unlike the favorable concept of Full Frame low noise) are the magical point for Saturn and Jupiter shooting.
BTW it has been a long time not seeing Saturn in this forum. Please show some recent images of yours, if any available.

samsen wrote in post #17906406
High mag barlows are not my favorite but then that might be because I never use them.
I highly suggest to use them ahead of time for optimizing your result.
All I can say, Post processing/ those tiny sensors with large number of pixels per small area (Unlike the favorable concept of Full Frame low noise) are the magical point for Saturn and Jupiter shooting.
BTW it has been a long time not seeing Saturn in this forum. Please show some recent images of yours, if any available.

Thanks, I'll dig through and post more of my stuff.

Are you saying that the Canon 40D (crop 10 MP) would be better for imaging the planets than the Sony A7RII (FF 42MP)? I was originally planning on only shooting with the Sony, but could easily use both. I may just do that and see the results I get. I think the Sony still has a greater pixel density. I haven't looked it up or done the math, but a 1.5x crop on the Sony yields an 18 MP image I believe.

Scratch that, I just looked it up:

Canon 40D: 10 MP, pixel pitch is 5.7 um, pixel area is 32.49 um, pixel density is 3.07 MP/cm^2
Sony A7RII: 42 MP, pixel pitch is 4.5 um, pixel area is 20.25 um, pixel density is 4.94 MP/cm^2
*um = micrometers

http://www.digicamdb.c​om/specs/canon_eos-40d/
http://www.digicamdb.c​om/specs/sony_alpha-7r-ii/

I doubt the difference between your cameras, due to real estate of sensors is significantly visible, in terms of result, except better noise control of Sony should be a plus.
I was talking more in terms of a very small sensor with lots of pixel and high frame rate, such as a very cheap modified web cam or better a dedicated one (Cheaper not excellent but bank annihilating SBIG Type) such as Celestron NexImage -5 or likewise for Video clip source of plant to be turned into image by processing, rather than direct still image acquisition. I have seen people having very good (unbelievable) result with a modified cellphone camera such as iphone etc. The result is usually better that way when you take the short video clip and let software make your image rather than rely on your expensive DSLR's large sensor to do the job (As most of that expensive senor, no matter how big, will not occupy your small plant's image. But then do what you are familiar with. You don't want experiencing when doing something important.

A must to watch clip is this




LINK. It may totally change your approach and please search for result of this method, after all, "Seeing is Believing".

And in case you are going the DSLR route, this




LINK should let you know on limitations.

All the best & Clear dark sky to you.

Samsen your second link is not working .

Celestron wrote in post #17906795
Samsen your second link is not working .

Thanks Ron for letting me know.
Rectified and left direct link to be seen on page here.

Thank you very much for the detailed response. I will be watching these videos soon. I've had a very busy weekend with work and have a big day tomorrow morning with $150K worth of equipment arriving, so hopefully I can check these out Tuesday. I appreciate the links and information.