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.
