# [Official] The Astrophotography Thread



## iCrap

Heres mine:


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iCrap*
> 
> Heres mine:


Great color! What did you shoot it with?


----------



## Fletcher Carnaby

Ohhh, I have some shots at home. Will post later. Nice blood moon, iCrap!


----------



## halcyon-twin

anyone get images of the meteor shower over the weekend? Great photo ops...


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fletcher Carnaby*
> 
> Ohhh, I have some shots at home. Will post later. Nice blood moon, iCrap!


Please do! I'd like to spread the popularity of shooting the sky! It's probably more fascinating to me personally than shooting anything else.


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *halcyon-twin*
> 
> anyone get images of the meteor shower over the weekend? Great photo ops...


I see you're in my area, we should get together for a night shoot sometime.

Still need to get my good tripod.


----------



## Angrybutcher

Here's one I took a few years back, while borrowing a 300mm Canon lens for my Rebel XTi


----------



## VaiFanatic

Here was my first exposure shot about a month ago. ISO was turned up quite a bit, but it wasn't bad for a first try. Moonlight really lit up the surrounding night sky too.


IMG_0531 by VaiFanatic, on Flickr


----------



## Sylon

Wow, keep them coming!


----------



## iCrap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VaiFanatic*
> 
> Great color! What did you shoot it with?


Used a D90 and an 80-400 Nikkor.


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iCrap*
> 
> Used a D90 and an 80-400 Nikkor.


Very nice!

Here was my attempt shooting Mars with my 18-200EFS with my EOS60D


IMG_0573 by VaiFanatic, on Flickr


----------



## Faraz

Some more boring moon photos:


La Lune by Largamente, on Flickr


Almost Full by Largamente, on Flickr


Badr by Largamente, on Flickr


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Faraz*
> 
> Some more boring moon photos:


Nothing boring about it! My goal is for this to become an official thread of this section, so we can all share our passion and work. I'm using a super tiny tripod that was for a Minolta MD-11, so the camera rocks ever so slightly when the mirror does it's thing, slightly blurring the photos.


----------



## iCrap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VaiFanatic*
> 
> Nothing boring about it! My goal is for this to become an official thread of this section, so we can all share our passion and work. I'm using a super tiny tripod that was for a Minolta MD-11, so the camera rocks ever so slightly when the mirror does it's thing, slightly blurring the photos.


I don't know if your camera has Live View, but if you use it it helps a bit with mirror shake.


----------



## laboitenoire

I totally forgot about the Perseids, mainly because the weather was kinda crap here. Anywho, here are some of my shots that I took at my buddy's cabin near Lake Sunapee in New Hampshire. The sky was black, and it was the first time that I can remember seeing the Milky Way. If I had a tracking mount, I would have done a lot better job at getting nice clean photo stacks, but I think the outcome wasn't that bad.


Milky Way by laboitenoire, on Flickr


Milky Way by laboitenoire, on Flickr


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iCrap*
> 
> I don't know if your camera has Live View, but if you use it it helps a bit with mirror shake.


I use Live View for everything when shooting the sky. Makes focusing a breeze. But when you put a heavy camera like mine on this little tripod, it won't help, haha.

Here's a single shot of the sky with my nifty-fifty.


IMG_1959 by VaiFanatic, on Flickr


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *laboitenoire*
> 
> I totally forgot about the Perseids, mainly because the weather was kinda crap here. Anywho, here are some of my shots that I took at my buddy's cabin near Lake Sunapee in New Hampshire. The sky was black, and it was the first time that I can remember seeing the Milky Way. If I had a tracking mount, I would have done a lot better job at getting nice clean photo stacks, but I think the outcome wasn't that bad.
> 
> Milky Way by laboitenoire, on Flickr
> 
> Milky Way by laboitenoire, on Flickr


Wow! Great shots! Stacking and processing is still a weak-point for me.


----------



## VaiFanatic

Just as an aside, this is what I'm shooting on:


IMG_1286 by VaiFanatic, on Flickr


----------



## Fletcher Carnaby

The Moon. Each is a composite of 30-60 shots.





Multi-ring basin, lower left. Very old, from when there was still huge chunks leftover debris floating around our universe. Hit so hard that it caused concentric cratering.



Jupiter.



Looking at the moons of another planet is simply indescribable. Not bad from my downtown rooftop.



Over exposed to show the Galilean moons



Inverse of the same w/labels.


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fletcher Carnaby*
> 
> The Moon. Each is a composite of 30-60 shots.
> http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/1002807/
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/1002808/
> 
> Multi-ring basin, lower left. Very old, from when there was still huge chunks leftover debris floating around our universe. Hit so hard that it caused concentric cratering.
> http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/1002809/
> 
> Jupiter.
> http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/1002813/
> 
> Looking at the moons of another planet is simply indescribable. Not bad from my downtown rooftop.
> http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/1002814/
> 
> Over exposed to show the Galilean moons
> http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/1002815/
> 
> Inverse of the same w/labels.
> http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/1002816/


This makes me incredibly jealous!! I don't have a telescope, but I've been trying to actually shoot through a pair of binoculars that I have. But that's been incredibly difficult to set up, as you can imagine.


----------



## Faraz

Fletcher, those are fantastic! Could you tell me how you captured the ones of Jupiter and the moons?


----------



## iCrap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VaiFanatic*
> 
> Just as an aside, this is what I'm shooting on:
> 
> IMG_1286 by VaiFanatic, on Flickr


Oh wow, i think it may be time for a new tripod.


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iCrap*
> 
> Oh wow, i think it may be time for a new tripod.


You can say that again!


----------



## mcrbradbury

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fletcher Carnaby*
> 
> The Moon. Each is a composite of 30-60 shots.
> http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/1002807/
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/1002808/
> 
> Multi-ring basin, lower left. Very old, from when there was still huge chunks leftover debris floating around our universe. Hit so hard that it caused concentric cratering.
> http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/1002809/


what kind of telescope/equipment are you using? out of curiosity









i posted this in the other thread ages ago but it should belong here. taken with my 12" reflector with a Canon 550D. i just got a whole bunch of new goodies to use this weekend to get some hopefully better shots


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mcrbradbury*
> 
> what kind of telescope/equipment are you using? out of curiosity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i posted this in the other thread ages ago but it should belong here. taken with my 12" reflector with a Canon 550D. i just got a whole bunch of new goodies to use this weekend to get some hopefully better shots


Almost to 4 pages









Looks great! I can't wait to get a telescope to shoot through.


----------



## mz-n10

this is my heavily posted image from the perseid meteor shower.


----------



## VaiFanatic

I'm going to try and fashion a sturdier temporary tripod with one of my cymbal stands, haha. But tonight it's looking like it'll be awfully cloudy anyway.


----------



## kabj06

This is a star trails photo I took in Colorado using my Rebel XS. The first image, the original, had heavy artifacting. The second was after I went in and airbrushed it out as well as smoothed out the trails as there is a gap between the times when the shutter reset.


----------



## VaiFanatic

Another one of my early attempts.


IMG_0694_1 by VaiFanatic, on Flickr


----------



## Fletcher Carnaby

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VaiFanatic*
> 
> Almost to 4 pages
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks great! I can't wait to get a telescope to shoot through.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mcrbradbury*
> 
> what kind of telescope/equipment are you using? out of curiosity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i posted this in the other thread ages ago but it should belong here. taken with my 12" reflector with a Canon 550D. i just got a whole bunch of new goodies to use this weekend to get some hopefully better shots


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VaiFanatic*
> 
> This makes me incredibly jealous!! I don't have a telescope, but I've been trying to actually shoot through a pair of binoculars that I have. But that's been incredibly difficult to set up, as you can imagine.


Thanks, guys!!!

Shot with a Meade ETX-80AT-TC F/5 refractor using their LPI imager. About $400 worth of gear, not counting the Pentium 3 computer used to record. Money well spent for something that will change the way you see the world (and your place in it).


----------



## VaiFanatic

One of the neat things about my 60D, is that I can hook it up to the laptop, and control the live view on it! It's amazing the clarity you can get when focusing. My biggest issue now is the tripod.


----------



## Fletcher Carnaby

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VaiFanatic*
> 
> One of the neat things about my 60D, is that I can hook it up to the laptop, and control the live view on it! It's amazing the clarity you can get when focusing. My biggest issue now is the tripod.


Orly!? That's cool! Is that with canon software or third party?


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fletcher Carnaby*
> 
> Orly!? That's cool! Is that with canon software or third party?


Canon software! You can adjust the ISO, aperture, etc., all from the computer. It's neat.


----------



## mz-n10

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VaiFanatic*
> 
> Another one of my early attempts.
> 
> IMG_0694_1 by VaiFanatic, on Flickr


You need to get away form the city...there's too much light pollution to see the milky way


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mz-n10*
> 
> You need to get away form the city...there's too much light pollution to see the milky way


Yeah, I know. Unfortunately, I have to drive about an hour or so west to get some place where there's no light pollution, and then I have to be worried about other hazards


----------



## mz-n10

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VaiFanatic*
> 
> Yeah, I know. Unfortunately, I have to drive about an hour or so west to get some place where there's no light pollution, and then I have to be worried about other hazards


its not that bad, i drove 3 hours to get a milkyway shots


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mz-n10*
> 
> its not that bad, i drove 3 hours to get a milkyway shots


I have to fix my car first before I go on any longer drives anyway. That milky way is not in the direction of the picture I posted anywho. It's to the south, and that was northwest.


----------



## VaiFanatic

Didn't get a chance to get out last night as it was cloudy all around. Anyone else have any luck?


----------



## _Nikhil

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mz-n10*
> 
> this is my heavily posted image from the perseid meteor shower.


That is an epic photo.

Here are a couple of moon shots with the point and shoot cam.


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *_Nikhil*
> 
> Here are a couple of moon shots with the point and shoot cam.


For a point-and-shoot that's not bad!


----------



## kabj06

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *_Nikhil*
> 
> That is an epic photo.
> Here are a couple of moon shots with the point and shoot cam.


I like the halo around the moon in that shot. It's a tad overexposed though.


----------



## ljason8eg

First time shooting anything of this sort other than the moon. I'm not sure what the light pollution on the horizon is. Dark Sky finder showed the area I was in should be free from light pollution, so I'm thinking the sun still has an impact over two hours after it sets?


IMG_6123.jpg by JLofing, on Flickr


----------



## mz-n10

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ljason8eg*
> 
> First time shooting anything of this sort other than the moon. I'm not sure what the light pollution on the horizon is. Dark Sky finder showed the area I was in should be free from light pollution, so I'm thinking the sun still has an impact over two hours after it sets?
> 
> IMG_6123.jpg by JLofing, on Flickr


where was this?


----------



## djriful

I tried, this was shot in 2011 without a tripod (I didn't bring my tripod, stupid of myself).

Nikon D90 Sigma 250mm ISO100 f/6.3 1/40sec


----------



## ljason8eg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mz-n10*
> 
> where was this?


Union Valley Reservoir here in California. Checking the Dark Sky map again on my desktop, it does appear to have a very low level of light pollution, but its not the lowest level on the map.


----------



## mz-n10

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ljason8eg*
> 
> Union Valley Reservoir here in California. Checking the Dark Sky map again on my desktop, it does appear to have a very low level of light pollution, but its not the lowest level on the map.


wow i thought i had a long drive to lake sonoma....was hoping it was a closer spot









you can always flip the red/orange channels to make it the light pollution "more pleasing" but i duno seems too fake to me.....


----------



## ljason8eg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mz-n10*
> 
> wow i thought i had a long drive to lake sonoma....was hoping it was a closer spot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you can always flip the red/orange channels to make it the light pollution "more pleasing" but i duno seems too fake to me.....


