>>4317828
comets aren't real bro. just traffic reflecting off the firmament.

>>4317843
That is why there appear to be so many comets whizzing about the skies over all the world's major cities

File: 12P_Pons_Brooks_3 jpg.jpg (2.19 MB, 2365x2910)

2.19 MB JPG

I photographed comet 12P/ Pons-Brooks on March 22nd from Norway. Captured right after sunset from a medium sized city (bortle 7 on the light pollution scale). This is around 70mins of exposure time in total.
If you don't know anything about astrophotography I'm going to warn you that it is a very expensive hobby and it takes a lot of time to learn how to use the equipment and process the images properly.

The gear I used for this photo:
Sky-watcher Esprit 80, Sky-watcher HEQ5 Pro, ZWO ASI1600MM Pro (monochromatic camera), ZWO Electronic filterwheel, Astronomik LRGB filters, Sky-watcher Evoguide 50ED + ZWO ASI120MM Mini for star guiding for the mount. Also have a lot of specific cables, USB hub and a PegasusAstro power-hub for power distribution. My whole setup is around 6-7k USD (in Norway).

I used a program called Pixinsight (280USD) for the stacking and image processing + some pluggins that were around (150USD). Again pretty expensive, but very fun and rewarding hobby at the same time.

File: 2024-06-08_08-23-47.jpg (1.03 MB, 2036x2048)

1.03 MB JPG

Screw those puny rocks, post your photos of massive galaxies

File: m101.png (2.43 MB, 1289x930)

2.43 MB PNG

>>4322884
I'm not happy with the white balance in my image.

File: PXL_20210616_033431422.NIGHT.jpg (48 KB, 694x925)

48 KB JPG

>>4322884
does this shitty photo of the globular cluster in Hercules count?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:

I just remembered that I bought a light pollution filter after my unsuccessful astro attempt but I never tried to use it. Maybe I'll give that a shot but this is kind of a gear fag hobby

File: M33.jpg (3.45 MB, 4144x2822)

3.45 MB JPG

>>4322884
Sir, Yes sir!

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2021:12:02 22:14:27

Keep photographing comets, that's cool. Don't become a glazy eyed schizo that thinks icy stones millions of miles away in space have any bearing on human politics or history.

File: 1714673501114509.png (122 KB, 365x467)

122 KB PNG

Is this the astro thread? I have a question, I'm kinda new so forgive me if it's dumb. So far I only ever did milky way photography, with the classic rules of high enough ISO but not too much, max aperture or close to it, and 15 or 20sec of exposure depending of the focal length until it starts making trails. Okay, it gives good enough results, not great not terrible.
Then I stumbled onto "stacking" photos. If I get this right, I take a whole lot more of photos, and then stack them in software like Sequator or any equivalent. Meaning I can get less noise as I can use less high ISO. And I assume, I'm also get more light through stacking. Is that right?
My question is about numbers and equivalencies. Let's say we're using a full frame setup : 20mm f1.8 lens. Let's settle for 20sec of exposure at ISO 3200. And let's say I take a picture.
With stacking, how many pictures would I need to take to get the same picture taken above if I change the parameters to ISO 1600? Two pictures? Same question if I use ISO3200 but f2.8. 2 pictures as well? (as, unless I'm wrong, 2.8 gathers 2x less light than f1.8)? And then the combination of, I dunno, f3.5 at ISO 100. I assume I'll have to take 15 pictures or something.
Basically I'm trying to find the "conversion rate", if there's any. If so, stacking means I wouldn't have to buy an expensive wide angle fast lens, but could settle for wide but lest fast,, which is good for hiking. At the cost of staying there in the cold of the night more time that I would with a faster lens.

File: stacking.jpg (109 KB, 694x791)

109 KB JPG

>>4325191
>With stacking, how many pictures would I need to take
More is always better, but it has diminishing returns. For DSO stacking anything over 40 images is almost never worth it imo.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4325191
Like the other anon said: more is better. However keep in mind that the more frames you stack the more imperfections in the light path will be, so unwanted color gradients, dust particles on the lens, distortion and vignetting become very noticeable once you stack them.

So to get rid of these it's important to take calibration frames, flats in particular. Good vs bad flats can make a night and day difference.

If you want get into astro i suggest you take a look at this video, it goes fairly in depth and i found it very helpful starting out.
https://youtu.be/zRp3Qu_0K6o?si=bIbiIoHQspNmruLe

File: 780_1197_135mm_10m.jpg (2.36 MB, 2970x1970)

2.36 MB JPG

>>4317828
>I have been studying alot of ancient history, specifically ancient astronomy.
>I am now certain that all world events can be predicted from studying the skies.
Astrology.

>Anybody here using telescopes to photograph comets?
Yep. This was Hale-Bopp. Photo of the slide I took (digital wasn't around).
Minolta SR-101, 135mm Rokkor, f/5?, ASA 800 Fujifilm, 10 minutes.

File: 1714663059357218.png (1.12 MB, 1920x1080)

1.12 MB PNG

>>4325618
>>4326661
Thanks lads. I'll try to apply this knowledge.

File: DSC_0989_C2020 F3 NEOWISE.jpg (1.31 MB, 3000x2000)

1.31 MB JPG

>>4317828
Comet

File: DSC_0989_finder.png (56 KB, 2300x1220)

56 KB PNG

>>4327204

File: 1696699204162149.gif (594 KB, 320x180)

594 KB GIF

>There are common misconceptions regarding light gathering in photography. I'll first try and clarify light gathering by lenses as it impacts the choice of lenses for night photography.
>Photographers are trained that more light gathering means a faster f-ratio. After all, exposure is directly related to the f-ratio. But f-ratio tells light density in the focal plane, not total light received from the subject. Light gathering from the subject is actually proportional to lens aperture area times exposure time. What this means is that for greater impact with night sky photography, buy the largest aperture lens you can afford. This means the fastest f/ratio in a given focal length. Note, this does not contradict my statement about f/ratio above. For example, a 15 mm f/2.8 lens has an aperture diameter of 15/2.8 = 5.4 mm, an aperture which is smaller than the dark-adapted human eye. A 35 mm f/2.8 lens has an aperture diameter of 35/2.8 = 12.5 mm and collects over 5 times, (12.5/5.4)2 = 5.3, as much light from the subject even though the f-ratios are the same. A 35 mm f/1.4 has an aperture diameter of 35/1.4 = 25.0 mm and collects (25/5.4)2 = 21 times more light than a 15 mm f/2.8 lens. That would be a huge impact in light gathering in night photography when light levels are so low.
https://clarkvision.com/articles/characteristics-of-best-cameras-and-lenses-for-nightscape-astro-photography/

What the fuck, I mean it's obvious when you think about it purely on an optical and physical standpoint, but somehow it feels like everything I thought I knew was a lie, or rather, an oversimplification. I didn't think the light gathering difference would be so massive even when comparing at the same f stop number for different focal lenghts. It makes me rethink the need for ultra wide angle lenses for simple MW photography. Maybe a 24mm f1.8 or f1.4 is actually a better choice than, I dunno, a 16mm f2, at the cost of doing a stitching if I need to get a better composition.

>>4317828
Lol you just realized? What was your first clue?
Mine was the three Zoroastrian priests sent to welcome Jesus when some priest saw signs in the stars that a great one was descending

>>4328138
>I didn't think the light gathering difference would be so massive even when comparing at the same f stop number for different focal lenghts

It's a simple principle and the same idea behind equivalence. 16mm on m43 collects 1/4th the light as 32mm on FF (two stop difference). You can stitch 4 photos on a 32mm lens on m43 to get the same amount of light gathered on FF but honestly stitching is a pain and the stars are streaking and you've got to align that etc. Ignore Roger Clark and just get the fastest lens you can for the field of view you want. In fact, using aperture size is not all that useful for this application even though it is for general astro.

>>4328138
Why does this not happen for me in normal photography? or is it a slight background light thing for deep space imaging, ie: longer lens sees more distant light

>>4328138
Keep in mind the MW stretches across the whole sky. So you could use up to a 180° lens and the differences would be in how thick the band appears on the image.

>>4328170
It does but Clark's thinking doesn't apply to normal photography. Think of using a 50mm for an upper body shot at f/4 and 1/200s. A 100mm lens at f/4 and 1/200s has the same intensity of light but in half the area. With the same exposure time, it's roughly the same number of photons being captured (assuming similar reflectivity for a subject). If you were to take two photos with the 100mm and stitch them together, you get twice the amount of light collected. This is basically impossible for subjects which are moving and stitching introduces a lot of complications (aligning focal node, extra distortion corrections, extra vignetting corrections) etc that make it a bad idea for normal photography. For astro, larger apertures collect more light for a given lens design but even then, stacking, sensor cooling, and tracking mounts with the right or wider field of view are preferable to stitching. Deep sky astro photographers will often image a faint nebula over several days and if they need it sooner, they buy bigger scopes.

