File: A6605933.jpg (157 KB, 945x531)

157 KB JPG

I dunno, lol.

I think it looks nicer under exposed a bit.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6600
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.38
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	202 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:17 23:19:23
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	2.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Daylight
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	135.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	945
Image Height	531
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: A6605935.jpg (130 KB, 945x531)

130 KB JPG

>>4361303
Same settings except with longer ss. I prefer the former, I think.

With a far-away object, f/11 or f/18 is probably not necessary, unless that’s the true sweet spot of the lens for sharpness. If the true sweet spot is, say, f/6.3 then shooting at that wider aperture would allow faster shutter speed

You want to stay below f/16 otherwise diffraction will result in reduced sharpness. Around f/8 should be good. ISO as low as possible, shutter speed as high as possible, mirror lock-up and either use a remote release or the self timer.

>>4361300
These are not the best settings you utter newb.

>>4361300
f8 and be there!!

Would buying an entry level telescope + adapter or some kind? cost less and produce better pictures than a $1000 super zoom?

>>4361607
no

File: RAW_2023_09_27_20_14_05_9(...).png (2.05 MB, 1672x1672)

2.05 MB PNG

>>4361607
Yes
Plus stacking a video footage using pipp and autostakkert
Picrel was made with my phone

>>4361646
Neat. I'll check it out, thanks.

Would a burst of photos taken with the electronic shutter be clearer / less compressed than a video though?

>>4361607
Maybe. Telescopes will be far far cheaper than camera lenses, but you will have a comparatively slow aperture and the glass sharpness won't typically be up to scratch. Its perfectly serviceable on a budget but you are still going to want some decent mounts as with such a high zoom your shutter speed can only go so far.

>>4361750
yeah
but idk if that would fuck with the shutter, but if it doesnt ,thatd be best
I'd suggest buying a 5inch newtonian telescope
I made this one with a 80mm refractor so I think a newtonian around this size would do a better job for the same price