Yeah its strange looking for sure. I'll mess with it some in Lightroom and see what I can do. Here's one shot on the same night, due west at around 11 PM. No PP at all on this shot except the RAW conversion. Its got to be the sun. It set just off the center of the frame on the right side.


IMG_6127.jpg by JLofing, on Flickr


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ljason8eg*
> 
> Yeah its strange looking for sure. I'll mess with it some in Lightroom and see what I can do. Here's one shot on the same night, due west at around 11 PM. No PP at all on this shot except the RAW conversion. Its got to be the sun. It set just off the center of the frame on the right side.
> 
> IMG_6127.jpg by JLofing, on Flickr


Great shot!


----------



## Lhtrf

Here's a pic of the moon taken with my Fujifilm finepix S2950. It's a relatively cheap camera, that takes quite good pictures for the price in my opinion.


----------



## VaiFanatic

Tried tonight with the clear skies, made a tripod out of a cymbal stand, but the camera was still shaking around ever so slightly, so each star looked like it was trailing up and down slightly.

Can't wait for a real tripod that doesn't get bugged by the wind.


----------



## doomlord52

What I've managed to do from a terrible vantage point (my balcony, in the middle of the city).

























This is on my Nikon D3200 (24.1mp) with a 55-300mm lens.

First and third are 1920x1200 (cropped for desktop wallpaper), and the third is 1280x1024 (focuses on the moon).


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doomlord52*
> 
> What I've managed to do from a terrible vantage point (my balcony, in the middle of the city).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is on my Nikon D3200 (24.1mp) with a 55-300mm lens.
> First and third are 1920x1200 (cropped for desktop wallpaper), and the third is 1280x1024 (focuses on the moon).


Those are incredibly crisp. For being in the middle of city, that's impressive. Keep them coming! I'm going to process the few shots I took tonight and post them up later if they're decent.


----------



## mcrbradbury

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ljason8eg*
> 
> Yeah its strange looking for sure. I'll mess with it some in Lightroom and see what I can do. Here's one shot on the same night, due west at around 11 PM. No PP at all on this shot except the RAW conversion. Its got to be the sun. It set just off the center of the frame on the right side.
> 
> IMG_6127.jpg by JLofing, on Flickr


whoa!


----------



## mortimersnerd

Here's a few of mine -


----------



## mott555

Wow, great shots guys! These pictures make me wish I had a camera.

Astronomy + photography = pure win.

Has anyone been able to get shots of the Andromeda galaxy? I once heard that it's four times the size of the full moon in the sky, but the human eye just can't collect enough light to see it.


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mortimersnerd*
> 
> Here's a few of mine -


Wow!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mott555*
> 
> Wow, great shots guys! These pictures make me wish I had a camera.
> Astronomy + photography = pure win.
> Has anyone been able to get shots of the Andromeda galaxy? I once heard that it's four times the size of the full moon in the sky, but the human eye just can't collect enough light to see it.


I'm not sure about that, but I've seen it on a few shots.

Hopefully this thread becomes official


----------



## Mongol

Wow. Some talented photographers in here.









It really is amazing...seeing moons/planets/nebulae through a telescope and snapping pictures of such beautiful celestial bodies that you once only saw in books.

This thread should become a club.







I'll be joining once my t-adapter arrives along with a filter kit.


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by ***********
> 
> This thread should become a club.


Agreed!


----------



## mcrbradbury

Quote:


> Originally Posted by ***********
> 
> This thread should become a club.


double agreed!


----------



## VaiFanatic

Been cloudy over here. No good chances for any shots, bleh. It should at least rain for a change!


----------



## jrl1357

i've got a big 8-inch tele but no camara







maybe I can post a phone pic over the lens at some point. impressed. lets keep this thread going!


----------



## Mongol

Can't find my eyepiece adapter.









I can shoot with the t adapter but with little magnification...boo...had to order a new one.


----------



## jrl1357

ok, heres my crappy pic










taken with my iphone 4 (something I'm not proud of owning) over my orion xt8 with a 2xbarlow, a 25mm lens (I think, it was dark) neutral filter (keep the brightness down for the crappy camra) it it looks blurry it was just my hand holding it.

its the cassendi. above (south, but to the top of the photo) is the mare humorum


----------



## Mongol

Considering what you were working with, not terrible.









You should try the same with only a barlow.


----------



## jrl1357

Quote:


> Originally Posted by ***********
> 
> Considering what you were working with, not terrible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should try the same with only a barlow.


thanks







I've been considering getting a camera for it, but then again to do anything I'd need to get the mount computerized to track, and that's even more $$ on top of a camera


----------



## Mongol

I'm actually in a similar boat. Have the scope and the camera, but I need a tracking motor as manual tracking will not produce the best results even on a German equatorial mount. (unless it's simple fast exposures of the moon/sun)


----------



## jrl1357

Quote:


> Originally Posted by ***********
> 
> even on a German equatorial mount. (unless it's simple fast exposures of the moon/sun)


now try that on a big dob







at the very least I need a camera


----------



## VaiFanatic

Just placed my order for a nice manfrotto tripod, an EF 400mm f/5.6L USM, a gen. 3 2x teleconverter, and a 40mm f/2.8 STM. I'll be trying to get some nice shots of the moon! Getting up close and personal with that 800mm focal length! I'll get another teleconverter to stack some day, but they are pricey! I'm hoping with 800mm I'll be able to catch some planets too.

What's a cheap scope that I could get in the near future to take pictures of Jupiter and Saturn? Also, recommendations on guided mounts?

I'm itching for a full-frame like the 5DMkIII, but that it doesn't have a flash kinda bugs me. Until then, the 60D will do just fine.


----------



## Fletcher Carnaby

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VaiFanatic*
> 
> I'm hoping with 800mm I'll be able to catch some planets too.


You sure will. I was able to snag pictures of Jupiter that show the striped atmosphere and 4 Galilean moons @ 600mm. On a 4x6 photo, it's about the size of a dime. Saturn should also be a viable subject.


----------



## Mongol

Easily catch some rad planetary detail at 600mm. 800mm too...but you'll start losing detail rapidly once you start stacking teleconverters.

You really don't want to cheap out on a telescope...absolutely nothing from a department store will do. Orion, however, makes some incredible telescopes for astrophotgraphy that won't break the bank. Check out their newtonian reflector astrograph line. I'm still using a rich field 120st (refractor) that's not bad at all...once my replacement mounts arrive.
I haven't performed any astrophotography since my film camera days...still have my first SLR, a Minolta Maxxum, too.

Dobs aren't the best choice without proper tracking systems/mounts...not for deep sky, anyway.


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fletcher Carnaby*
> 
> You sure will. I was able to snag pictures of Jupiter that show the striped atmosphere and 4 Galilean moons @ 600mm. On a 4x6 photo, it's about the size of a dime. Saturn should also be a viable subject.


Now I'm really excited!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by ***********
> 
> Easily catch some rad planetary detail at 600mm. 800mm too...but you'll start losing detail rapidly once you start stacking teleconverters.
> You really don't want to cheap out on a telescope...absolutely nothing from a department store will do. Orion, however, makes some incredible telescopes for astrophotgraphy that won't break the bank. Check out their newtonian reflector astrograph line. I'm still using a rich field 120st (refractor) that's not bad at all...once my replacement mounts arrive.
> I haven't performed any astrophotography since my film camera days...still have my first SLR, a Minolta Maxxum, too.
> Dobs aren't the best choice without proper tracking systems/mounts...not for deep sky, anyway.


I figured that detail might begin to suffer when stacking teleconverters, just now sure how much.

I've got an old Minolta MD-11, with many lenses, so I'm getting a cheap adapter to see how they'll work on the 60D ($20 isn't that bad).


----------



## ixsis

OK, I'll throw my hat in the ring. These are my only surviving photos from the 1987 Texas Star Party. All shots were taken with a Nikon FE2 with a standard 50mm lens on ISO 64 Fuji slide film. All exposures are 60 minutes. Camera was piggy backed onto an old Celestron C8. The slides were digitally scanned about 7 years ago.

*First up, the Milky Way in Sagittarius*.



*Next up is NGC 7000, the North American Nebula in Cygnus*



*Last is Collinder 399 (The Coat Hanger Asterism) in Vulpecula. I've circled the actual pattern.*


----------



## mz-n10

Quote:


> Originally Posted by ***********
> 
> I haven't performed any astrophotography since my film camera days...still have my first SLR, a Minolta Maxxum, too.
> Dobs aren't the best choice without proper tracking systems/mounts...not for deep sky, anyway.


you still got any of the maxxum glass?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VaiFanatic*
> 
> Now I'm really excited!
> I figured that detail might begin to suffer when stacking teleconverters, just now sure how much.
> I've got an old Minolta MD-11, with many lenses, so I'm getting a cheap adapter to see how they'll work on the 60D ($20 isn't that bad).


SR to EOS mount requires a glass element for infinity focus...


----------



## jrl1357

Quote:


> Originally Posted by ***********
> 
> You really don't want to cheap out on a telescope...absolutely nothing from a department store will do. Orion, however, makes some incredible telescopes for astrophotgraphy that won't break the bank.


I have an orion and love it. I would recommend them completely. my only regret was not going with the computerized one


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ixsis*
> 
> OK, I'll throw my hat in the ring. These are my only surviving photos from the 1987 Texas Star Party. All shots were taken with a Nikon FE2 with a standard 50mm lens on ISO 64 Fuji slide film. All exposures are 60 minutes. Camera was piggy backed onto an old Celestron C8. The slides were digitally scanned about 7 years ago.
> *First up, the Milky Way in Sagittarius*.
> 
> *Next up is NGC 7000, the North American Nebula in Cygnus*
> 
> *Last is Collinder 399 (The Coat Hanger Asterism) in Vulpecula. I've circled the actual pattern.*


These are incredible!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mz-n10*
> 
> SR to EOS mount requires a glass element for infinity focus...


The mount has a glass element to allow for infinity focus.


----------



## Mongol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mz-n10*
> 
> you still got any of the maxxum glass?..


Might, actually.

Not sure if 35mm or 50mm...i'll have to dig.


----------



## mz-n10

Quote:


> Originally Posted by ***********
> 
> Might, actually.
> Not sure if 35mm or 50mm...i'll have to dig.


orly? the 35mm is worth a pretty penny


----------



## Mongol

Yeah...if it's indeed the 35mm...

Brb.


----------



## Mongol

Welp, it's not the 35...it is indeed the 50mm.










Ahh...the memories that came flooding back.

Tis been a while.


----------



## mz-n10

not a bad lens, but not worth much (70 bucks or so)


----------



## Mongol

Yeah, I saw them going for around that on Ebay.


----------



## VaiFanatic

I should have my tripod and new lens just in time for tomorrow's full moon!! My current little tripod broke :c


----------



## Face76

With some processing.


----------



## TLCH723

Took this yesterday first time trying.
Equipment/Setting - T3i with 55-250mm at ISO 100, f/8, 1/125.
Post Process - White balance and cropped.


I have a suggestion: Post your Equipment/Setting that you took the pic with and the Post Process that you did, that way ppl can learn.


----------



## VaiFanatic

Got my EOS-MD adapter in the mail! Going to try out the f/1.4 50MM Rokkor-X tonight on my new tripod that also arrived










IMG_1352 by VaiFanatic, on Flickr


----------



## VaiFanatic

Took this last night using the MD adapter and the old Rokkor-X 50mm.

I looked at this picture (everything else was bleh) and noticed that the light from this star actually took the shape of a 6 point star!!

Had to share it.


IMG_2477_1 by VaiFanatic, on Flickr


----------



## VaiFanatic

Got my 400mm today! Slapped on the Gen III 2x teleconverter and took a stab at the moon. So tired, so focusing was a pain, but for my first try I'm really happy!! I suppose I might see what the AF can do, I was manually doing everything.