For simple MW shots, stitching is dumb. Dunno if even stacking would be worth it but definitely more than stitching.

>>4325191
>Is this the astro thread?
It could be

>>4325618
It looks better if you do a massive stack of thousands of frames from video, that way you can toss up the bad ones and keep only the cream. This process works on the square root of the number of exposures that you stack

>>4328138
My best Astro lens is my 200 mm F 1.8 canon. You should see what the veil nebula looks like with a few Stacks or even the Orion with like 5 minutes of exposure

>>4332270
>>You should see
>Doesn't post image

The eternal question, getting a lightweight travel-hiking friendly small tracker like the recent Move Shot Move Nomad, or invest in pricey and weighty new lenses?
>in b4 "both"
It'll be one or the other, money is finite.
One one hand, a tracker offers lots of possibilities, though to be honest it's overkill as I don't intend to do any deep sky shit. Still, I wouldn't mind getting closer to the galactic core (like I dunno, at 50mm as they're cheap, or 85mm?), and maybe some big ass objects like Orion or Andromeda. Both will still need long fast lenses in the 135mm though.
Or buying faster lenses, both wide (stacking can get the job done though) and long. But even there it's overkill AND more costly. I honestly don't have any use for fastass lenses that need to be closed down a bit to be usable anyways. If I'm doing landscape, I close down anyway. And if I'm doing night cityscape shots, I'm on a tripod at long exposures. For muh borkah I don't need more than a regular 85mm f1.8, and it's already too much borkah for me anyways. Going faster on all my lenses would be a waste of money for my general photography.
There's no good solution, but like 250 bucks into the MSM Nomad could be the cheapest option, contrarily to what I thought at first.

>>4332336
Hm. You couls buy Orion's 80mm refractor on their EQ-1B mount for $150 and add the motor for the mount for another $55 So for $250 (tax? Shipping?) you could have another tripod as ell as a small telescope and the clock drive.
https://www.telescope.com/catalog/product.jsp?productId=117620&src=row1col2-button

>>4332336
>>4332384
P.S. - Motor's on the same page, right column, farther down.

Taking my first shot at Andromeda tonight, just getting started with photography, astro or otherwise.
Wish me luck!

>>4333789
Good luck!
What lens?

File: 1439239858773.gif (330 KB, 255x255)

330 KB GIF

>try the NFP rule which is the new hotness, as the 500 one is quite obviously depreciated with modern cameras
>input my FF camera and 21mm lens settings, and set the rule for very slight acceptable trailing instead of purely strict
>f1.4 gives me 9.09s
>try with f2 because at f1.4 I'll have too much coma
>f2.0 gives me 10.03s
>what
>try f16 for shit and giggles
>gives me 32,49s

Okay what the fuck, and did anybody on the planet check this formula out? Because I can tell you this doesn't make any sense. Even if I could see a star at f16, I won't get acceptable trails with 32 seconds. A dumb 200 or 300 rule or something makes more sense than this.

>>4317828
>I am now certain that all world events can be predicted from studying the skies.
So how come those world events happened?

File: AndromedaCrop.jpg (3.67 MB, 3635x2613)

3.67 MB JPG

>>4322884
You got it, boss

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 25.9 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5737
Image Height	3749
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi
Image Created	2024:07:10 01:54:30
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3635
Image Height	2613

>>4322884
holy shit, nice

>>4320453
>>4328138
really fucking gorgeous, great thread

Ok guys, I need some help.
I'll bump this thread and post shortly.

File: IMG_9058(1).jpg (4.79 MB, 5202x3464)

4.79 MB JPG

regular dude here. I thought it would be cool to try to photograph the perseids last year. I didn't want to spend a bunch of money so I just tried with a basic dslr/lens. I bought an intervalometer with the intention of using deep sky stacker to stack multiple captured meteors in a single image. a very optimistic plan I suppose in hindsight. shoot was only 2 hours or so in two parts due to cloud cover. I learned that the sky is littered with satellites that can ruin a series of shots, and that for great clarity either a motorized tracking camera mount or a great lens needs to be used with a shorter shutter time to minimize smearing of the stars. probably you need both and a moderate shutter speed. I learned that I should not use the little built in lcd to determine shutter speed. also realized I know fuck all about editing. I had some "photography" friends who said it was hard, I should have listened. basically, I found out the hard way how inadequate my equipment was, I would need a significantly more light sensitive lens/aperture. Even in a bortle 2 area, the milky way didn't photograph well, perhaps it was a bad night for it. andromeda showed up better than the milky way, weirdly. it was still a beautiful night. saw a proper fireball as I was setting up, heartbreaker. here's a heavily jpeg'd raw of a meteor I captured...theres also a satellite.

>>4341373
What camera did you get?

>>4341374
my trust ol' canon t3i, this is the stock lens 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6. I shot all the way up at ISO 6400, but I think there's too much noise. maybe I could have lowered the ISO, but I was already pushing it with the shutter time, and would have liked a bit shorter exposure. It turned out that I was a bit in a rush to get shooting. c'est la vie. i was trying to find the jpg output from the camera since it gets rid of a lot of the noise, but couldn't find it. that might tell you something about how often I edit photos.

>>4341374
if I was going to buy a lens, I guess I'd get this: https://rokinon.com/products/14mm-f2-8-full-frame-ultra-wide-angle?srsltid=AfmBOoo6_CjgvwQD7XpucZ8dINEFgP6nNzAE3dzLvrbSY6mOpMAxAkcn

File: SummerTriangle.jpg (608 KB, 1800x1200)

608 KB JPG

>>4341373
>>4341377
Another regular dude here.
Exif in the pic, bottom-left. Original size 6000x4000.
Yeah, your ISO is way too high, but depending on what you want to capture sometimes you just gotta. My camera was riding on top of a telescope with a clock drive, so no streaking. Swapping ISO for time (6 minutes here) is a huge bonus. When stars are sharp, the light concentrates and you get more stars. However, I discovered that this camera's sensor heats up on long exposures, and the brightening/reddening at lower-left is what it does.
An option to mitigate the noise is to take another shot of exact same duration but with the lens cap on. Then you subtract that frame (which has nothing BUT noise) from your photo.

File: IMG_9058_DxO-1.jpg (3.06 MB, 5184x3456)

3.06 MB JPG

>>4341525
It doesn't look so bad after converting it properly from RAW, but ISO would probably still be better lower. I think the sensor overheating is a common problem for this kind of photography.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS REBEL T3i
Camera Software	DxO PhotoLab 7.8
Lens Size	18.00 - 55.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.0.2
Lens Name	EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:07:25 13:06:41
Exposure Time	15 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	6400
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	1.82 m
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	20.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5184
Image Height	3456
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Center-Weighted
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	Manual
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Fluorescent
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	352

>>4341565
!! Way better!

>>4341603
Thanks! I'm going to try again this year, and hopefully get more shots like this that I can stack together. I'll try that lens cap trick as well. I also wanted to try to make a barn door tracker, though I don't know how well that would work for stacking, since the apparent radiant of the meteor would change. That would have to have no foreground if I tried that, which is fine because I don't know if I like it as much as I thought I would.

>>4342011
Hm... I wonder if stacking would erase the meteor streaks as anomalies.

File: Finder.jpg (749 KB, 1500x1000)

749 KB JPG

>>4341565
Pardon my autism

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>4342013
Very possible, just simply inputting them into deep sky stacker didn't seem to work everything was misaligned, I thought this was because of the movement of the sky (perhaps because of parallax)? I only really had the one good shot of a meteor due to short shooting time (clouds)

>>4342024
That's cool, anon. Thanks

File: PXL_20240727_092838070.PO(...).jpg (1.08 MB, 2268x4032)

1.08 MB JPG

First attempt at astrophotography. Of course it's the moon. Shot with a Google Pixel 7 which, as it turns out, have an "astrophotography" automatic setting. I'm just getting started into this hobby with no knowledge in either astronomy or photography. Any advice? Dream telescope is a 12" Dobs

File: IMG_8655_v2.jpg (250 KB, 1620x1080)

250 KB JPG

>>4342372
Your subject is not unique, but your foreground can be. That's where a lot of interesting astro begins. Think of getting some landscape into your foreground in creative ways.

Refractor telescopes can be used as "lenses" (but not reflector) for DSLR/Mirrorless cameras to get incredibly "zoomed" shots without spending $20,000 on a canon L lens. All you need is a T-adapter which for me was like $30.

