Previous Thread: >>4408437My astronomy club is doing an outreach on smart telescopes in a few more months so I decided it pick up an S30. Its been delightful so far; setup is a breeze compared to my primary rig. Think it will be a great little thing for more casual imaging. We're not in the best time of year for my FOV, but I was able to get a little time in on M5.
Crux on a Canon 135mm f2.5
My current telescope isn't ideal for astrophotography and the Astro mode on my phone does okay with pic related but I wish it had a wider fov to capture the entire Milky Way (and without the ugly green tinge and red circles around every photo), do you think it's better to wait for the S50 Pro to come out or get the S30 pro now?
>>4508706Filmed this about 30 minutes ago but the fog is starting to come in, as said I just wished it could go at least a bit wider without switching to another camera and having the quality take a nosedive.
>>4508706Really depends on what FOV you need to fill any gaps. If you already have something with a deep view, I would go S30 pro. If you only have wide angles available, I'd go with the S50 pro.Your image would benefit from some SCNR. Unless that green is coming from aurora or artistic preference, consider limiting your green channel. Great picture btw.
>>4508709example
>>4508709Sounds like I should just get the S30 then, as for >>4508710That's amazing, saved, thanks, my Samsung S25+ usually does it by default on Expert RAW and I have no idea why, I tried using GIMP and some guides to get rid of the green and red with disappointing results but you've done it perfectly.
>>4508712I did it in Pix but that's a paid platform. You can achieve the same thing in Siril which is free. Very easy to do, check it out if you need to remove green sky glow.
>>4508718I'll look into Siril, cheers.
>>4508584>S30>2MP bayerAll of those colors are fake.You can't photograph stars with a bayer sensor.
>>4509146>All of those colors are fakeSo is every photograph from every cmos + bayer or x-trans sensor. Point being?Its a cheap astro camera, made for accessibility and reach. Did you guys eat lead as a child or smth. Also even the smallest stars are atleast 4x4 so still accurate.>You can't photograph stars with a bayer sensorSo im to assume the image im looking at does not contain stars? What are those then?Jeez no wonder this board is dead. I feel bad for the ones posting, take your work somewhere else.
>>4509146What do you photograph stars with?
https://teseek.com/collections/equatorial-mountAnybody having exp with this?I want it for my camera max focal 300mm on aspc Much cheaper that msm.First version is 75$Third version is 120$And some other versions idle non stroke motors (have no ideea what it means) going for 160$They seem small enough to not be a hustle to move around
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR3QFe1-mgIseems like pink tint is normal for bader solar filters
Gonna try my new ASI662MC + 3x barlow tonight.
First tome trying astro outside of Joshua Tree.
Carina Nebula - 75 light frames with 0.8s exposures at 1600 ISO (plus numerous darks, biases, flats) taken with a6000 using an old and heavy 300mm third-party lens (Hanimex, I think the actual manufacturer was Makinon) without a tracking mount in my suburban backyard (bortle zone 7.6, apparently) and then stacked in DSS.Despite the obvious deficiencies with this photo (such as the misshapen stars due to trailing) I'm impressed that it's turned out as well as it has given the limitations of my setup. Very tempted to spend a bit of $$$ on getting a mount so that I don't have to keep manually repositioning my camera like a retard.
I bought an ND100000 filter for photographing the eclipse in August. Do you guys have any recommendations on long exposure calculator apps or perhaps any rules thumb for exposing for the corona of the sun?
>>4511630google and yt are a good place to start. but apparently, somebody correct me if i m wrong.during the total part of the eclipse you can t look and photograph it without filters. filters are necessary only when sun light is not blocked by the moon
>>4511631*you CAN look
>>4511631>during the total part of the eclipse you can t look and photograph it without filters.
>>4508584>S30>completely automatedNot to sound like a prick on the internet or anything, but doesn't automating the bulk of the work kind of suck the fun out of it? I don't know, I feel like half the fun in astro for me is actually hunting down the objects. If that's not your jam then understandable but I could not for the life of me enjoy it like that.
>>4511631Anon, the usual advice applies to telephotos and to pointing tripod mounted lenses at the sun for extended periods of time. If you want to snap a wide angle photo with sun in the frame, you don't need an eclipse for it.
woop woop
I managed to take a garbage picture of Jupiter with my crappy 300mm no name brand lens. To my surprise it was just about able to resolve 3 of the moons.The joys of using poverty-tier gear, I really need to save some money and get some decent equipment.
>>4513396Poverty-mode is still cool IMO. Fun to test the limits to see what you can do on a budget.
Nikon D780, 28-120mm lens at 40mm, f/11, 6 sec, ISO 6400. Stuck pixels manually removed, gamma *slightly* adjusted. Resized from 6048x4024 to 1440 pixels tall.Annotated next post...