IMG_2506a by VaiFanatic, on Flickr

I was working on getting Jupiter too, but that sucker and its moons were moving out across the live view screen!


----------



## VaiFanatic

Double-post -__-


----------



## laboitenoire

If you're able to get AF when your max aperture is f/11, I'll eat my hat.


----------



## VaiFanatic

Haha, I'll give it a try. I don't usually use AF at all, to be honest.


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *laboitenoire*
> 
> If you're able to get AF when your max aperture is f/11, I'll eat my hat.


Sir, you may have to eat your hat









Lined this up with AF and took it using my remote. I was so happy with the results, I switched the lens back to MF leaving the last AF setting in place and took some nice images of Jupiter (working to stack them right now for best results).


IMG_2582_2 by VaiFanatic, on Flickr


----------



## VaiFanatic

Here's Jupiter with what I believe to be Europa, Io, and Ganymede. Callisto was further up to the right, but it was too faint so I cut it out.


IMG_2603a by VaiFanatic, on Flickr


----------



## Davidsen

How would a 1250mm-2000mm telescope lens work for Astrophotography? (With a D3100)

Namely this one: http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/telescope-1200mm-2000mm-for-nikon.htm


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Davidsen*
> 
> How would a 1250mm-2000mm telescope lens work for Astrophotography? (With a D3100)
> Namely this one: http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/telescope-1200mm-2000mm-for-nikon.htm


Holy moly, you'd be able to catch some serious lunar detail with that! Planetary too!


----------



## Davidsen

But what im wondering is, if the site is legit, anyone have any past experience with the store/site?

Since its kind of cheap at 375$ for a 1250mm lens.... or is it?

EDIT: looks like rugift.com is no good.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/archive/index.php/t-164920.html


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Davidsen*
> 
> But what im wondering is, if the site is legit, anyone have any past experience with the store/site?
> Since its kind of cheap at 375$ for a 1250mm lens.... or is it?
> EDIT: looks like rugift.com is no good.
> http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/archive/index.php/t-164920.html


In all honesty, for a focal length like that, you'd be better off looking for a telescope. There's a 1300mm focal length lens (650x2) on amazon for less than $300.

I'll see if I can find it.

ETA: Found it!

http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-650-1300mm-Definition-Telephoto-Digital/dp/B000IMRTFO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347233291&sr=8-1&keywords=1300mm+lens


----------



## Davidsen

Thanks for the link









I'll keep an eye on that, although will need to find out if they can ship it to Greenland.


----------



## Mongol

You're better off saving your cash and investing on a quality refractor or reflector on an EQ mount.

I'd be extremely skeptical of that telephoto lens. If anything, look at mirror lenses. At least they won't need a 30lb tripod to keep them stable...lol.


----------



## Davidsen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by ***********
> 
> You're better off saving your cash and investing on a quality refractor or reflector on an EQ mount.
> I'd be extremely skeptical of that telephoto lens. If anything, look at mirror lenses. At least they won't need a 30lb tripod to keep them stable...lol.


Could you recommend some gear that can be used with a D3100?

My budget is somewhere around 500-700$ for next month.


----------



## Mongol

At that price point, look at the Orion 120ST. It's a fantastic telescope (refractor) for its price (around 599) and comes with a rock steady EQ mount you can upgrade with tracking motors later on. It also accepts 1.25" and 2" eyepieces. You need a t-ring and Orion camera t-adapter for your camera in order to attach it to the telescope (either prime focus (camera directly to the telescope) or eyepiece projection (camera 'sees' what you would see with an eyepiece/barlow lens)

Check it out on amazon and telescopes.com. Orion Astroview 120st. It's a great telescope for the beginner, and even semi-advanced. With a correcter, you can use it as a terrestrial scope, too. There are better telescopes, but once we start talking APO or schmidt-cass and specialized coatings/eyepieces, prices can go astronomical.

While I totally dig light buckets (dobsonian reflectors) a proper astrophotography mount for them may cost as much as the telescope. Newtonian reflectors are also exceptional, but again, the price will go up very quickly for a quality reflector (Orion Astrographs are awesome) on a quality German EQ mount.


----------



## Mongol

Btw, for around 79 bucks, snag a solar filter too. I'll be posting pictures of it (our glorious sun) once I FINALLY HAVE TIME to get home and set up my gear on a clear day. It's one of the few gripes of astrophotography...clear skies and nights devoid of light pollution and mosquitoes. Winter can't come soon enough...lol


----------



## TSXmike

pentax K20





































taken October 2011.


----------



## Davidsen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by ***********
> 
> At that price point, look at the Orion 120ST. It's a fantastic telescope (refractor) for its price (around 599) and comes with a rock steady EQ mount you can upgrade with tracking motors later on. It also accepts 1.25" and 2" eyepieces. You need a t-ring and Orion camera t-adapter for your camera in order to attach it to the telescope (either prime focus (camera directly to the telescope) or eyepiece projection (camera 'sees' what you would see with an eyepiece/barlow lens)
> Check it out on amazon and telescopes.com. Orion Astroview 120st. It's a great telescope for the beginner, and even semi-advanced. With a correcter, you can use it as a terrestrial scope, too. There are better telescopes, but once we start talking APO or schmidt-cass and specialized coatings/eyepieces, prices can go astronomical.
> While I totally dig light buckets (dobsonian reflectors) a proper astrophotography mount for them may cost as much as the telescope. Newtonian reflectors are also exceptional, but again, the price will go up very quickly for a quality reflector (Orion Astrographs are awesome) on a quality German EQ mount.


Looks like Orion Telescopes & Binoculars doesn't ship internationally.

Are there any other stores that sells telescope refractors?

http://www.telescopes.com/telescopes/refracting-telescopes/celestronnexstar102slttelescopeultimatepackage.cfm opinion on this refractor?


----------



## VaiFanatic

I wonder if I should go ahead and change the thread title to incorporate the official aspect of this, seeing how there is no other one.

Maybe even make a sig tag for the club?


----------



## funfortehfun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TSXmike*
> 
> pentax K20
> *snip*
> taken October 2011.


You're so lucky to have the Aurora Borealis visible in your area! I'm so jelly O.O


----------



## Davidsen

Think i may have found a shop that ships world-wide.

http://www.astroshop.eu/

anyone have any past experience with them?


----------



## VaiFanatic

I'm not sure if Adorama ships outside the US, but they are a great company! Got multiple lenses from them. Looking at getting a refurb 5D3 if the price is right.


----------



## Mongol

102slt...f6 iirc.

It's not a bad scope, doesn't seem shabby, but I'm not too keen of its mount...seems like it may be wobbly/unstable especially with the added weight of a camera. The goto function may be a great aid, though I've always been more fond of finding things on my own. Honestly, I've only had experience with Orion scopes, so take my advice on it with a handful of salt...lol


----------



## Davidsen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by ***********
> 
> 102slt...f6 iirc.
> It's not a bad scope, doesn't seem shabby, but I'm not too keen of its mount...seems like it may be wobbly/unstable especially with the added weight of a camera. The goto function may be a great aid, though I've always been more fond of finding things on my own. Honestly, I've only had experience with Orion scopes, so take my advice on it with a handful of salt...lol


Well, i've got my eye on the Skywatcher Telescope AC 90/900 EvoStar with a EQ 3-2 mount, mainly because the shipping cost is way less than the Celestron Telescope AC 102/1000 Omni XLT 102, which comes up to 700+ euro in total, where the Skywatcher is at 352 euro(included shipping).

I think it shouldn't be too bad for a beginner telescope.


----------



## Mongol

Doesn't seem too bad for a beginner scope ...enjoy it.


----------



## VaiFanatic

I'm really enjoying the 400mm USM.

Say hi to Saturn! My first shot on it.


IMG_2670_1 by VaiFanatic, on Flickr


----------



## Davidsen

So, when using Telescope Refractors, can u connect it to a laptop/PC, and save pictures like so, or can it only be done by using a camera right on the viewing scope?


----------



## strayz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Davidsen*
> 
> So, when using Telescope Refractors, can u connect it to a laptop/PC, and save pictures like so, or can it only be done by using a camera right on the viewing scope?


If you shoot a Canon body, you can shoot teathered and as soon as the shutter clicks it is sending to the computer and you can view.


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *strayz*
> 
> If you shoot a Canon body, you can shoot teathered and as soon as the shutter clicks it is sending to the computer and you can view.


Yes! I love that aspect! You can basically use your laptop to be the live view screen! You can also manipulate settings from the laptop too, from ISO to f/stop. I can imagine hooking the body up to a laptop while you're on a guided mount, shooting from the computer as you go (no need for a remote this way!). I've used it several times when shooting the moon back when I used my EF-S kit lens, it certainly helped results.

Unfortunately, Nikon doesn't offer this on all of their models, or I think they charge you for it. With Canon, it's free on the disc that comes with your body.


----------



## Davidsen

Looks like im gonna have to switch to a Canon DSLR down the road :/


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Davidsen*
> 
> Looks like im gonna have to switch to a Canon DSLR down the road :/


The 60D is a great buy!

If you're really wanting to capture lots of IR, then the 60Da is an even better choice.


----------



## Davidsen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VaiFanatic*
> 
> The 60D is a great buy!
> If you're really wanting to capture lots of IR, then the 60Da is an even better choice.


Alrighty









I think i'll sell my D3100 before i buy a new DSLR to off set the cost.


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Davidsen*
> 
> Alrighty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think i'll sell my D3100 before i buy a new DSLR to off set the cost.


POTN is a great forum to browse for knowledge, as well as camera comparisons done by many of its users.


----------



## Mongol

There is free software (unless you purchase Lightroom...love it) that allows you to tether the 3100...believe it requires a script to run, also free. Just need a mini usb cable.

There are tutorials around the web.










Edit: my mistake, lightroom does not support the 3100...but there is freeware out there.


----------



## aeRsneM

Here are a few that I took while climbing Mt. Kilimanjaro. These were taken at Karanga Camp at 13106 feet with no moon







with a D5100 and Tokina 12mm @f/4

The Milky Way. Although we were camped on a slope; my camera was angled also











Summit @ 20 seconds



Summit @ 20 Minutes



The journey was a blast and the stars were incredible. I was always so exhausted that I didn't spend as much time with the astrophotography as I wanted. Maybe next time


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aeRsneM*
> 
> Here are a few that I took while climbing Mt. Kilimanjaro. These were taken at Karanga Camp at 13106 feet with no moon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> with a D5100 and Tokina 12mm @f/4
> The Milky Way. Although we were camped on a slope; my camera was angled also
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Summit @ 20 seconds
> 
> Summit @ 20 Minutes
> 
> The journey was a blast and the stars were incredible. I was always so exhausted that I didn't spend as much time with the astrophotography as I wanted. Maybe next time


Great shots!


----------



## VaiFanatic

I've been trying to find Neptune and Uranus to take some pictures of them, but finding them in a bit of a light polluted sky is a bit painstaking. I've used sky charts to find the constellations they are near, but when I grab the binoculars, I can never tell if I've found them or not. The blueish-tint that you'd expect is nowhere to be seen. Anyone else had luck capturing these two? I'd assume 800mm focal length is more than enough to get them.


----------



## Mongol

Get Google Sky Map if you own a smartphone/tablet.


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by ***********
> 
> Get Google Sky Map if you own a smartphone/tablet.


I have something similar on the iPad that works great, I just can't ever seem to find it when looking through some glass. I think my issue is that I'm looking with binoculars that have quite the magnification. I should use a weaker pair.

Going to try tonight. I'll be be curious to see how I'll be able to acquire them via the live-view function.


----------



## VaiFanatic

It's raining and cloudy. No DSS for me!


----------



## VaiFanatic

Here's my shot from tonight.