Wider lenses allow longer exposures which allow more light / better quality shots. Once you hit a certain point, your stars will have tails which make it look less sharp / clean. To avoid, follow the 400 rule (google it). Wider lenses also get more space into your shot which looks good.

You can also embrace the tails you get with long exposures to great effect, by intentionally setting very long exposure times 30m, 1h, even all the way through the night 8h+. This produces shots with a "shape" to them as the Earth rotates on an axis and draws part of a circle in the sky with the stars. Can look amazing but since you need to do very long exposures there's very little room for error in this style. You can spend an entire night / morning on a single shot only to realise the settings weren't dialed in properly or you bumped it in hour 3.

Light pollution is your biggest enemy. If you live in a city, rip. Not to say you can't get decent shots in a built-up area, you're just fighting against it. I live in an area with terrible light pollution, but if I drive 30 minutes away there's practically none. The amount of interesting things you can actually see in the sky is dramatically better in comparion to sitting in a city.

Tripods are your friend. You need one full stop. Pair this with a remote shutter and you're golden. You can also buy very expensive astro tripods that have gimbals and rotate with the earth to completely avoid the stars producing tails. This is endgame kit for getting the cleanest, brightest shots.

Best fun I've had with photography. Good luck.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS R50
Camera Software	digiKam-8.3.0
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.1.0
Lens Name	EF-S24mm f/2.8 STM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1620
Image Height	1080
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	JPEG Compression (Thumbnail)
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:05:29 21:25:59
Exposure Time	10 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	250
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Image Width	1620
Image Height	1080
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
GPS Status	Unknown
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	High
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Medium
Focus Mode	Manual
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Unknown
Macro Mode	Normal
Subject Distance	1.630 m
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	204
Color Matrix	33

File: M57.jpg (1.78 MB, 3000x2000)

1.78 MB JPG

>>4342415
>Refractor telescopes can be used as "lenses" (but not reflector)
So I imagined using a 14" Schmidt-Cassegrain reflector as a 3,910mm f/11 lens on a Nikon D5200 for a 30-second single-shot exposure of M57?

>>4342433
Fuck me, I'm actually misremembering... there's a certain kind of telescope that won't work with it. I swear it was just the cheapest type and I could have sworn that was reflector. I was wrong on that part.

But yes, you did imagine that schizo. Nice pic.

File: 039_R.jpg (384 KB, 1024x768)

384 KB JPG

>>4342450
>it was just the cheapest type
Ah - you must be thinking Dobsonian. This refers to the mount, not the scope itself - the least expensive and easiest to make at home. All Dobs are reflectors because a refractor would be limited to low-altitude objects on a classic Dob mount. Anyway... it's an Alt-Az mount, which means the field of view will rotate in long exposures. They can still be used for shorter exposures, as with solar system objects or bright nebulae. There are two ways to mitigate rotation:
1) Field de-rotator. It's like a star diagonal with a motor what rotates internal mirrors to counter-rotate the effect of Earth's rotation. It's an expensive device (minimum $800).
2) Equatorial hybrid Dob mount. This is basically a Dob mount tilted at the same angle as your latitude. You need to polar align it, and it's hard to do.
Pic related: a large amateur scope (18") on a home-made Dobsonian mount.

>>4342486
Ah, cheerio mate. My telescope knowledge ends pretty quickly. But yeah, that sounds about right. I had a friend that worked at an observatory for a few years and she went far, far down that rabbit hole. She had what I'm guessing was a de-rotator and some fuckoff expensive, super long range telescope she would set up and show me stuff with. Didn't have the kit to take photos with it at the time which is a shame because what she could find was astounding.

I'm currently limited to an Alt-Az w/ 800mm reflector which is basically fuck all, but is still useful to get better reach towards specific objects / nebulae. Not sure if I'm prepared to start emptying my wallet for a long range kit but is certainly something I will get around to.

That's an impressive 18 inches anon.

File: 02_Scopes01.jpg (242 KB, 1024x768)

242 KB JPG

>>4342492
>That's an impressive 18 inches anon.
It is. The guy did a superb job of building the mount. He bought the mirrors already configured. I shot the image at a star party in 2004.
Mine's the black one at right, pointing horizontally. I wanted equatorial.

File: Pan_Scope_Field2.jpg (307 KB, 2050x350)

307 KB JPG

>>4342499
I never really noticed before, but I think the guy front and center with the white scope did the equatorial adaptation. That big silvery disk looks tilted parallel to the equator and I see a pivot bottom-right. Look how my forks are pointed - that's celestial north for the latitude.That's where his axis is pointing, too.
Here's the only other shot I have of it, part of a panorama. The old dudes are checking it out.

>>4342415
Thanks for the advice, senpai. I'll be screen capping this and saving it in my reference folder.

I have a few more questions if you don't mind.
1. How many months/years into amateur basic astrophotography should I do before "jumping the gun" and spending thousands on a larger higher-grade scopes.
2. If you can give a ratio on how much I should allocate my budge for the most "bang for my buck" between telescopes and cameras, what would it be?

>>4343036
NtA, but...
>1. How many months/years
When you feel you're ready and can afford it without hardship.
>2. a ratio on ... telescopes and cameras
I'd lean more heavily on the camera. It's more versatile and likely to get used more often. But maybe you're more interested in visual.
It's up to you to know.

File: starrs.jpg (1.52 MB, 2250x3000)

1.52 MB JPG

Who needs telescopes? Just set 30 second exposure on your iphone and let AIslop do the rest

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2250
Image Height	3000
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: M13.jpg (1.07 MB, 2540x1440)

1.07 MB JPG

>>4343549
>Who needs telescopes?
Those of us who want to see stuff close-up.
Example, pic related: M13 in Hercules.

>>4343580
I'm joking, I'm going to get a Dob eventually, the iphone picks up all these clusters you can't see with the naked eye but I need more.

>>4343586
I'm slow sometimes. I'm one of those socially inept people. Being alone at night in an abandoned field is an appropriate hobby for me.
But nice shot if that's really just an iphone.

File: slightaurora.jpg (1.04 MB, 3000x2250)

1.04 MB JPG

>>4343602
Hey same here. It is just an iphone on a tripod, I was trying to capture the Aurora again last night but it was hardly visible so I settled on the Milky Way.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3000
Image Height	2250
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4343612
Oh! You're in the southern hemisphere!

File: orion_final_file - Copy.jpg (1.16 MB, 2568x1464)

1.16 MB JPG

> is using telescope.live cheating?
Probably, but anyway, practising my post-processing. Astrophotography has a ridiclously steep learning curve.

>>4343580
Amazing

>>4342433
Ring nebula?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>4345107
>Amazing
Thanks!

>>4345107
Yes.

Both taken through
>>4342499
>Mine's the black one at right, pointing horizontally.

>>4345107
Amazing shot yourself!
So the exif is stripped.
What did you use?
Did you travel to a dark-sky site for this?

>>4343087
I wrote another paragraph and then my browser crashed so:
>1.
Entrylevel shit was cheap and got you halfway there. Rest of it is learning, positioning, planning etc. Final 10% requires fancy gear.
>2.
I'm a camera guy first, so: Lens > Camera > Telescope. You may be different. Invest in what you care about most.

File: 1693979038304211.png (822 KB, 448x448)

822 KB PNG

My set up's a bit jank and I'm still very new to this, but I did get some photos of Saturn in spite of humidity

>>4347390
Mmm, the golden onion ring.
Are you shooting after sunset or do you just live in a bit of a humid shithole?

>>4347390
That's pretty darned good for "new to this."

>>4347558
Humid shithole, that and I’m fighting light pollution. I’m usually shooting around 1 am

>>4347576
I’ve been following guides online but I think I can definitely do better. This was not my first attempt by any means, rather the first one that turned out ok

>>4347640
Deep space gets fucky without ideal conditions. There was a more advanced astro nerd in another thread the other day that would know more, but I've tried doing similar stuff and failed many times. Still yet to get anything remotely good since I cant be fucked being up at 5am; I had photos of Venus that came out looking like a yellow smear thanks to the sheer heat coming off Earth 11pm. So much of astro is just planing and conviction.