>>4514866Manually annotated.
>>4513396There may have only been three moons visible. The fourth could have been behind Jupiter or in its shadow, or even in front, when it would match the background (Jupiter) brightness.
>clouds nearly every night since the start of JuneIt's not fair
>>4514917>get one cloudless night>get eaten alive by mosquitos and put the Dob away after an hour
>>4514870There were two on each side about a week ago, not sure how often it changes but all my other old attempts at photos it's usually 3 on one side and one the other
>>4515020>not sure how often it changesIo: 1.77 days (1 day, 18h 27m 46s)Europa: 3.55 daysGanymede: 7.1556 days Callisto: 16.690 days
>>4515052Neat, how about the other 91 moons?
>>4515138Look 'em up yourself.
>>4515138saturn has 293, jewpeter is a moonlet at 115 confirmed moons
is ioptron skyhunter good? Or will i regret it
>>4513396Nice shit.I got this a few years ago using a very cheap 45x spotting scope and holding my phone up to it using a cheap clamp mount
>>4515019Was this taken from Australia?
>>4515427Maybe>go out for smoke early Monday morning>see a streak of light above the tree>get phone and tripod and take a bunch of long exposure shots>turns out there's dozensWhat would these be? Some radiant light from neighbours LED lights? Weird that they only seem to materialize in one section high up in the air, it was colder and foggier the next few days after this and these weren't visible at all.
>>4515428Look exactly like auroras to me but someone more knowledgeable maybe has a better idea. Could be localised areas of radiation or whatever it is.
>>4515429I'll have a look at the NOAA site when I get home, would be cool if it was Auroras
>>4515428If the aurora history says no then light pillars?
>>4515437>>4515429It's tricky to find any real data so I might just put it down to light pillars.
What is most important for a first purchase?>az/eq star tracker>more sensitive body or dedicated astro cam>big beefy tri/quad-podAll in the 500usd range
>>4515486depends, if it is real astro, i.e. long integration times, then tracker. Faster/wide angle lens and more sensitive body for typical youtube "astro" which is mainly timelapse or aurora. Can't go wrong with fast lenses on FF though once you have a tracker.
>>4515428Former Alaskan (Fairbanks) here. Light pillars extend down to the source (usually street lights).Auroras often form bright pillars, usually short duration. You've got sheets of glow with pillars. That's aurora.Color's way off. Never seen baby poop yellow-green. If you still have the exif, check the light source setting.
>>4515428>Maybe??? You don't know?Well... somewhere about -30° latitude.
>>4515510
HOW do I get pictures like this? Even my Jupiter pictures are wank no matter how much stacking and sharpening I do.
>>4515521Money.Or, failing that, visit a observatory and book a slot to attach your camera to their multi-million dollar telescope.
>>4515570AstroBin says this was using a 16" telescope. I have a 12" but surely the difference in detail should be not that great. This is the best photo I've got for example.
>>4515521>>4515579There's a pretty huge difference between 12" and 16" in theoretical resolution but it's mainly luck and processing "skill". People taking the best 300 images from 3000 and then dumping it into PIPP, Autostakkert, Registax and doing wavelet and deconvolution through Astrosurface etc. The key in my opinion is to hand select rather than letting the computer do it. Geography, weather, seeing, season also play a role so just try every week. Recheck collimation, make sure your scope is acclimated, tracking is low error etc.
>>4515509I mean I have a 50mm F1.2 but on a 24mp aps-cIt does aight, I'm just looking to get one thing out of the three for now to fuck with this summer, I think the tracker is the smartest choice? I was looking at one with goto, I can use other less good lenses with that to do some planet slop
>>4515609Yeah tracker for sure but if you want to do planetary, you will want as much focal length as you can get to the point where no camera lens is going to be good and you need a telescope. 1200mm is on the low end for planetary. I'm curious what tracker with goto you are looking at.
>>4515579>>4515608you need to twice the aperture to double arc-res, so youd need 24" to twice the res of a 12" in theory assuming perfect optics, that >10k 16" SCT should be much better in optical quality than very much any dob you may find, heres one example of somebody gettin the most of a 12" dobhttps://app.astrobin.com/equipment/explorer/telescope/1210/omegon-dobson-advanced-x-n-3041500?i=932sjg
>>4515613ioptron skyhunter is what I was looking at.I mean if I need focal length I have a lens that is like 4500mm full frame equivalent, some Japanese monopod that was designed to be used on cameras as an option.I've used it here and there but it's hard to do much with that isn't stare at rhe moon without well, a tracker that has low accuracy drift
>>4515668>a lens that is like 4500mm full frame equivalent?? Sounds like a 16-inch scope.
Fuji Velvia 50
>>4517186I reckon that's M31 low and right of center, and north is left?