IMG_2779 by VaiFanatic, on Flickr


----------



## Mongol

Took this an hour or two ago...didn't have enough time to really dig into itL


----------



## Mongol

There isn't much going on in my neck of the woods other than everything being obliterated by moonlight...so I'm blue:


----------



## VaiFanatic

I'm gonna take the 40mm out and see what it can do in terms of longer exposure shots.


----------



## BorisTheSpider

Not my own work (I wish).... But surprised no-one has mentioned http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/ yet, and just thought I might introduce a few people to his work.


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BorisTheSpider*
> 
> Not my own work (I wish).... But surprised no-one has mentioned http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/ yet, and just thought I might introduce a few people to his work.


Wow! Those are some incredible shots!


----------



## odin2free

Thought i would share something i received in the mail today









Its tips and techniques to shoot Astrophotography if you wondering and are willing to get into this form of photography









Enjoy
Canon DLC Article


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *odin2free*
> 
> Thought i would share something i received in the mail today
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its tips and techniques to shoot Astrophotography if you wondering and are willing to get into this form of photography
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enjoy
> Canon DLC Article


Great article! Thanks for sharing. +1 Rep for that.


----------



## mikehunt

nothing spectacular, but IMO not horrible for a DSLR newbie









I need to get a mount to mount my camera to my telescope


----------



## lucifermn

Khushuut Valley, Mongolia
Canon 5D Mark II
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L
ISO 3200
f/2.8
exposure 30sec


----------



## Conspiracy

nice shot


----------



## TSXmike

Totally missed a nice solar storm lastnight...ugh.


----------



## VaiFanatic

I missed the full moon two nights ago, no thanks to this weather we've been having.


----------



## Fletcher Carnaby

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lucifermn*
> 
> Khushuut Valley, Mongolia
> Canon 5D Mark II
> Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L
> ISO 3200
> f/2.8
> exposure 30sec


Wow, nice shot!


----------



## TLCH723

So did anyone get a shot of the meteor shower last night/early morning??


----------



## TSXmike

ack! i totally forgot


----------



## Mongol

Overwhelmed by light pollution here.


----------



## LogiTekkers

I've just bought a new 300mm lens and tripod for my 500d, so im looking forward to getting into this type of photography. I've been waiting a week for some decent sized moon phase. Tomorrow night is a half moon here so im gonna get some practice shots in tonight...hopefully they will turn out ok


----------



## LogiTekkers

Well last night was a fail for shooting anything due to unreal amounts of clouds and fog throughout the night. Hopefully tonight will be a much clearer night for getting my first moon shots


----------



## ErOR

This is so my kind of thread!









Anyway, got a Tokina SZ-X 60-300mm F4-5.6 for $10NZD about a week ago and finally had some nice weather so took a shot of the moon and processed a bit.


----------



## doomlord52

Currently I have to opportunity to take some amazing moon shots (cold, high altitude, middle of nowhere), but unfortunately the weather for the last week has been an infinite series of extremely thick clouds. And even better, the forecast for the next few weeks is more thick clouds.


----------



## TSXmike

might have to try some night shots... been wanting to get out and do some playing anyways.


----------



## doomlord52

Hey, while we're at it, why don't we share methods/tips?

For Nikon D3200 w/ Nikkor 55-300mm lens
I'm personally a fan of keeping ISO crazy low, and simply doing long exposure shots at max zoom (using a tripod and that 5 second countdown thing). This usually ends up with using fairly long exposure times (still under a second), but crazy high F-stop values (sometimes 18-20). While this does result in some good shots, I feel like they could be a lot more clear.

Any tips?


----------



## ljason8eg

You're losing image quality due to diffraction by stopping the lens down that much. The D3200 has huge pixel density; probably don't want to stop down much more than f/8 or f/11 at the absolute most.


----------



## ErOR

Why shoot at anything but maximum aperture? I mean, sometimes stepping down makes clearer/sharper stars but still, I'll much rather take the light.

I'm using a Canon 550D and my favorite lens at the moment is a Nikkor 24mm f2.8 AI-s, it's exceptionally sharp at f2.8. I usually shoot 1600 ISO at f2.8 or lower depends on the lens. This is my widest lens at the moment and can do 20sec exposures without getting trails.

Was thinking about buying that kit lens (18-55mm) but it's such a crap lens to use, the feel is so bad I can't really stand it, it is a cheap wide angle though. I think I'll save for the Samyang 14mm f2.8.

Took this the other day, really could use some post processing tips. It's just a single exposure, no flats, blacks or whites.

Megellanic Clouds....


----------



## VaiFanatic

Nice to see this thread has some activity! Been busy with work and classes, so I haven't been on much.


----------



## mcrbradbury

i just got back (about 30 minutes ago) from a solar eclipse in Cairns. i got some nice shots, a lot of which need a bit of work. but here's some ones that came out pretty good just by themselves:
hope you enjoy








(I have never seen an eclipse before so my shots are average, was a little bit breath taken by the whole thing)
Heads up: These Pictures will kill your internet









Full Eclipse, those blasted clouds!

Partial Eclipse after-woulds though a very ghetto filter.


----------



## seepra

Anybody here who'd own the Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM? I have the weirdest feeling that it's nearly useless in astrophotography due to the enormous coma. I don't believe that's my problem though, because it should be quite sharp full open on the center at least, but when shooting at the Milky Way I get barely nothing, even on areas that subjectively to my eyes seem pitch black, far away from big cities or streetlights. The Milky Way is very very faint, too much so for an exposure stack to help. What do? I see other Finnish people shooting excellent photos on the same areas and I consider myself not a complete newbie. Doesn't matter what exposure time or ISO or aperture I use, it just seems like I'm unable to pull photons from the sky. Is it just the light pollution or possible high altitude clouds?


----------



## ErOR

Here is a eclipse shot from me, got lucky with the clouds. Had no ND filters and clouds helped me dim the light










Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seepra*
> 
> Anybody here who'd own the Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM? I have the weirdest feeling that it's nearly useless in astrophotography due to the enormous coma. I don't believe that's my problem though, because it should be quite sharp full open on the center at least, but when shooting at the Milky Way I get barely nothing, even on areas that subjectively to my eyes seem pitch black, far away from big cities or streetlights. The Milky Way is very very faint, too much so for an exposure stack to help. What do? I see other Finnish people shooting excellent photos on the same areas and I consider myself not a complete newbie. Doesn't matter what exposure time or ISO or aperture I use, it just seems like I'm unable to pull photons from the sky. Is it just the light pollution or possible high altitude clouds?


You say milky way is very faint, that's light pollution. In Auckland, NZ I can see the milky way pretty good and that's about 10km from the city center. A 30 second exposure at f2.8 really brings it out, and I can't wait till next year to do some more timelapses.

If it were thin clouds you could see them in your photos.

In this situation you should be looking to get a EQ mount that will track that way you can try some ~10min exposures and then stacking them.

Coma shouldn't be a problem, well the stars at the edges won't look great but it still doesn't mean that it will be bad for astrophotography. At f1.4 you should really be able to see something. What settings have you tried?

Have you done any post processing with the image?


----------



## doomlord52

Nice eclipse shots. The only full-solar eclipse I've ever seen was in 1999, and I didn't have any camera gear at the time (well, one terrible camera and no gear for it).

As for me right now.... CLOUDS. CLOUDS EVERYWHERE.


----------



## seepra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ErOR*
> 
> What settings have you tried?
> Have you done any post processing with the image?


Nice eclipse shot!

I've tried f/1.4, exposure of 30s and ISO ranging from 800 to 6400. In the photos you can see the sky getting more orange/yellow as EV increases, stars overexposing to burnt points and yet the nebulae around Milky Way seem very faint no matter how drastically you adjust the curves to try pick up detail. You can get "something" into an exposure stack but it's very far removed from authentic looking material anymore. Other people get excellent photos with relatively minor adjustments with settings like f/2.8, 15s and ISO 800 so I guess that it's just the light pollution then, which is actually more enfuriating than workflow issues since the other I can do something about, argh.


----------



## ErOR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seepra*
> 
> Nice eclipse shot!
> I've tried f/1.4, exposure of 30s and ISO ranging from 800 to 6400. In the photos you can see the sky getting more orange/yellow as EV increases, stars overexposing to burnt points and yet the nebulae around Milky Way seem very faint no matter how drastically you adjust the curves to try pick up detail. You can get "something" into an exposure stack but it's very far removed from authentic looking material anymore. Other people get excellent photos with relatively minor adjustments with settings like f/2.8, 15s and ISO 800 so I guess that it's just the light pollution then, which is actually more enfuriating than workflow issues since the other I can do something about, argh.


Cheers!









Oh dam, yeah it really sounds like light pollution if you can't pick up the gas clouds.

Here is a map of light pollution levels, might be handy so you can see where you are at and where you need to go: http://www.jshine.net/astronomy/dark_sky/

Generally, if you can't make out the Milky Way with naked eyes then it's not dark enough.

Like I mentioned, getting a EQ tracking mount will let you do much longer exposures although there's a steep learning curve when it comes to that kind of astrophotography.
Adding a scope and then doing astrophotography is also a whole different can of worms, but fun and addictive.

This was taken with a 10mm fisheye, 25s at 1600ISO, showing of georgeous Orion and Pleiades.


----------



## seepra

Nice shot, I don't get anything like this with f/1.4 and various settings. I don't believe an EQ track is in my nearby budget. I've seen a person take very vivid and beautiful photos with the Canon EOS 300D (6mpix, very very noisy), 10s, ISO 1600 f/3.5 of the ye olde kit lens. Now if I can't get any sort of data with 30s/15/10/5s, ISO 1600 and an aperture three times as big with a much less noisy EOS 550D.. yeah maybe it was a really even misty cloud layer, or light pollution.

Also, that map is of the US, I live in Finland. I managed to snatch a night-time globe pic somewhere, and I can almost decipher where it wouldn't be too bright, but it will be a stretch to just hike 400km North and I don't have a car. Oh well.


----------



## MistaBernie

I guess there were some beautiful Northern Lights visible from the top of Mt Washington last week. Had I known about it ahead of time, I might have tried to get up to the observatory (if you even can at night, unsure).


----------



## ErOR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seepra*
> 
> Nice shot, I don't get anything like this with f/1.4 and various settings. I don't believe an EQ track is in my nearby budget. I've seen a person take very vivid and beautiful photos with the Canon EOS 300D (6mpix, very very noisy), 10s, ISO 1600 f/3.5 of the ye olde kit lens. Now if I can't get any sort of data with 30s/15/10/5s, ISO 1600 and an aperture three times as big with a much less noisy EOS 550D.. yeah maybe it was a really even misty cloud layer, or light pollution.
> Also, that map is of the US, I live in Finland. I managed to snatch a night-time globe pic somewhere, and I can almost decipher where it wouldn't be too bright, but it will be a stretch to just hike 400km North and I don't have a car. Oh well.


Well there's nothing better for astrophotography than darker/clearer skies and altitude, so I'll say you are definitely getting hit with some bad light pollution. It sucks, don't give up though









Sorry I didn't look at your location, just kind of assumed.

If there's a thin cloud at night it can be seen, also moon/stars are not as sharp as normal, not to mention visibility would be poor as well.


----------



## cravinmild

there are so many absolutely incredible photos in this thread, amazing work you guys/gals. Im just starting to take notice of what it is im doing while shooting, before it was point and click. Here is my contribution, one of my first moon shots taken in the middle of the day. It was a long time ago so im fuzzy on what I did to the shot with software.... not much, perhaps cropped it.

Great moon shot 2 by cravinmild, on Flickr

not on par with some of the shots here but its all I had.