File: IMG_0201_DxO.jpg (2.38 MB, 5184x3456)

2.38 MB JPG

>>4341565
me again, here's my best shots from the perseids. tips on focusing in the dark would be appreciated

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS REBEL T3i
Camera Software	DxO PhotoLab 7.8
Lens Size	18.00 - 55.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.0.2
Lens Name	EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:08:16 20:12:34
Exposure Time	13 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	1.82 m
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5184
Image Height	3456
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Center-Weighted
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	Manual
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Fluorescent
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	320

File: IMG_9250_DxO.jpg (3.43 MB, 5184x3456)

3.43 MB JPG

>>4349011

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS REBEL T3i
Camera Software	DxO PhotoLab 7.8
Lens Size	18.00 - 55.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.0.2
Lens Name	EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:08:16 19:58:25
Exposure Time	14 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	6400
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	5.27 m
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	23.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5184
Image Height	3456
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Center-Weighted
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	Manual
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Fluorescent
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	352

File: IMG_9566_DxO.jpg (1.95 MB, 5184x3456)

1.95 MB JPG

>>4349012

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS REBEL T3i
Camera Software	DxO PhotoLab 7.8
Lens Size	18.00 - 55.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.0.2
Lens Name	EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:08:16 20:24:42
Exposure Time	6 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	5.27 m
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5184
Image Height	3456
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Center-Weighted
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	Manual
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Fluorescent
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	320

File: IMG_9816_DxO.jpg (1.9 MB, 5184x3456)

1.9 MB JPG

>>4349013

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS REBEL T3i
Camera Software	DxO PhotoLab 7.8
Lens Size	18.00 - 55.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.0.2
Lens Name	EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:08:16 20:06:38
Exposure Time	6 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	5.27 m
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5184
Image Height	3456
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Center-Weighted
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	Manual
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Fluorescent
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	320

File: IMG_9822_DxO.jpg (1.45 MB, 5184x3456)

1.45 MB JPG

>>4349014

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS REBEL T3i
Camera Software	DxO PhotoLab 7.8
Lens Size	18.00 - 55.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.0.2
Lens Name	EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:08:16 20:07:49
Exposure Time	5 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	5.27 m
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5184
Image Height	3456
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Center-Weighted
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	Manual
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Fluorescent
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	288

File: IMG_9896_DxO.jpg (1.06 MB, 5184x3456)

1.06 MB JPG

>>4349015
this is the last one i'll post, there's a bunch of other meteor shots in similar series, but the aurora kind of stole the show.

I still plan on buying a lens with a bigger aperture so I can shoot at lower ISO's. looking at rokinon 14mm f/2.8

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS REBEL T3i
Camera Software	DxO PhotoLab 7.8
Lens Size	18.00 - 55.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.0.2
Lens Name	EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:08:16 20:09:31
Exposure Time	6 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	5.27 m
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5184
Image Height	3456
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Center-Weighted
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	Manual
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Fluorescent
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	288

>>4349015
Based and wrong white balance pilled

File: IMG_9566_DxO-1.jpg (500 KB, 5184x3456)

500 KB JPG

>>4349026
i also like tungsten incandescent for some of these shots, gives it a more natural look with better blues I think.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS REBEL T3i
Camera Software	DxO PhotoLab 7.8
Lens Size	18.00 - 55.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.0.2
Lens Name	EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:08:16 20:53:30
Exposure Time	6 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	5.27 m
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5184
Image Height	3456
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Center-Weighted
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	Manual
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Fluorescent
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	320

>>4349027
>i also like tungsten incandescent for some of these shots
Interesting. Wish I had thought of that when it was displaying.

>>4349026
How the fuck do you 'wrong' white balance a scene when the only illumination isn't even vaguely close to being a neutral tint?

>>4349079
You can change the white balance in post, that's what I did with this >>4349027 one, I shot them all with fluorescent.
>>4349091
If you're saying that the name of the white balance doesnt mean much, at least for astro I've found that to be true. I don't know anything I haven't learned through experimentation though

File: IMG_5154.png (241 KB, 448x448)

241 KB PNG

Got Jupiter this time. Humidity made the color issues tricky but again I’m happy with this initial attempt.

>>4335261
insanely good
jesus fucking christ
>>4347390
>>4350680
great. looks rendered in a good way
love the square crop

File: astronomik_uhc_trans.png (76 KB, 645x438)

76 KB PNG

how far into sharp DSO photos can i reasonably get with this setup? i'm about to buy a house soon so i'm looking at one last big purchase before i turn into hank hill. so far i have everything except and EQ mount and astronomik UHC light pollution filter. astrobin suggests that it's less of a "spend $10k" issue and more of a skill issue

- canon EOD 2000D that i astro modified with an astronomik clear glass filter
- 75-300mm f/4-5.6 kit lens with 58mm aperture
- slik pro 700DX tripod
- Sky-Watcher Star Adventurer GTi Mount Head
- also considering Celestron Advanced VX Equatorial Mount
- astronomik UHC clip-filter (picrel is the transmission curve)

i'm also open to buying a used Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L USM lens but that'd probably limit me to the star adventurer GTi. both mounts are goto and data processing isn't a problem, i have a beefy virtual machine set up for this specific purpose. i'm already skilled at microscope photography, just trying to avoid a situation where i limit myself to only andromeda or something

>>4351426
Should be capable of some good images. I run an Eos77d with an ancient 200mm lens on a Lightrack ii. I get images similar to those of M31 Andromeda and M42 posted earlier (cropped somewhat) after mucking around in Pixinsight.

I occasionally pop an Astronomic UHC-E clip filter in and results from that are mixed. Blue and green channels are much better but I end up with unpleasant red halos around stars which are difficult to process out. I think this is something to do with the thickness of the filter as Astronomik have just released a range of filters using thinner glass.

>>4351502
thanks. i kinda suspected this based on nebula photos, sarah maths, and that channel with the french guy and his short, kinda fat wife (galaxy hunter?) but it helps to have some independent confirmation, and ppl ITT have recommended some great advice before in past months like the AVX. incidentally, there's a teenage girl on astrobin using mediocre gear with no mount at all, producing some rather impressive photos

obviously i still have no EQ mount cuz i'm not gonna drop $1k on a whim, but in the proposed setup, there are probably about 30-50 objects i can reliably get really good photos from. this is going on the youtubers' circlejerk about the 135mm f/2 rokinon with a basic star adventurer 2i tracker. but it's easier to upgrade the rokinon/2i with better gear at the same price point today, which for me is about a $1k limit give or take a few hundred $

it seems like the best option right now might be the EF 200mm f/2.8 L USM lens + star adventurer GTi mount for its sheer versatility. i'm much more interested in having one core photography kit for all domains (astro, micro, normal) centered around a cheap crop sensor and the best quality optics and accessories that vary in quality depending on their importance, with a solid goto mount being more important than a $20 chinkshit intervalometer. same reason i paid extra for a basic nikon labophot 2 but it was fully outfitted with PLAN objectives

portability is also a huge concern, as the closest uncontaminated site to me is either deep in western mass or near the white mountains in NH. while there are some less contaminated spots looking out over nantucket, etc., i'm most likely to image on a camping trip in NH. incidentally, my eclipse trip to st albans, VT was based entirely around camping and we never stayed in an overpriced airbnb. but sadly i didn't think to compare the kit lens vs some random shitty old 400mm lens off ebay so my data is garbage :/

>>4351510
i'm kinda rambling now but it seems entirely possible to get a capable cross-domain specialized photo setup, built up over years, for like $3-4k max, the difference being skill and experience. even just looking at my oldest vs. newest microscope photos on the exact same equipment, the difference is huge. and i haven't even started using siril calibration in microscope photos yet, being too busy with this house business to image pizza ingredients (my current project is to image cheese, salami, sourdough starter, onion, mushroom, tomato, etc.)

>>4351510
My lens was a drunken ebay gamble a while back but has worked out really well (not many around so won't id it and thus myself). It's quite a fast lens but had to 3d print some aperture rings as stars are slightly blobby wide open and I get nasty (almost iron cross) spikes when I rely on the iris... I would like to get hold of a 300mm lens but have teenage kids and an ailing missus to feed, so that can wait.
I couldn't justify a proper mount but did stretch a bit for the lightrack (and later on the counterweight kit). Star hopping to find a target is a PITA but once setup tracks beautifully, if only for 2 hours is before I have to rewind.
I will get a better tripod. Mine wobbles a bit when I try to align the drive.
I'm in southern England and skies aren't great, but I get the odd good night without cloud cover (last year was shit). Sometime I will have to get a proper astrocam and some filters. They're developing in our area and the skies are getting brighter.