----------



## ErOR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cravinmild*
> 
> there are so many absolutely incredible photos in this thread, amazing work you guys/gals. Im just starting to take notice of what it is im doing while shooting, before it was point and click. Here is my contribution, one of my first moon shots taken in the middle of the day. It was a long time ago so im fuzzy on what I did to the shot with software.... not much, perhaps cropped it.
> 
> not on par with some of the shots here but its all I had.


Nice moon pic man, should edit it a bit so you can get some more details out of it.

I was outside messing about taking some moon pics as well, this is through a crappy telescope I have.


----------



## 32oz

Another moon shot...

Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS USM and Canon Extender EF 1.4x II = 560mm + 1.3 telephoto factor of the 1D MkII = 728mm


----------



## ErOR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *32oz*
> 
> Another moon shot...
> Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS USM and Canon Extender EF 1.4x II = 560mm + 1.3 telephoto factor of the 1D MkII = 728mm


I'm loving it


----------



## Mongol

Another meh moon shot with my meh refractor...


----------



## ErOR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by ***********
> 
> Another meh moon shot with my meh refractor...


Dam that is noisey, what refractor you have?

My shot above was taken through a 60mm 700fl crappy plastic toy refractor with 25mm eyepiece, so I took the pic the lens projection way.

Looks like it's out of focus slightly.


----------



## Mongol

I rushed it and went overboard on PP


----------



## VaiFanatic

Nice to see this thread trekking along! I've been out with school and work, as well as trip to WV. Amazingly clear sky, but none of my shots were turning out nicely. Always constantly out of focus, and the cold didn't help trying to focus with numbs hands!


----------



## sunwolf

Can't wait to get up to the cottage next summer and get some of these.


----------



## Chunky_Chimp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VaiFanatic*
> 
> Amazingly clear sky, but none of my shots were turning out nicely. Always constantly out of focus, and the cold didn't help trying to focus with numbs hands!


Same problem here, but I did turn out one good test shot: https://dl.dropbox.com/s/co2rq7kwfaeiwnu/DSC_0036.JPG I didn't have a star chart with me so don't ask what I was aiming at... I don't know.







I refer to it as a test shot simply due to all my shots the last few nights being shots to test exposure and focus (using a D5100 + Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 AF-S prime, switched to full manual, with a UV filter and the hood both mounted). Most were spectacular failures, but I do like how that one came out. I would like to get close to the results ErOR got (see post 158 in here) but obviously getting it exactly as good as that isn't possible, there are limits to what the lens can do. It's not a NOCT-Nikkor, after all.







Edit; I've been out messing with it again tonight despite finger-freezing temps (I can't be out more than 10 minutes or I just can't use the camera anymore) and the moon washed out the starlight, but I was able to get nearly perfect focus and shot this: https://dl.dropbox.com/s/9tg514c8ieriw2r/DSC_0048.JPG

Still new to all this but getting better.


----------



## ErOR

Hello all, it's been a while since I've done any astrophotography. Last night I found myself in my favourite spot at 3am with my camera so how could not take some shots








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chunky_Chimp*
> 
> Same problem here, but I did turn out one good test shot: https://dl.dropbox.com/s/co2rq7kwfaeiwnu/DSC_0036.JPG I didn't have a star chart with me so don't ask what I was aiming at... I don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I refer to it as a test shot simply due to all my shots the last few nights being shots to test exposure and focus (using a D5100 + Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 AF-S prime, switched to full manual, with a UV filter and the hood both mounted). Most were spectacular failures, but I do like how that one came out. I would like to get close to the results ErOR got (see post 158 in here) but obviously getting it exactly as good as that isn't possible, there are limits to what the lens can do. It's not a NOCT-Nikkor, after all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit; I've been out messing with it again tonight despite finger-freezing temps (I can't be out more than 10 minutes or I just can't use the camera anymore) and the moon washed out the starlight, but I was able to get nearly perfect focus and shot this: https://dl.dropbox.com/s/9tg514c8ieriw2r/DSC_0048.JPG
> Still new to all this but getting better.


Shooting in a dark area makes the biggest difference, light pollution really kills the sky. I suggest you try again at f1.8 1600+ ISO and 6 seconds or so. Depends where you shoot as the stars further from celestial point go faster so exposure time varies. It pays to know what your shooting and some knowledge of astronomy and such.

My shot which your talking about was done at the same place as the shot below which is a fairly dark location and with a wide angle lens so I could ramp up the exposure time. Since the sky is dark you want to be able to grab as much photons as possible in the shortest amount of time, that's why fast lenses and wide lenses do wonders for wide field astrophotography.

I suggest, if you want to capture stars and nebulosity of the milky way or whatever, don't shoot directly at the moon lol

*EDIT:* I forgot to mention post processing images goes a long way, can really bring out the details.

This is Eta Carina mostly, 3 shots stacked at 8 seconds, 1600ISO and with 24mm lens (38mm with crop).


----------



## Chunky_Chimp

Yeah, I would like a wider lens than this, I drastically underestimated how it would be framing shots at that focal length. Looking at how I've been working so far I really would like to work with a prime non-fisheye below 20mm. Not sure if there are any relatively cheap Nikkor lenses that are optically good enough to do that... or if any fast DX-compatible non-fisheye primes even exist under 20mm.







Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ErOR*
> 
> Shooting in a dark area makes the biggest difference, light pollution really kills the sky.


Yep. The main differences between the shots I posted are that in the first one, I did have some light pollution off my neighbors' house, which has very bright porch lights, and the second one was without any such pollution. I'm far enough south of the city to avoid its light pollution except where there are clouds, but I have been shooting under a fairly strong upper-level ridge that's deflected all the moisture far north of us, so there haven't been any clouds. Unfortunately it also means it's extremely cold each night and again, I can't stay out very long.







Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ErOR*
> 
> I suggest you try again at f1.8 1600+ ISO and 6 seconds or so.


The starlight shot was at 6 seconds, actually, but 800 ISO. I'll wait for the new moon to hit and try that, I'd rather not worry about it.







Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ErOR*
> 
> I suggest, if you want to capture stars and nebulosity of the milky way or whatever, don't shoot directly at the moon lol


Well, the shot with the moon in it was done deliberately; having everything framed that way with the moonlight hitting it tempted me to shoot it, so I did.







Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ErOR*
> 
> *EDIT:* I forgot to mention post processing images goes a long way, can really bring out the details.


Hm, I must be the only guy that doesn't want to do that. I'd rather show what I shot, not what I washed through software.


----------



## ErOR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chunky_Chimp*
> 
> Yeah, I would like a wider lens than this, I drastically underestimated how it would be framing shots at that focal length. Looking at how I've been working so far I really would like to work with a prime non-fisheye below 20mm. Not sure if there are any relatively cheap Nikkor lenses that are optically good enough to do that... or if any fast DX-compatible non-fisheye primes even exist under 20mm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. The main differences between the shots I posted are that in the first one, I did have some light pollution off my neighbors' house, which has very bright porch lights, and the second one was without any such pollution. I'm far enough south of the city to avoid its light pollution except where there are clouds, but I have been shooting under a fairly strong upper-level ridge that's deflected all the moisture far north of us, so there haven't been any clouds. Unfortunately it also means it's extremely cold each night and again, I can't stay out very long.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The starlight shot was at 6 seconds, actually, but 800 ISO. I'll wait for the new moon to hit and try that, I'd rather not worry about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the shot with the moon in it was done deliberately; having everything framed that way with the moonlight hitting it tempted me to shoot it, so I did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hm, I must be the only guy that doesn't want to do that. I'd rather show what I shot, not what I washed through software.


Samyang 14mm f2.8 is on my to-buy list, it's fully manual and non fisheye, double win! Nikkor lenses are pretty expensive, the 24mm I scored for almost half price.

When it comes to no post processing astrophotography you'll be chasing darker skies and better nights, which don't come often.

When doing macro I usually focus stack 10+ images for a better DOF, when doing astrophotography I need to make adjustments to make the images pop more otherwise it's very dull or unbalanced. I took a great shot but missed the exposure a bit, no worries, photoshop/lightroom will let me fix it and so on. Post processing, to me is an extension of photography, if I can I will, for the better of course.


----------



## Chunky_Chimp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ErOR*
> 
> Samyang 14mm f2.8 is on my to-buy list, it's fully manual and non fisheye, double win! Nikkor lenses are pretty expensive, the 24mm I scored for almost half price.


Is that all there is for a non-FE sub-20mm DX-compatible lens, that one Samyang? Or are there Nikkors, but they're horribly expensive?


----------



## sub50hz

I think Tokina makes an 11-16/2.8 -- might want to have a look into that if you need something really wide.


----------



## ErOR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chunky_Chimp*
> 
> Is that all there is for a non-FE sub-20mm DX-compatible lens, that one Samyang? Or are there Nikkors, but they're horribly expensive?


No, of course not but for the price it's a great lens. You can buy the standard 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 which is cheap, decent performer and F3.5 at 18mm ain't too bad.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sub50hz*
> 
> I think Tokina makes an 11-16/2.8 -- might want to have a look into that if you need something really wide.


Yes, the Tokina 11-16 F2.8 is an even better lens than the Samyang 14mm but at almost twice the price.


----------



## sub50hz

The Samyang is a distortion nightmare, and considerably less versatile than the Tokina, IMO.


----------



## Chunky_Chimp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sub50hz*
> 
> I think Tokina makes an 11-16/2.8 -- might want to have a look into that if you need something really wide.


Yeah, I've known about that one, but I'm after a fast prime in that range, not a zoom.


----------



## ErOR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sub50hz*
> 
> The Samyang is a distortion nightmare, and considerably less versatile than the Tokina, IMO.


Which is easily fixable, I really don't see a big issue with distortion but the Tokina is definitely better it just depends how much you want to spend. I'm still a student, I go for cheaper option and work around the problems.


----------



## sub50hz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ErOR*
> 
> Which is easily fixable


At the expense of resolution, sure.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chunky_Chimp*
> 
> Yeah, I've known about that one, but I'm after a fast prime in that range, not a zoom.


Why? There really aren't any great 14mm primes for Nikon, and there's nothing faster than f/2.8 in the area of that focal length.


----------



## funfortehfun

I'd like to start with astrophotography, any tips and tricks? 

My current camera hardware is a D90 fitted with a AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D. I'm pretty sure that's not a good enough lens to capture the night skies, but I'm willing to pay a bit for a new lens.

Also, I haven't a tripod - any good cheaper ones out there?


----------



## Chunky_Chimp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sub50hz*
> 
> Why? There really aren't any great 14mm primes for Nikon, and there's nothing faster than f/2.8 in the area of that focal length.


To capture as much sky as possible. I didn't think I'd have such a relatively narrow angle of view with 35mm (52 on FX/film)...







It doesn't have to be 14, specifically, anything between 10 and 20. If there isn't anything that's not a fisheye in that range, then I'll look at the 10-24mm or a fisheye. Haven't decided yet.


----------



## sub50hz

The point of my Tokina recommendation is that it's a stop faster than most other ultra wides for crop cameras.


----------



## ErOR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *funfortehfun*
> 
> I'd like to start with astrophotography, any tips and tricks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My current camera hardware is a D90 fitted with a AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D. I'm pretty sure that's not a good enough lens to capture the night skies, but I'm willing to pay a bit for a new lens.
> Also, I haven't a tripod - any good cheaper ones out there?


With such a lens you will be limited in exposure time and may not be able to get as much details as you'd want. When I got my camera I did a test with a 50mm f1.8 and made a little timelapse.

This is what I got out of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQbSwlEIkzY

But if you had a EQ mount exposure times could be in minutes with good polar aligning, otherwise a wide angle lens and dark skies work wonders.

I got a basic tripod from my mate and it works good, as long it's all metal and the head is smooth and easy to use it will do the trick.


----------



## Chunky_Chimp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sub50hz*
> 
> The point of my Tokina recommendation is that it's a stop faster than most other ultra wides for crop cameras.


Right. I'm just trying to work through every possibility before deciding.


----------



## VaiFanatic

OP's been dead from everything. Needless to say, the skies in WV were great! But I couldn't get many good shots, mainly because of my poor camera manipulation skills in 10 degree weather!

We've had some clear nights back in San Antonio, but I've been battling this flu that everyone else around here seems to have too.

I'll get back into it eventually!


----------



## Chunky_Chimp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VaiFanatic*
> 
> OP's been dead from everything. Needless to say, the skies in WV were great! But I couldn't get many good shots, mainly because of my poor camera manipulation skills in 10 degree weather!
> 
> We've had some clear nights back in San Antonio, but I've been battling this flu that everyone else around here seems to have too.
> 
> I'll get back into it eventually!


Yup... I've had some nights the past week where I'd LOVE to go out and try some more shots, but I've had my ass kicked. Usually the flu won't do that to me, but a bad strain like the one now will.


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chunky_Chimp*
> 
> Yup... I've had some nights the past week where I'd LOVE to go out and try some more shots, but I've had my ass kicked. Usually the flu won't do that to me, but a bad strain like the one now will.


It's been terrible, the cough has developed into minor bronchitis, so I'm always wheezing. Not good!


----------



## jsigone

taken with a cheap Canon XS (1000D), modified with IR filter removed. Added Light pollution or Ha filter in front of the chip pending the target, some has combo of both data sessions.
Most are ISO1600, 5min to 10 min subs times 2-5hrs worth stacked images:thumb:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/5947263954/
HaRGB M8 Lagoon Nebula 185min Final by jsigone, on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/6084543736/
Ha-HaR-GB IC 1396 with Canon by jsigone, on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/6078646483/
NGC 6992 Veil Nebula 13 x 5min iso1600 by jsigone, on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/5983698516/
NGC 7000 and IC 5070 first 2 panels by jsigone, on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/6568206691/
M45 Pleiades 31 x 5 min iso1600 with Canon 1000D by jsigone, on Flickr

My carbon fiber scope, 6" F4.8 and 731mm focal length Mak-newt. Super flat imaging surface, mosaics are easier for sure.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/6758889457/
_MG_9668 by jsigone, on Flickr

and the filter used
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/6758888319/
_MG_9665 by jsigone, on Flickr


----------



## Chunky_Chimp

Now that's more like it, jsigone.







Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VaiFanatic*
> 
> It's been terrible, the cough has developed into minor bronchitis, so I'm always wheezing. Not good!


I think my case developed into mild pneumonia, but I just got over it yesterday. Now it feels like I have the worst cold ever, and the coughing left my throat raw enough that each sneeze is torture. I can't wait for this to end...


----------



## jsigone

few more...but w/ a old used CCD I picked up early last yr. TEC cooled, low noise and mono. It's a 2/3s chip, so tighter FOV then with the Canon.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7201499700/
M51 LRGB with Starlight Xpress HX916 by jsigone, on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/6821533451/
Horsehead Nebula Ha 9x5min by jsigone, on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8340391013/
IC410 Tadpoles Ha, 12x10min by jsigone, on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8206684929/
M45 L-RG(LB) blend by jsigone, on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8356297410/
M42 Orion Nebula LRGB by jsigone, on Flickr


----------



## Faraz

Those are fricking insane, especially the Horsehead nebula. I've only seen that one classic photo of that and to see someone on here take their own picture of it is amazing.


----------



## jsigone

thanks


----------



## _Nikhil

@jsigone Those are some epic photos. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## ErOR

Awesome photos jsigone! I wish I could afford a decent motorized mount like a EQ5 or so. The prices in NZ are quite ridiculous for decent mounts.

Took this about a week back.


----------



## groundzero9

Do you guys have any advice on a decent dual-purpose, starter telescope? By that I mean useful for both photography and viewing. Research has pointed me towards this for the 5" diameter, f/5 aperture, and the motorized mount. I have more interest in galaxies and nebulae than planetary objects.


----------



## ErOR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *groundzero9*
> 
> Do you guys have any advice on a decent dual-purpose, starter telescope? By that I mean useful for both photography and viewing. Research has pointed me towards this for the 5" diameter, f/5 aperture, and the motorized mount. I have more interest in galaxies and nebulae than planetary objects.


The mount that scope comes with is not so great for astrophotography.

Minimum I'd recommend is a EQ3-2 only using camera and a telephoto lens. If you wish to use a scope and do astrophotography with it then a HEQ5 is what you'd want. All depends on what kind of images you are expecting.

That scope is quite nice, only a bit short on focal length plus being fairly fast it will require higher quality eye pieces for visual observing.

It would be a great starter scope for the price (so jeleous, in NZ for that it's easily 1K) but you will soon outgrow it and want to upgrade.


----------



## groundzero9

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ErOR*
> 
> The mount that scope comes with is not so great for astrophotography.
> 
> Minimum I'd recommend is a EQ3-2 only using camera and a telephoto lens. If you wish to use a scope and do astrophotography with it then a HEQ5 is what you'd want. All depends on what kind of images you are expecting.
> 
> That scope is quite nice, only a bit short on focal length plus being fairly fast it will require higher quality eye pieces for visual observing.
> 
> It would be a great starter scope for the price (so jeleous, in NZ for that it's easily 1K) but you will soon outgrow it and want to upgrade.


Thanks for the input! However, can you recommend anything a little more affordable? I'm looking to spend about $300USD max. Using a telephoto lens isn't an option for me as I use a Fujifilm X-E1. The longest lens offered is a 60mm macro with a $650 price tag. Would either of these be better compromise? Celeston and Meade


----------



## BorisTheSpider

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *groundzero9*
> 
> Do you guys have any advice on a decent dual-purpose, starter telescope? By that I mean useful for both photography and viewing. Research has pointed me towards this for the 5" diameter, f/5 aperture, and the motorized mount. I have more interest in galaxies and nebulae than planetary objects.


In the spirit of a tech forum, I'm going to suggest something a little radical - make one.

As someone else said, that mount won't be great, and the mirror won't be very good at f/5 for that money (the faster the scope, that is to say, the lower the f/ number, the harder a mirror is to correctly figure).

Your best option, unless you can afford something in the range of a Meade LX200, is to make something.

Mel Bartels scope.exe will let you control a scope from a computer (goto functionality with software like starry night pro or TheSky). People motorise dobsonian mounts using stepper motors and rotary encoders all the time. It's a big(ish) project, but would be fun and educational.

That said, the issue with making a dobsonian is that you'll also need to buy or make a field derotator to use it for long exposure photography (ie. galaxies), but as a purely visual scope in the meantime, or for photographing bright objects like planets where exposures are short enough that field rotation is not a problem, you'll find a bigger aperture, home made scope absolutely outclasses what you can buy unless you spend a fortune.

As for making a mirror, you can either just buy one, or for more satisfaction and if you have room to do it, make it yourself.

Here's some excellent classic books on the subject:

AMATEUR TELESCOPE MAKING by ALBERT G.INGALLS

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Dobsonian-Telescope-Practical-Telescopes/dp/0943396557/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1361848324&sr=8-3

If you do decide to buy, you'll need to spend at least 10x what you suggested to get satisfactory photographic results on galaxies - these objects are very dim, and exposures need to be long, so you'll find that the mount needs to be really very good, although modern image stacking and processing techniques do help to offset that a bit.

The other thing you need to ask yourself is how dark is your observing site? Without a properly dark sky, attempting to image galaxies with a scope of any size is pretty pointless.

Sorry to be a downer on your plans - it's just I've looked into this stuff a lot, I nearly moved to a super dark site and had plans to build a really big scope a while back, it never materialised but it's still there as a long term ambition, so I know quite a bit about the constraints and limitations, but even if you intend only a fairly simple setup for astrophotography you do need to take care over light pollution, mount quality and so on, and none of that comes cheap, but if you make it yourself you can end up with very good gear for a reasonable cost.


----------



## norrisninja

awesome thread, wish i had a good enough camera ot do this kind of stuff


----------



## ErOR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BorisTheSpider*
> 
> In the spirit of a tech forum, I'm going to suggest something a little radical - make one.
> 
> As someone else said, that mount won't be great, and the mirror won't be very good at f/5 for that money (the faster the scope, that is to say, the lower the f/ number, the harder a mirror is to correctly figure).
> 
> Your best option, unless you can afford something in the range of a Meade LX200, is to make something.
> 
> Mel Bartels scope.exe will let you control a scope from a computer (goto functionality with software like starry night pro or TheSky). People motorise dobsonian mounts using stepper motors and rotary encoders all the time. It's a big(ish) project, but would be fun and educational.
> 
> That said, the issue with making a dobsonian is that you'll also need to buy or make a field derotator to use it for long exposure photography (ie. galaxies), but as a purely visual scope in the meantime, or for photographing bright objects like planets where exposures are short enough that field rotation is not a problem, you'll find a bigger aperture, home made scope absolutely outclasses what you can buy unless you spend a fortune.
> 
> As for making a mirror, you can either just buy one, or for more satisfaction and if you have room to do it, make it yourself.
> 
> Here's some excellent classic books on the subject:
> 
> AMATEUR TELESCOPE MAKING by ALBERT G.INGALLS
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Dobsonian-Telescope-Practical-Telescopes/dp/0943396557/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1361848324&sr=8-3
> 
> If you do decide to buy, you'll need to spend at least 10x what you suggested to get satisfactory photographic results on galaxies - these objects are very dim, and exposures need to be long, so you'll find that the mount needs to be really very good, although modern image stacking and processing techniques do help to offset that a bit.
> 
> The other thing you need to ask yourself is how dark is your observing site? Without a properly dark sky, attempting to image galaxies with a scope of any size is pretty pointless.
> 
> Sorry to be a downer on your plans - it's just I've looked into this stuff a lot, I nearly moved to a super dark site and had plans to build a really big scope a while back, it never materialised but it's still there as a long term ambition, so I know quite a bit about the constraints and limitations, but even if you intend only a fairly simple setup for astrophotography you do need to take care over light pollution, mount quality and so on, and none of that comes cheap, but if you make it yourself you can end up with very good gear for a reasonable cost.


Good info! I also have had the idea of motorising a dob since I can get a really nice GSO 8" 1200mm FL for ~$600NZ. It's a project which I wouldn't mind getting into. I've hired out that dob from the Astro Society here and it's absolutely awesome, big mirror and being F6 everything was bright and I've observed tons of galaxies with ease.

I've seen people using Stellarium to control their scopes as a GoTo which is real neat.

I think the hardest part would be programming a microcontroller and getting it working correctly with the motors for smooth and accurate tracking.


----------



## BorisTheSpider

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ErOR*
> 
> I think the hardest part would be programming a microcontroller and getting it working correctly with the motors for smooth and accurate tracking.


http://www.bbastrodesigns.com/BBAstroDesigns.html is the first place to look, and the ATM mailing list.


----------



## groundzero9

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BorisTheSpider*
> 
> The other thing you need to ask yourself is how dark is your observing site? Without a properly dark sky, attempting to image galaxies with a scope of any size is pretty pointless.


Sorry, I should have mentioned I'm looking for something decently portable. I live right near a major city so my plan is to drive out to less populated areas. Forgetting the photography aspect, can you make a recommendation?


----------



## ErOR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *groundzero9*
> 
> Sorry, I should have mentioned I'm looking for something decently portable. I live right near a major city so my plan is to drive out to less populated areas. Forgetting the photography aspect, can you make a recommendation?


Save some money for something like this.

Do you need a motorised mount?


----------



## BorisTheSpider

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *groundzero9*
> 
> Sorry, I should have mentioned I'm looking for something decently portable. I live right near a major city so my plan is to drive out to less populated areas. Forgetting the photography aspect, can you make a recommendation?