>>4351531
lol my lens came from ebay from the UK, total strike-out. the quality is so soft and there are imperfections that have to calibrate out. i wish i just used the kit lens cuz i sourced a good jap-made one

sadly the difference between an 200mm and 300mm L series canon is like $1k+ so it's not worth it for me. i'm in southern new england where it's a cloudy, humid hellscape basically the whole year so i can realistically get like 6 good imaging sessions per year, that may occur on random weekdays in the middle of mud season

the closest 1-hr drive areas to me are in some beach and in north scituate RI, though i can probably get bortle 3 closer or the dark area of south yarmouth on cape if lucky

don't live in civilization, bros

trying to finalize the shopping list. it's easy to see where the gearfag stereotype comes in, with reddit saying "bro just spend $500 more on an HEQ5," when that $500 is the difference for me between f/2.8 and f/5.6

looking into the AVX, it really seems hit or miss as far as quality control goes, and weighs a massive 47 lbs vs 16.2 lbs for the GTi. i'm also not impressed with people's opinions of the EQM-35 and am aware that sky-watcher tends to use shitty grease and bearings, which i can fix

high point has a pretty banged up EQM-35 for cheap but as far as i understand, you can't use it with a dSLR without removing the declination assembly, making it basically an overpriced 2i? also, buying a telescope seems pointless with a $350 used EF 200mm f/2.8 L-series easily beats a $900 redcat 51

so this seems like the best balance of capability and weight on a loose $1k budget:
- Sky-Watcher Star Adventurer GTi Mount Kit ($740)
- Astronomik UHC Clip-Filter EOS APS-C (€116.81)
- used EF 200mm f/2.8 L USM ($350)
- bhatinov mask ($10-20)
- used ipad ($150)

sadly, my existing tripod only has a 5 kg payload capacity. the ipad would be a nice interface to SynScan, stellarium, and astrospheric, as well as being an LED panel for clean flats. i already have a dew heater, camera body, and intervalometer. this setup should unlock at least the messier catalogue, i imagine

>>4351811
oh yeah, i'd also need a vixen dovetail plate with a 3/8" screw sticking out of it to actually mount the telephoto lens ($20-30 on amazon), and maybe a couple of cables and a good power supply for the mount. i already have a USB battery adapter for the camera and a good anker 20k mAh power bank that can power both the camera and dew heater for hours

>>4328138
these extremely autistic articles helped me see the benefits of using a crop sensor with the widest aperture lens as being a good value solution, considering the inherent risk of ruining a $1k+ full-frame camera vs a $250 crop sensor to modify it. and the pre-modded (really just lacking the normie filter) EOS Ra, if you can even find it, is like $3k. but there's no free lunch, as the higher pixel density increases noise because each pixel's signal : noise ratio is worse

this can mostly be calibrated out, obviously, but the net result is more noise and a lower limit on aperture diameter. that being said, i appreciate the crop sensor's higher effective focal length vs the full frame, again at the expense of more noise distributed through the frame vs concentrated at the edges, which would be cropped out anyway

that's my train of thought, and i'd probably be looking to upgrade my camera body to full-frame at some point within 5 years. i just checked on ebay and 30 MP full-frame bodies are going for $500-1k, which was not the case when i bought my camera. at that time they were like $2.5k or so

>>4328138
because normally photography works in terms of scene exposure, not light gathering.

the wider angle, smaller aperture lens has the same fstop because its gathering a wider field of light and therefore the same intensity, but it's not more light from the subject unless it gets close enough (inverse square law says get closer for more light). launch your 15mm f2.8 into space, easy!

>>4351825
https://www.ebay.com/itm/335545635663
https://www.digicamdb.com/specs/canon_eos-r5/

45 MP canon EOS R5 going for $500 if anyone's in the market right now. it's not the most amazing camera in the world, but received wisdom is that if you're gonna spend big bucks, spend it on the optics and mount, not the camera itself. i wouldn't be surprised if these were going for half the price in a few years, putting it on par with my $250 used EOS 2000D

>>4351832
This is a scam you fool

Go ahead and buy it. Get your delivery notification but no package. Have fun spending a month proving the package went to another address. They probably thew it away because they’re just boxes weighed down with bags of dirt. If you dont act FAST you have very little recourse.

>>4351833
really? i can kinda see it, but this one definitely set off my scam detector ($80 OBO "new"):
https://www.ebay.com/itm/365082539147

but then here's something comparable from a chink transplant:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/145517246168

and something from a guy selling off his gear:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/204876381115

dunno, there's this weird space in ebay between total randos and mega stores that's elusive but comfy, usually populated by individual people who sell off personal possessions cheap, or running small side business. still speaks to my point that used camera bodies are coming down in price and that you don't need the best camera if you're gonna sacrifice on glass

>>4317828
oh yeah, I’ve been studying a lot of recent history, and I am now certain that your capacity for intelligence and sentience can be determined by the shape and ridges in your skull.

And judging by this post, you are a pinhead.

>>4351842
The account has had no activity for over a year and now they have an r5 for 1/4 the fmv? Scam.

>>4351889
fair enough, i'm not gonna fight cuz you're probably right and i have more important things to worry about. my mistake, maybe full-frame sensors aren't going for $500 after all

>>4341373
what you got here is still nothing short of amazing. i salute your quest anon

>>4349011
these are fucking breathtaking anon. whatever you are doing, keep doing it

File: post-312934-0-28608600-15(...).jpg (246 KB, 967x720)

246 KB JPG

i've been studying this guy's setup from cloudy nights, trying to get a feel for how everything would fit together before actually spending any money. originally i was just gonna do 3-star alignments on a GTi via SynScan and use a manual intervalometer, but people say the SynScan app sucks ass and that 5' exposures are pretty much the GTi's limit with perfect alignment and balancing

it seems like adding a guidescope/camera as pictured and running everything off astroberry is an affordable way to push the limits of the GTi while still maintaining a high degree of portability. i could also wirelessly control everything via a cheap used ipad that doubles as an LED panel for flat frames, which based on my solar experience, are the most important calibration frames and the hardest to get right

so for this i'd be looking at maybe:
- iOptron iGuider package ($233)
- or a similarly priced ZWO option
- RPi 5 ($80 max), GPS hat ($30), and maybe a case ($20)
- cheaper than an asiair mini ($200) at the expense of power output
- could downgrade to an RPi 4 and use my 9V/3A anker battery

also, clicking "random page" on the astroberry wiki leads to some very odd spam. i was originally hoping they'd have a guide about controlling an EQ mount and dSLR:
https://www.astroberry.io/docs/index.php?title=7_Ways_To_Buying_Surgical_Supplies_And_Anesthesia_Equipment_Online

>>4352152
also, this guy is using the same exact tripod i already have (slik 700DX pro) with the star adventurer GTi:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlutuMZkVWo

it's rated at a 5kg payload capacity, but i dunno if that's with the legs fully extended. it's a pretty good tripod, so maybe i can save $100 by buying just the GTi head and keeping it low? i already expect to use a bear can as a stool anyway

>>4349011
>tips on focusing in the dark would be appreciated
Looks like you've got that pretty well dialed in. I pick the brightest object up (in your shot, Jupiter), center it, use live view, set the lens zoom to the field I want, digitally zoom in to manually focus, then back to frame the sky.
In you particular shot, it apparent the camera shifted position slightly during exposure as there are doubles of almost everything.
Your lens looks great - almost no coma except for a hint of it at top-right. I have no lens so good.

File: shoemakerLevy9.jpg (258 KB, 1600x1200)

258 KB JPG

i posted this before, but one of neighbors got a shot of shoemaker-levy 9 about to crash into jupiter in the mid '90s. pretty interesting piece of astronomic history cuz nobody has ever observed a crash like this in the history of the species. also, the fact that he got such high planetary resolution on earth with '90s tech is technically impressive. the lighting artifacts are from my lamp/daylight, not inherent to the image itself. this is one of my favorite photos of all time

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1600
Image Height	1200

File: shoemakerLevy9-front.png (2.75 MB, 6002x4768)

2.75 MB PNG

>>4352289
here's a hi-res copy, i remembered that my brother gave me a good scanner/printer from his workplace. incidentally a brother brand device

>>4350680
>>4347390
honestly, the fact that you're getting such good resolution of such relatively fast moving objects like planets is a big feat. it's pretty wild that your 1st attempt can exceed a professional amateur astronomer with 5 years' experience a mere 2 decades in the future. keep at it and you'll do great things for sure

>>4352302
>fast moving objects like planets
???