OK so you have a basic tradeoff to make - you need a certain aperture to see much (aperture gives you brightness and resolution), but bigger aperture scopes are less portable, unless they are either well designed in terms of the tube (ie. a truss tube dobsonian), or use short-tube optics like a maksutov cassegrain or schmitt cassegrain. The Meade LX90 and LX200 are scmitt cassegrains - making cassegrains is not for the faint hearted, as the field corrector on the front is non-trivial to grind and polish, and for the same reason they are expensive to buy. The meade ETX range are maksutov newtonians which have the same constraints - they are expensive to buy and apertures are small.

I know it's still quite a lot more than you planned to spend, but if you don't want to make something, http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/816529-REG/Meade_1005_05_03_LightBridge_10_0_254mm_Reflector_Telescope.html looks good for the money and is not badly priced. I'd strongly encourage saving up this kind of money as it'll be much better spent than say $400 on something much less capable. Meade also make this in 12" and 16".

Truss tube dobs are very portable - the upper ring (where the eyepiece goes) comes right off and the tubes you can see that make up the structure of the "tube" come off, so you end up with the top ring, the truss tubes, and the mirror box at the bottom - even a 20+" truss tube dob easily goes in an average car boot and is easy for one person to set up once you learn how to collimate it. Incidentally, for clarity, a dobsonian refers to the alt-az mount invented by John Dobson, the actual optical arrangement is a newtonian which is the "original" mirror telescope type.

Comparing a dobsonian to a schmitt cassegrain at the same aperture, the dobsonian has several advantages (for you) - it is about 1/5 of the price, it collects more light (cassegrains have a big secondary mirror obstructing the light path at the front which cuts down the effective aperture), newtonians also have much shorter focal lengths (because they can have a smaller f/ number, cassegrains are invariably f/10 or more) which is good for you if you're interested in nebulae and galaxies, as you want a wide-field view which a newtonian provides.

JMI then make a motor drive for that scope (although this link is to the version for the 12" rather than the 10") - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/680219-REG/JMI_Telescopes_TNTLB12_Train_n_Track_Motor_Drive.html

What I'd suggest if you must buy and budget is tight, is to get the lightbridge (maybe look for the 8" version if $700 is too much, but the 10" will give significantly better views of deep-sky objects because of the bigger aperature - a 10" has 50% more light collecting area than an 8") and hand-guide it for a while. That will help you decide what you want to get out of observing and it'll also help you learn the sky - having goto is not all it's cracked up to be, because you don't learn to star-hop to find objects, that said it can be frustrating at first not finding stuff, but if you persevere you'll get there - you'll want a copy of "Norton's star atlas". Also, not having tracking can be a bit of a pain but at lower magnifications (like you'd use for a lot of galaxies and nebulae, which though dim are actually fairly big in terms of the area of the sky they cover) hand tracking is adequate.

As an alternative to the JMI kit you could then look into motorising it yourself with stepper/servo motors and the scope.exe/BBastrodesigns stuff.

For eyepieces on a budget, http://www.universityoptics.com/eyepieces.html are absolutely excellent and to be honest, a hidden gem - a lot of their stuff is as good as the thousand-dollar naglers people buy.

I wouldn't advise buying second hand unless it's from a friend, as the trouble with optics is unless you know how to test them properly, you could get lumbered with a dud, although that's not so likely with a newtonian as it is with a cassegrain as the optics of a newt are inherently simpler and less prone to misalignment and damage that is not user correctable.

As for making something, http://www.atmlist.net/ is the place to ask.

Also http://stellafane.org/tm/index.html has tons of useful information and a list of ATM groups, maybe there's one in your area?


----------



## BorisTheSpider

I just noticed skywatcher make some very cheap dobs - http://www.skywatcher.com/swtinc/product.php?id=138&class1=1&class2=106

Looks like a finderscope is optional (is it on the meade? I don't know) but in any case you will definitely want one, trying to find objects at a magnification of 100x or so through the main scope is a recipe for complete frustration.


----------



## dqniel

jsigone, thanks for sharing your incredible photos and technique descriptions.

This is my first ever telescope attempt. It was cloudy, windy, and cold... the focuser was acting up and I forgot my remote release shutter. So, a lot working against me, heh.

K-30 + LX200 Classic 12" (non ACF version)


----------



## groundzero9

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ErOR*
> 
> Save some money for something like this.
> 
> Do you need a motorised mount?


I don't think a motorized mount is within my budget. I've been doing more research and think I've decided on this. That OTA plus rings, eyepieces, and a finder scope wouldn't be too hard to save up for. However, I'm having trouble trying to find what kind of mount I need for it. The Celestron CG-4 is rated for 22lbs which should be enough considering the OTA would be 16.5lbs + accessories. Do you think that would work? The problem is I can't seem to find any mounts that are better without jumping up to $650+. Would it be better to try to find a second-hand one?


----------



## ErOR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *groundzero9*
> 
> I don't think a motorized mount is within my budget. I've been doing more research and think I've decided on this. That OTA plus rings, eyepieces, and a finder scope wouldn't be too hard to save up for. However, I'm having trouble trying to find what kind of mount I need for it. The Celestron CG-4 is rated for 22lbs which should be enough considering the OTA would be 16.5lbs + accessories. Do you think that would work? The problem is I can't seem to find any mounts that are better without jumping up to $650+. Would it be better to try to find a second-hand one?


That tube is huge, not really portable unless you have a big car, well in my books that isn't portable.

That mount will struggle with such a huge OTA, CG4 is something like a EQ3 so they really are not up to the task. For visual observing and no motors it will be ok but I suspect many vibrations when focusing and moving around.

Maybe you should join your local astronomy club and hire out some telescopes so you get an idea of what can be seen with how much aperture. While I had used a 8" I loved the views but for portability reasons I wouldn't buy, it was massive and it hardly fit in my car.

My ideal portability setup would be something like a iOptron mount (upgraded with better internals) and a small 100mm refractor or 127mm Mak.

Btw I'm not sure about this but the counterweights also have to be included into the total weight payload.


----------



## BorisTheSpider

Agreed that getting a second hand mount is better if you're going to have a heavy OTA - also agreed that really, if you've no experience, you _need_ to visit an astro club and use peoples stuff to get a feel for the challenges in terms of mount rigidity, getting a good polar aligment (you'll need a polar alignment scope which fits in the RA axis if you're going with an equatorial mount), vibration etc.

Second hand EQ mounts should be no problem, since there's less that can be out of alignment or wrong on them (at least it's easier to tell) compared to optics.

If you can get something in the EQ5 class, that would be better.

Again, and I know you seem to be a little against the idea (and there are perfectly valid reasons to be), but I'd also look at dobs. Especially if you initially intend visual observing, then later adding on photo capability a bit at a time - for the same money, you'll get a much less problematic mount. Equatorials are great, if you can afford a nice one. A nice one unfortunately is very expensive. That said, an EQ5 will probably serve you very well.


----------



## groundzero9

An 8" Dob seems quite attractive at $399 but wouldn't the collapsible ones be incredibly bulky compared to an 8" reflector on a equatorial mount?


----------



## BorisTheSpider

A truss tube dob takes down to a very compact set of parts, and because the weight is largely within the alt axis, they don't need heavy balance weights. Much more portable than the same optics on an equatorial.

That said, for carrying in a car, an 8" newt on an EQ mount is not difficult to transport or set up. The real portability advantages of a dob come at bigger apertures - a 20" for example on an equatorial is basically an observatory sited scope with no portability at all (and the mount would cost a fortune or require a well equiped machine shop to fabricate and still cost quite a lot in materials), wheras a 20" truss tube dob can be portable if designed well: http://www.bbastrodesigns.com/20inch.html

Dobs definitely have the edge for portability by a long way. The advantage for you of an equatorial will be that it's easy and cheap to motorise it, however at that point if you start doing photography, you'll still need to stick to short exposures unless you have a very good equatorial mount, and for really long exposures you'd need a guidescope (which takes you up another notch in cost for the mount due to the added weight).

A dob requires a somewhat more complex motor setup (well, not mechanically, but in terms of the electronics to track RA using alt/az) and depending on how much you make yourself (and what the current options are - I'm out of the loop, you'd have to check the ATM lists and scope-drive) might cost more to motorise, but when you get to that stage, if you get serious about photography and want a guidescope, a well build dobsonian mount will cope with the added weight without a problem.


----------



## VaiFanatic

Excellent progress here, might have to change the name to "Official"









I took some shots of the moon the other night when I was waiting for Saturn to come over the horizon, but it got way too cold, so I missed the window for that.

I too need to look into getting a tracking mount, or something more stable when trying to focus that 400mm lens.

My exposure shots of the sky are always horrible. They're never really focused as they should be. Focusing to infinity or beyond (especially on the lenses that don't indicate infinity) is difficult.

I wish there were some local members I could get together with to do this.


----------



## groundzero9

I guess now I'm torn between two extremes. One side of me says to just get the 8" Sky-Watcher Dob for inexpensive great viewing, and the other says to wait and get something like a CG-5 with a large refractor so I have something that'll work well for photography.


----------



## ErOR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VaiFanatic*
> 
> Excellent progress here, might have to change the name to "Official"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I took some shots of the moon the other night when I was waiting for Saturn to come over the horizon, but it got way too cold, so I missed the window for that.
> 
> I too need to look into getting a tracking mount, or something more stable when trying to focus that 400mm lens.
> 
> My exposure shots of the sky are always horrible. They're never really focused as they should be. Focusing to infinity or beyond (especially on the lenses that don't indicate infinity) is difficult.
> 
> I wish there were some local members I could get together with to do this.


I find focusing at 480mm not too hard, just have to be smooth and take test shots to find that focus sweet spot and after that it's all dandy. What sucks after that is very short exposures without any EQ mount. I've been meaning to make a barn door mount but haven't gotten around to it yet.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *groundzero9*
> 
> I guess now I'm torn between two extremes. One side of me says to just get the 8" Sky-Watcher Dob for inexpensive great viewing, and the other says to wait and get something like a CG-5 with a large refractor so I have something that'll work well for photography.


This is where you decide if you want to pursue astrohptography or just stick to visual for now. As a beginner I suggest you stay clear of astrohphotography as it has a steep learning curve, it's really expensive and it might just end up not being your thing so you'll be selling it 3 months after.

Get a nice dob and enjoy the skies


----------



## jsigone

IMO dobs and AP doesn't work well even with the JMI unit. My dad attempted this w/ his 12" light bridge and after a couple months he ditched the idea for a GEM mount.

Lets run through the setup though. You visually find the DSO with an eye piece with star hopping and charts, Cool you got it sorta. Now remove the eyepeice and add your camera without jerking where you found the object. Now you have to focus the camera to the imaging plane, Now you have to FIND the DSO on the small chip taking short 5sec subs. All in the JMI's 3 min tracking window. Then you can only reset the tracker tracker it for 3 mins, but your subs can only be 20-30s because of field rotation. A DSLR won't fit into a DOB because the inward focus isn't enough so a barlow will have to be used, doubling the F5 to F10 and also doubling the focal length. You will be dropping F bombs and or pulling hair out at this point

So now you have a JMI $500 tracking system that could have been put in towards a real mount + a DOB that will hardly be used because its the wrong tool for the job.

I wish this mount was out when I started......If you have limited cash, a DSLR (cuz it can take longer then 15sec shots unlike a point n shot) and fast manual focus lens then this is all you need for a mount. Hell even a nifty 50 can get some nice images stopped down to F3.2 to F4 range.
http://www.optcorp.com/product.aspx?pid=278-17967

If you have cash for a nice MF lens you can use under the stars and in the day. I'd HIGHLY recommend a NIkkor 180mm ED AIS, can be had for about $300 on ebay. Look for the gold band to confirm it's the ED glass model.