File: IMG_2306.jpg (216 KB, 1284x432)

216 KB JPG

>>4352462
>>4352462
Did you think they’re just stuck in place up there or something, Timmy?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	216 dpi
Vertical Resolution	216 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1284
Image Height	432

File: IMG_9538.jpg (610 KB, 1600x1200)

610 KB JPG

>>4351811
>>4352152
the tripod in this configuration should be more than stable enough for GTi mount, no? it actually seems better than the sky-watcher tripod that comes with the mount. the legs are about 32" apart. are there any clearance issues i have to worry about with it being so low to the ground? the older version of this lens is only 5.4" max length:
https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/ef-200mm-f-2-8l-ii-usm

so the optical train would be, from front to back:
- 200mm f/2.8 L-series
- atronomik UHC clip-filter
- canon 2000D full-spectrum mod
- iOptron guide scope/camera bundle

cabling and connectivity is still confusing but it may look like:
- 2.5mm jack from main camera to mount SNAP port
- USB to telephone jack (?) from guide camera to mount AUTO GDR port
- USB type B to USB-3 type A from mount to astroberry
- use the RPi's 2x USB-2 ports for 2 dew heaters
- power the RPi off a power bank via USB-C
- power the mount off AA batteries
- power the camera dummy battery via power bank
- control it with an ipad connected to astroberry AP
- i may need a 2nd power bank or preferably a real portable station

does this make sense as a comprehensive look at a budget beginner setup that punches above it's price/weight class? i have an email in with high point trying to make sense of it all before i buy random shit that doesn't work together

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1200
Image Height	1600
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: Smartass.jpg (54 KB, 439x475)

54 KB JPG

>>4352483
On a scale of exposing a picture, planets move very little differently than the whole sky. If you're using a clock drive for taking images, planets will appear stationary for orders of magnitude longer than require exposure time.
Your concept of planets moving any faster than the rest of the sky for imaging is simply retarded. In fact, while in prograde motion, planets have a slower angular velocity than the rest of the sky.

>>4352626
high point got back to me and basically said i was right on the money, except i underestimated my power needs. so i'd prolly need a $100 anker device with enough wattage and amperage to do the job, prolly using my existing power bank to fill the gap and maybe even a portable solar panel i have but never actually used

so it seems like a reasonably good widefield 200mm DSO astro setup with extra features like software controlled autoguiding and GoTo functionality, can be had for $1.5-1.8k, in a form factor light enough to pack into a duffel bag and carry into the mountains

the autoguiding itself is a luxury mostly to push the setup to its limits and take full advantage of a mini computer like an astroberry. if i could get say 10-12 hrs of light frames with 5' exposures and a 25% reject rate, that's a lot of good data for a weekend camping under dark skies

that's not a terrible price considering my used microscope, camera adapter, various filters, and consumables like slides, glycerin, and kimtech mounts cost maybe $750 total. and over $500 of my astro budget is unnecessary luxuries but definitely nice to have

>>4352790
well, after going through every aspect with high point, i'm ready to click a button a watch a large amount of money leave my bank account when i'm sober, and after about a year of virtual gearfagging i can soon take some heckin photorinos. i have a reasonably accurate idea of this system's limits and especially its cost effectiveness, and am confident that it won't be obsolete even if i had a massive planewave telescope in a private observatory, since being able to pack up and go off grid to katahdin is better. i also have a clear idea of what transfers over to some hypothetical permanent setup and what's necessary vs. a luxury. for what it's worth, high point didn't try to aggressively sell me stuff, which is a refreshing change from youtubers saying "you can totally do astro on a $2k budget, BUT here's this $10k gadget someone lent us for free and it's better than indoor plumbing and the smallpox vaccine combined, so you need to buy it right now"

>>4352699
>>4352302
To be honest with you both, I genuinely believe planetary photography is much easier than deep space. My set up is jank and the precision required is so much less than that of what you need to get some of the nice images from earlier in the thread.

I have a cheap camera mounted and wired to my laptop using default software, and just manually keep the planet in view with an alt as mount, not using any guiding software. Yes, the planet does move relatively fast across the sky but as long as I keep it in frame it work out. I then just take the video I recorded for 1-2 minutes and stack the good frames of it together.

I appreciate the positive feedback though. I tried to get some more images earlier this week but again the humidity is ruining the quality.

File: F4OoZgiqliNz_16536x0_ieTZ0INm.jpg (2.18 MB, 1880x1988)

2.18 MB JPG

necrobumpo

the astro community is the most horrendous i've seen online. i'm out of it entirely before starting

>>4358781
>most horrendous
What does that even mean?

>>4358795
the greatest in amount, quantity, or degree of something extremely unpleasant, horrifying, or terrible. tl;dr boomers

>>4358846
>unpleasant, horrifying, or terrible
Such as?

I just bought a redcat 51. I still need to get a tracker and I’ll be set to start looking for aliens

File: PXL_20240912_100413126.NI(...).jpg (4.86 MB, 6045x7036)

4.86 MB JPG

Was messing around on my new Pixel 9 Pro early this morning and I've fallen in love with Astrophotography, but as a student poorfag I can't really drop anything more than a grand on a beginner setup. I'd like to start taking closer shots of galaxies and gas giants, but I'm unsure if this would be out of reach on such a reprehensible budget. I also know basically nothing about photography as well, I'm entirely dependent on AIslop for good photos. I'm going to start learning on my own, but if any anon can point me in the direction of proper guides/education I would be insanely grateful.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Google
Camera Model	Pixel 9 Pro
Camera Software	HDR+ 1.0.668722126nl
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	12 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:12 05:04:13
Exposure Time	16.0 sec
F-Number	f/1.7
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	1907
Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Brightness	-11.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	Infinity
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	2.02 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	6144
Image Height	8160
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio	1.4
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

File: PXL_20240912_093226410.NI(...).jpg (4.79 MB, 5381x5543)

4.79 MB JPG

>>4359179
light pollution bump as well

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Google
Camera Model	Pixel 9 Pro
Camera Software	HDR+ 1.0.668722126nl
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:12 04:32:26
Exposure Time	16.0 sec
F-Number	f/1.7
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	2670
Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Brightness	-12.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	Infinity
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	6.90 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	6144
Image Height	8160
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

>>4359180
I'm not so sure that's light pollution.
Dig into it - I think this is zodiacal light.
Congrats, if so.

>>4359255
nope, that is part of winter milky way

>>4359265
Ah - I see now. Basicallyu Lacerta, Cygnus, with some Andromeda, Cepheus...

File: PXL_20240912_082839006.NI(...).jpg (3.95 MB, 8160x6144)

3.95 MB JPG

>>4359255
>>4359265
>>4359273
I heed my ignorance to these astronerds. Does this look like light polution?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Google
Camera Model	Pixel 9 Pro
Camera Software	HDR+ 1.0.668722126nl
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:12 03:28:39
Exposure Time	16.0 sec
F-Number	f/1.7
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	793
Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Brightness	-10.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	Infinity
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	6.90 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	8160
Image Height	6144
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

>>4359273
MFers I signed up for an Astronomy minor, started with a 101 class by a hot shit new prof that started with calculating the density, type, age, mass, and energy/mass loss of distant stars, and did another 6 semesters of that shit. Never once did I get anything like the interesting tour of the galaxy I was hoping for, and I have no fucking idea looking at the sky where anything is or what I'm looking at and I was never interested in reading another thing on the subject again. I know Andromeda is close but only from watching the Andromeda Strain as a kid. I have no fucking idea what any of you are talking about and it makes me very sad, bc I loved the idea of this stuff as a kid.

>>4359390
Get thee to ebay.
Search for H.A. Rey's "The Stars: A New Way to See Them" (author of the Curious George series) - get a used one for about $4.
>https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=the+stars+rey+-wars&_sacat=267&_sop=15
He makes it really easy to learn the sky.
It helps if you're in a light-polluted area to have small, wide-field binoculars.

>>4359370
>Does this look like light pollution?
Not really, but I can't offer any other ideas. It's very strange to have a spot high up lit up like that. It's either a large portion of the sky from someplace along the horizon (liek toeards a city from outside), or it's all over (you're within the city's light dome).
Another guess is your camera has vignetting issues.

File: 1698445047304758.gif (1.12 MB, 200x174)

1.12 MB GIF

>>4359179
maybe on used equipment you can get the stuff you need: the cloudynights classifieds, astromart, or astro buy sell or all decent places to get used stuff. Ebay can work as well, and sometimes you can get lucky on facebook marketplace.

Generally though, if you're getting all new gear a basic set up for anything dep sky gets close to 2 grand. You can take about $5-600 off that total if you already have a decent DSLR camera, which it looks like you might.

At this point you need a mount, scope, and something to run it all.
The mount is the hardest part. They rarely go up used and are expensive. You'll want one that supports about 11 lbs. You can usually get a decent one for about $3-400, but you'll need to get a tripod to go with (but that's easier and cheaper). Some come with one.
The scope is easier, you can find a decent one used most of time as people are always upgrading and trying to sell off their old ones. A small refractor works well, get one made for photography. I got a Williams Optics redcat and that shit is amazing. Realistically, you should be able to get a serviceable scope for about $500.
You can use a phone, tablet, or laptop generally to run most of these things, just be ready to have some jank and work through some tech pains. If you already have a laptop you're for sure set on that.

Lastly comes the bullshit little things I forgot about the first time I tried to do it all. Something to attach the camera to the scope. A power source if you're driving out (a cheap camping battery works). The rest you can improvise or work around.

>>4359526
nvm saw the pixel 9 pro part mb, you'll need a cam

>>4359427
>The Stars: A New Way to See Them
Thank you. On my way.

File: 1726139951847337.jpg (256 KB, 1240x1040)

256 KB JPG

>>4359179
My brother-in-law introduced me to this scope he was interested in buying. It's an imager - you don't look through it, so I'm not interested at all. But if you're into getting images, it's an economical ($600) solution, but I haven't seen it in action. They have several facebook groups with spectacular images. I have have a hard time believing it, but they seem to be end users so... maybe.
https://www.seestar.com/

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>4359526
yes, i'd say just buy the cheapest used DSLR possible, the best L-series lens he can afford (200 mm 1st gen L-series prime is $350 used on ebay), and budget for a GoTo star tracker as a nice middle ground between a cheap-ass 2i or a $2k+ EQ mount that holds a gorillion lbs. asiair mini is $200 extra, autoguiding is another $200 or so, factor in another $100-200 for misc accessories like vixen dovetails n dew heaters n shiet, and unless he's tethered to mains he def wants a battery that delivers 12V/5A DC output (another $300), shit adds up fast

i'd also strongly recommend against using cloudy nights for anything but the classifieds, you don't want to ask them for advice, because it's a boomer consoomer forum not a citizen science one and the answer is always gonna be, "the hobby's so expensive so just spend an extra $500." also, do NOT in any way ever suggest that spending less than $5,000 is a good idea, you've been warned

>>4359815
i'd go so far as to say that if you're not using cloudy nights exclusively to sell products and services, you're using the site wrong. it's kinda like reddit in that it's a content marketing platform not a real forum, except you have a captive niche audience who thinks nothing of spending the average wagie's monthly paycheck on some meme like a chinkshit strain wave mount. in fact, my singular goal for that site is to shill a patreon where i'll publish guides on advanced data processing topics

File: PXL_20230630_110952615.NIGHT~4.jpg (1.12 MB, 2268x3779)

1.12 MB JPG

I assume the Pixel phone series also uses image stacking but does anyone know how many images in the astrtophotography mode are stacked in the 4 mins while it is shooting?

I just recently bought a dslr so most of my shots of stars were shot with my old pixel 6 pro but now that i have a proper camera, i want to recreate those shots but better.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Google
Camera Model	Pixel 6 Pro
Camera Software	HDR+ 1.0.540104767nl
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.9
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2268
Image Height	3779
Image Created	2023:06:30 16:37:32
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
ISO Speed Rating	1762
Exposure Program	Normal Program
F-Number	f/1.9
Exposure Time	16.0 sec
Subject Distance Range	Macro
Sharpness	Normal
Focal Length	6.81 mm
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Subject Distance	0.27 m
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Image Height	4032
White Balance	Auto
Brightness	-11.4 EV
Image Width	2268
Exposure Mode	Auto
Lens Aperture	f/1.9
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Custom

File: PXL_20240912_095724050.NI(...).jpg (4.72 MB, 4147x5508)

4.72 MB JPG

>>4359526
Thanks for all the information, I figured as much that it would be 2 grand plus, still achievable, just need to save. Just bought a DSLR tripod that also has a phone holder attachment, it arrived today. I'm having plenty of fun with my Pixel still. Planning to get a DSLR next, and then learn the device as well as practicing some better photography technique. In time I'll have everything you mentioned I believe. Thanks again for the advice

>>4359579
I'll have to check this out, thanks. How do you become so adept at spotting constellations btw, is it just pattern recognition gained over time spent in the hobby? To me it just looks like a fucking mess lol.

>>4360224
I believe it's 16 x 16 second exposures AI slopped together.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Google
Camera Model	Pixel 9 Pro
Camera Software	HDR+ 1.0.668722126nl
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:12 04:57:24
Exposure Time	16.0 sec
F-Number	f/1.7
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	4095
Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Brightness	-12.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	Infinity
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	6.90 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	6144
Image Height	8160
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

>>4360286
>How do you become so adept at spotting constellations btw,
I search around for a familiar pattern somewhere. In that picture, it was the head of Draco at the bottom that caught my eye. Then I worked my way from there and frankly had to use software to help me along. I use an old Windoze 3.1 version of Chris Mariott's "SkyMap" because it's portable - no install needed. It's MUCH easier out under the real stars. For one thing, I know where I am, what direction I'm facing, what time of year, what time of night, you don't see nearly as many confusing stars as a photo shows, and the differences in brightness are more obvious.

File: Cassiopeia.jpg (4.77 MB, 5255x3956)

4.77 MB JPG

>>4360295
Nice. I went out to my spot again early this morning. I've committed myself to learning one constellation each time I do. I believe I've found Cassiopeia in this photo, with the Andromeda Galaxy circled as well. Can any starfag confirm?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Google
Camera Model	Pixel 9 Pro
Camera Software	HDR+ 1.0.668722126nl
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:15 05:28:36
Exposure Time	16.0 sec
F-Number	f/1.7
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	3779
Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Brightness	-12.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	Infinity
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	6.90 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	8160
Image Height	6144
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

File: PXL_20240915_110008717.NI(...).jpg (4.98 MB, 8160x6144)

4.98 MB JPG

>>4360383
^ Fresh meteors for your efforts

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Google
Camera Model	Pixel 9 Pro
Camera Software	HDR+ 1.0.668722126nl
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:15 06:00:08
Exposure Time	16.0 sec
F-Number	f/1.7
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	2078
Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Brightness	-11.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	Infinity
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	6.90 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	8160
Image Height	6144
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

File: map.png (51 KB, 1333x1085)

51 KB PNG

>>4360383
Yep. You got that right. Something like pic related.
And I'm pretty sure your lens is what's giving you the bright center.

File: 1726403040505302.jpg (1.26 MB, 2000x1505)

1.26 MB JPG

>>4360383
>>4360408

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>4360385
>Fresh meteors
Not to be a buzzkill but those are satellites.

>>4360736
I'd bet the one at right is a meteor.

File: Iridium 80.gif (821 KB, 1330x840)

821 KB GIF

>>4360744
That one is just flaring.

>>4360748
Could be... though Iridium might not be a good example as they're all de-orbited.

File: SkyTonight.jpg (482 KB, 2560x1440)

482 KB JPG

Was out looking for aurora tonight. Too much moonlight, too much thin cloud lit up by it, missed the peak. dammit

File: mg.jpg (3.69 MB, 4000x6000)

3.69 MB JPG

boomping for mein astrobros

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:04 23:10:28
White Point Chromaticity	0.3
Exposure Time	25 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Lens Aperture	f/inf
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: IMG_5214.jpg (2.36 MB, 4096x2734)

2.36 MB JPG

Tried deep sky stuff for the first time

Photoshop did most of the heavy lifting

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4096
Image Height	2734
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4351993
>>4351994
thanks man, I just bought a new lens, so I will eventually post again with (hopefully) sharper and brighter stars

File: flare.webm (2.41 MB, 480x570)

2.41 MB WEBM

Big flare inbound for tomorow
I hope you guys get lucky and see auroras

>>4369050
Yeah I just saw the news, I'll keep checking tonight and hoping that the skies stay clear

>>4369050
>>4369056
Also check:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/

File: GZOO8kDWYAEpQwY[1].jpg (4.11 MB, 3000x2001)

4.11 MB JPG

Looks like there's a comet that's been visible for a while in the southern hemisphere that will be visible in the northern hemisphere starting from this Sunday, and it's supposedly the best day to see it. Though thorough the week it'll still be good. Supposedly it's very bright and has a nice tail, a once-in-a-few-decade comet. Pic of it.
Unfortunately I live a few kilometers away south of Paris, I guess I'm fucked but then again those are very bright objects, I might try my luck. Surely the camera sensor will manage something. I won't be able to go far away from the city and all the other cities in the surroundings, unfortunately.

https://x.com/Komet123Jager/status/1842973870103683516
https://x.com/StarWalk/status/1842485284253921714

>>4372788
I've been waiting for it to show up, but it's been cloudy non-stop here in Jura. I wonder what size this thing has, best I've got is a rather dark 300 mm lens.
My understanding though is that the comet is starting to be visible and will be easier and easier to see until oct 25th, one need to look for it right after sunset.