That lens + a modded Canon T4i and 15hrs of 5to10min subs can get you something like (different mount was used)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/6047987463/


----------



## groundzero9

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ErOR*
> 
> I find focusing at 480mm not too hard, just have to be smooth and take test shots to find that focus sweet spot and after that it's all dandy. What sucks after that is very short exposures without any EQ mount. I've been meaning to make a barn door mount but haven't gotten around to it yet.
> This is where you decide if you want to pursue astrohptography or just stick to visual for now. As a beginner I suggest you stay clear of astrohphotography as it has a steep learning curve, it's really expensive and it might just end up not being your thing so you'll be selling it 3 months after.
> 
> Get a nice dob and enjoy the skies


I'm leaning towards the EQ mount and some sort of inexpensive refractor for now I think. I have a very strong interest Astrophotography so would like to have the option to at least start learning about it. However, an EQ5 or similar would eat up most of my funds. Any ideas on what kind of OTA I could throw on it in the meantime til I can afford something nice? Plus, I figure this way if AP doesn't work out, I'll have a steady mount to put a reflector on.


----------



## ErOR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *groundzero9*
> 
> I'm leaning towards the EQ mount and some sort of inexpensive refractor for now I think. I have a very strong interest Astrophotography so would like to have the option to at least start learning about it. However, an EQ5 or similar would eat up most of my funds. Any ideas on what kind of OTA I could throw on it in the meantime til I can afford something nice? Plus, I figure this way if AP doesn't work out, I'll have a steady mount to put a reflector on.


If you go EQ an EQ5 would be great, I missed out twice on a second hand one for good money.

If you want to motorise it and do astrophotography, a nice ~100mm refractor should be ok or a Mak.

Perhaps save up for a little longer or get this mount and a cheap OTA second hand, good deals on astro forums if you're in US.

You have a DLSR or you gonna be using a webcam?


----------



## BorisTheSpider

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *groundzero9*
> 
> I'm leaning towards the EQ mount and some sort of inexpensive refractor for now I think. I have a very strong interest Astrophotography so would like to have the option to at least start learning about it. However, an EQ5 or similar would eat up most of my funds. Any ideas on what kind of OTA I could throw on it in the meantime til I can afford something nice? Plus, I figure this way if AP doesn't work out, I'll have a steady mount to put a reflector on.


If you're set on photography, then perhaps start with photographing the planets (and the moon), not to mention solar observing with a full-aperture solar filter? The cameras to do this are cheap (a lot of people use webcams) - the planets are bright so only short exposures are needed, that aids you three different ways - you don't need a cooled CCD (long exposures are generally done with peltier cooled CCDs because of noise), you don't need an extremely good mount (or a guidescope), and you don't need a whole load of aperture. In fact, there's a very significant fourth reason that short exposures are good - seeing (ie. the clarity of the atmosphere due to convection currents).

Generally, lots of short exposures are taken, then heavy processing using stuff like http://www.astrostack.com/ or various other free alternatives are used to end up with a final image.

Refractors are very expensive for good ones - take a look at these eye-watering prices even for very small apertures - http://www.green-witch.com/acatalog/Takahashi_Refractors.html (that said, takahashi make _very_ good stuff). I'd look at a 6" newtonian if you just want something really cheap to put on an equatorial until you can upgrade, that will have plenty of aperture for planets and under dark skies will let you see a fair bit more on the bright globular clusters and most of the messier objects.


----------



## groundzero9

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ErOR*
> 
> You have a DLSR or you gonna be using a webcam?


I have a Fujifilm X-E1 I use for normal photography. It has stunning low-light performance so I'm quite eager to see how it fares when pointing upwards.


----------



## jsigone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BorisTheSpider*
> 
> I'd look at a 6" newtonian if you just want something really cheap to put on an equatorial until you can upgrade, that will have plenty of aperture for planets and under dark skies will let you see a fair bit more on the bright globular clusters and most of the messier objects.


Not all newts are built the same, most common newts won't accept a camera because there isn't enough inward focus to hit the imaging plane. In short words, the focuser is too thick. You need to look into a imaging newt w/ a low profile focuser installed already OR get a cheap newt and add a $300-400 focuser on it.

This was designed for AP and is dirt cheap
https://www.astronomics.com/astro-tech-6-inch-imaging-newtonian-optical-tube_p18868.aspx

You WILL need a baader MPCC to correct the coma (star shape) in the corners, these run about $150 is kinda hard to get right now or so I'd heard. A EG5 should pretty decent with that OTA if balance is spot on and you don't use a another telescope for guiding in the future. Look into a Orion mini auto guider package for $350. The key is to keep weight down and balance in tune.


----------



## ErOR

Single frames, 20 and 25s exposures at f2.8.
Tonight will take multiple with darks, flats and bias to stack.


----------



## iwalkwithedead

Awesome quality, cameras and telescopes. Just awesome!


----------



## ErOR

Here is a better attempt at some AP. using 50mm @ f1.8, 3200ISO and 4s exposures shooting the LMC. After a quick stack and processing I ended up with this









Now time to improve it.



EDIT: A better processed version


----------



## VaiFanatic

It's Official!! Keep the tips, pictures, and equipment stats coming! Most of my photography as of late has been strictly automotive, as I'm recording my progress as I restore and repair several of my vehicles.

If the clouds die down tonight, I'm going to try to get Saturn and it's rings. Saturn and Jupiter are such a joy to shoot, at 800mm focal length, you can see the color contrast of Jupiter, as well as 4 moons, and the rings of Saturn.


----------



## ErOR

Awesome!

Well looks like it's gonna be another good night here so I'm excited to do some astrophotography









@VaiFanatic: You mind posting up some pics of Saturn? I'm keen to see how much is seen at 800mm FL.


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ErOR*
> 
> Awesome!
> 
> Well looks like it's gonna be another good night here so I'm excited to do some astrophotography
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @VaiFanatic: You mind posting up some pics of Saturn? I'm keen to see how much is seen at 800mm FL.


Certainly! It's still a little cloudy out, but I've got about 4 hours before Saturn is in a really good spot in the sky. I'm situated in a smaller valley, and I don't have a car I can drive to somewhere more open (at 2AM, driving around here gets you pulled over just for being out so you can be interrogated, it's happened to my friends).

We'll see! Might try for the moon and Jupiter.


----------



## VaiFanatic

Looks like I won't be getting anything tonight. Things looked like there were clearing up, then suddenly the sky is filled with clouds









Maybe tomorrow!


----------



## ErOR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VaiFanatic*
> 
> Looks like I won't be getting anything tonight. Things looked like there were clearing up, then suddenly the sky is filled with clouds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe tomorrow!


Its getting like that here too









Well ill be in a dark spot till 1am tonight so hopefully things clear up


----------



## VaiFanatic

No signs of it clearing up here. Did have a surprise power outage though!


----------



## TSXmike

cannot believe i slept through the st. pattys solar storm! gonna be kicking myself in the rear for a while... or at least till the next storm.

anyone get a good look at pan-starrs yet? havent been able to find a good westward facing clear area to take a look.


----------



## VaiFanatic

Been watching the weather, it's supposed to stay cloudy well into tomorrow. So looks like I won't have a window of opportunity tonight either.

I wouldn't mind getting together with local members one night to stay out and shoot the skies. Doesn't seem to be much interest otherwise with people I see daily.


----------



## VaiFanatic

It's clearing up. I should have a window of opportunity tonight!!


----------



## ErOR

Awesome! Not here, it's gonna rain today :S

The other day I got nice weather and ended up taking over 20 minutes of lights to stack but then when i came home I saw it was slightly out of focus









Next time I suppose


----------



## VaiFanatic

We'll see how this goes. My midnight tonight, it should be in a good spot.


----------



## groundzero9

Here's my first attempts from my backyard:



White-zone level light pollution where I live washed out all attempts at pictures of stars. Hopefully when it warms up a bit I can start taking the scope places. I gotta remember to shoot in RAW next time too...


----------



## VaiFanatic

Just walked outside to check, and the sky is overcast again -_______-

It was clearing up all day, and the forecast was clear skies all night.


----------



## VaiFanatic

I got out last night and got a few shots! Better than my first attempt, but could still use some work. I'll post up the best one later. Right now I'm working on my wood flooring.


----------



## VaiFanatic

This is the best I could manage.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8593382981/

Still not crisp, but I think I'm at my limitations when it comes to what I'm using. As awesome as my lens is, I'm on a crop body and a tripod. A guided mount might yield better results.


----------



## WhiteZetsu

Took this with my NEX-7 with my 50mm F/1.8 prime lens, in a city close to DC lol



Took this with my old NEX-5 with the 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 lens lol


----------



## RoddimusPrime

What telescopes are you guys using? I have a T3i that I would like to do some astrophotography with, but lack any astrophotography equipment.


----------



## VaiFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RoddimusPrime*
> 
> What telescopes are you guys using? I have a T3i that I would like to do some astrophotography with, but lack any astrophotography equipment.


Telescopes are really for deep space or planetary photography. A lot of astrophotography simply involves taking exposure shots of the night sky with your 50mm lens.


----------



## ErOR

@VaiFanatic Nice Saturn, I was just outside watching it. Going to my dark spot tonight so will be busy shooting as it's a gorgeous night,

@RoddimusPrime No need for any special equipment for wide field astrophotography. DLSR + lens + tripod = all you need to get started,

Here are some shots I took some days ago.

Milky Way Wide Field


Scorpion


----------



## ErOR

Had a chance last night to shoot some more and was able to take more photos of the Milky Way. Sow now there's a little bit more added to the panorama.



Here is 2 minutes of lights stacked which I shot just using a 50mm lens. I was shooting at the centre of our galaxy.


----------



## Conspiracy

nice captures


----------



## iwalkwithedead

Northern Lights today! if someone could take pictures that would amazing. xD Article of Viewing Areas here


----------



## mcrbradbury

Took this with a camera phone and a filter today:


Samsung Galaxy SII for the win!


----------



## ErOR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mcrbradbury*
> 
> Took this with a camera phone and a filter today:
> 
> 
> Samsung Galaxy SII for the win!


That is so cute! Actually it came out quite nice









Got some really nice skies last night so I spend some time shooting, would of gotten more but was getting a bit cold and late.

This is just a first initial stack, will spend more time on and see if I can improve it.

Since the stars were originally quite hard to see it wasn't obvious that was Scorpious constellation so using some star diffractions I think it really helped out to bring out what I was going for. I know some people don't like them but it was a style choice I suppose.

Canon 550D with Nikkor 24mm f2.8 @ f2.8, 6400ISO
61 x 10s, 42 x 6s = 14min 36sec exposure time
40 Darks for each set
45 Bias frames
Stacked using DeepSkyStacker and edited in Lightroom and Photoshop.


EDIT: Here is a second stack attempt with some better processing, more detail









http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/560/fullstack1.jpg/


----------



## jsigone

images from last week

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]00/9357447940/
M20, trifid, 3x5min LRGB by jsigone, on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/9383324372/
M16 19x5min Ha by jsigone, on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/9386362310/
NGC 6992 2x10min 2x2bin by jsigone, on Flickr


----------



## Fletcher Carnaby

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ErOR*
> 
> That is so cute! Actually it came out quite nice


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsigone*
> 
> images from last week


Wow! Nice shots, gents!


----------



## VaiFanatic

Wow! These are some incredible shots! I've been derelict on my astrophotography because of work, school, cars, and now this eye injury.

I found a cheap telescope, so I'm hoping to find a mount for it for my 60D. With the 2x teleconverter I'd have 1400mm focal length at my disposal!! Brings me much closer the 800mm focal length I have with my teleconverter and 400mm USM lens.


----------