>>4372792
Noice, a frogbro. I fear the moon going gradually full will fuck up observation though. A second sun in the skies never helps.

>>4372793
The moon is a meme unless there's some high mist scattering the light everywhere

File: Oct22.png (26 KB, 1691x819)

26 KB PNG

>>4372793
By my reckoning, the comet will reach greatest eastern elongation on the 22nd, +/- a day.
The Moon will be Full on the 17th, and waning gibbous on the 22nd - wholly out of the way.

File: image.jpg (2.05 MB, 4000x2670)

2.05 MB JPG

>>4372788
I tried taking a few pictures of it this evening, here's a first shot. It was quite cloudy unfortunately, thus the comet was slightly fainter than it should be

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D750
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 25.0 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	1086
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	6016
Image Height	4016
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Unknown
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:10:14 23:32:58
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4000
Image Height	2670
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: Serie144_018.jpg (2.39 MB, 2996x2000)

2.39 MB JPG

Here's another one

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D750
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.0 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	844
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:10:14 23:51:26
Exposure Time	10 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4373885
Fug wrong monitor profile, shit looks as if ken rockwell tried doing astro

File: DSC_0187 .jpg (3.72 MB, 6000x4000)

3.72 MB JPG

there was some kind of haze in my area

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3400
Camera Software	paint.net 5.0.13
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	14352
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	105 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:10:14 19:54:09
Exposure Time	6 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	70.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: moon bottom 3-2021 resize.png (601 KB, 960x540)

601 KB PNG

>>4317828
I thin I can help with this. I'm drunk so take everything I say with a grain of salt. The best thing you're going to need is a telescope that is a light bucket and a purpose built camera. If you live in a city oyu are fucked. You will need to drive out to hte country to avoid light pollution. I would recommend a dobsonian scope at least 8 inches in diameter but if you have a big car and lots of strength maybe a 10 or 12 inch. the wider the mirror the better. You need to gather as much light as possible not zoom in. Zooming in telescopes are for gay virgin planet shooters and everyone knows that planets are the gayest thing to photograph. Can you imagine? You can already see them with your eyes what do you need to photograph them for?

Anyway, get a big dob, and then get a purpose built astrophotography camera. I recommend chinese shit because they are fine and the same as expensive pro gear. I like the company SVBony. If you want to be autistic about it you will need a mono-color camera and a color wheel to shoot in color. If you are lazy you can get a color CMOS and enjoy your lower resolution. I just got a color CMOS and dealt with it. Then you take your exposure- preferably a lot of them, and then use a program like Autostakkert to stack the photos into a high-detail composite.

Enjoy taking your photos. PROTIP: If you are truly interested in predicting events by the stars I recommend you read "Helenistic Astrology" by Brenan to start yourself out on the divination of Astrology, and then learn how to read star charts you look up with an astrology augur. If you are looking for an augur program I recommend ASTROLOG32 from the Altervista website but this has nothing to do with photography and more to do with /lit/ garbage.

With this knowlege you'll be shooting the stars in no-time, and by that I mean you'll be letting your camera collect dust because actually viewing through a 23mm Plössl glass is more fun than spending thousands on a photo setup.

>>4374001
Gotta say... this is the first time I've heard an amateur astronomer talk competently about astro equipment, then completely blow his cred with shitposting about astrology.

>>4373894
That 50mm is good enough wide open for nighttime landscape photography. What is it?

>>4374001
fuck that shit, if he wants to photograph comets then a dslr camera, a 100-400mm lens and a startracker like a star adventurer gti is all he needs. If he wants to shoot nebulae and galaxies and shit then an alt/az dob is gonna suck ass due to the alt/az guiding. For long exposures you need equatorial mounts.

Specifically for comet A3 which is visible now you literally only need a smartphone. A DSLR with a stock 18-55mm lens makes even greater photos of the comet and the long tail. It is my no means an object which requires specialized equipment. However, not all comets are equally bright and close, and the vast majority can not be captured by just a small 18-55mm lens. Most of the time you need atleast a couple hundred mm of focal lenght and long exposures >30s to capture them.

>>4374531
>if he wants to photograph comets then a dslr camera, a 100-400mm lens and a startracker like a star adventurer gti is all he needs
The cost of a DSLR vs a dedicated astro-camera for what you are going to be able to do with it, the astro-camera is a better value, especially considering taking long-exposure and multi-capture/video for stacking, astro-cameras have built in fans for cooling (the more expensive ones) and give you a higher level of detail because Mono-color CMOS censors will capture more light at a higher resolution than color CMOS- You're losing detail because you're trying to capture colors you don't need. You'll get better results with a color-filter wheel on a B&W sensor. The only benefit of a DSLR is you can use it for other things and someone might have one already. Sure, comets and other larger phenomena can be shot with a DSLR but only if you already have one so it's not spending to buy a camera like that JUST for photographing stars. A garbage reflector with a cheap chinese B&W astro-cam will take better pictures at a better cost than whatever DSLR you have.
>shit then an alt/az dob is gonna suck ass due to the alt/az guiding
Now that I'm not drunk I agree with you, Meant to say Newtonian mounted on equatorial I mistakenly call all cheap reflectors "Dobs" when that's a specific kind on a specific mount.
>>4374421
Dumb newspaper woman astrology about "omg money will come your way this week, don't talk to mean people!" is all made up garbage. Astrology at a grand-scale for divination, planning, and other non-specific occurrences I have found to have truth to it.

>>4374570
>The cost of a DSLR vs a dedicated astro-camera for what you are going to be able to do with it, the astro-camera is a better value

Absolutely true. However it is far more likely that people have DSLR cameras laying around as opposed to astro cams, not knowing they can use them for astrophotography. Obviously if you want to go hard on the hobby, by all means dedicated astro cam all the way. Shit now im questioning if i should go one shot color or mono w/filterwheel. The filters are just so god damn expensive...

>>4374657
There's two problems with this way of thinking. The first is that while people are far more likely to already have a DSLR, the DSLR they have is going to take absolutely dogshit astrophotos for the most part. Assuming they have a wide enough lens to get anything good, they could spend the money on a telescope. Also, if you have a smaller scope (sub-6in) and are using a standard 1 1/4" Eyepiece there's a really good chance that the focusing assembly will push the camera back too far, so far you won't actually be able to get a picture in a DSLR. This is not a problem with an Astro-cam because it is purpose built. 2" Eyepiece focuses and 1 1/4" with helical focusers don't seem to have as much of a problem, but most people don't have that big of a scope lying around.

File: DSC_0591_M13.jpg (1.26 MB, 3000x2000)

1.26 MB JPG

>>4374657
>>4374748
I have to say, I'm rather disappointed that no-one ever commented on my comet photo.
>>4327204
For the record, it was taken through a 3,910mm f/11 Schmidt-Cassegrain at prime focus using a t-adapter and T-ring, using a Nikon D5200 exposed for 20 seconds at ISO1600 under a Bortle 8 sky. It's resized to half dimensions (quarter area), and slightly edited gamma, hence the loss of exif.
I happen to think this is a fairly good shot for a relatively inexpensive prosumer-level DSLR camera that I can use for a wide variety of photography, though I acknowledge astro cameras (we used to call them "CCDs") yield far superior results. But at that point I'd rather let gearheads spend time and money making the good shots of stuff I'll never see with my eyes - it'll only ever show up on screens anyway.
Here's another - M13. Same sky, again resized, 15-second ISO 1600 exposure. Nice thing is, when you look through the scope, this IS what it looks like.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D5200
Camera Software	Ver.1.03
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	38420
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2020:06:24 23:01:12
Exposure Time	25 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Exposure Bias	-1/3 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: UnrelatedCorrelation.jpg (89 KB, 2080x820)

89 KB JPG

>>4374570
>Astrology at a grand-scale for divination, planning, and other non-specific occurrences I have found to have truth to it.
Do tell.

>>4374758
>3910mm f/11
What is that, a 14" scope? That's got to be fuckin' huge. You must be taking this shit pretty seriously to have such a klt.
I don't get the hype between the whole "you can't really see this" stuff. I'd much rather just see it as reality intended. I can use AI and heavy photoshoping to get unrealistic views.
This kind of medium/deep space shit is fantastic. I don't need it to be crystal clear, or absurdly detailed; this is shit that is unfathomably far away from us and we get to look at and take photos of it as if it was just upstairs from our kitchen. Berry gud.

File: Saturn.jpg (13 KB, 640x480)

13 KB JPG

>>4374798
>What is that, a 14" scope?
Good sleuthing, yes!
I've been an avid stargazer for my whole life. For me it's mostly about getting familiar with the sky and the hunt for new objects. I eschew computer guidance.