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?
>>4515579With Newts and SCTs 9 times out of 10 the answer is collimation. Getting kinda decent collimation is "easy" as far as collimation goes, getting PERFECT collimation is really fuckin hard and requires specialised, often expensive tools, especially if you want to get it consistently and repeatedly - Newts can drift out of collimation on their own surprisingly easily. One of the reasons I only do Maks and fracs.
>>4517186That's a pretty amazing lens you've got there. Pinpoint sharpness corner to corner! What camera and lens?
>>4515613A 500mm+ telephoto lens can get there with a teleconverter, I'd still rather use an actual telescope at that point but I guess if you've already got the lens it could make sense.If you don't mind dropping dough on an unusually strong Barlow lens you can get away with a shorter scope as well. Siebert Optics makes them up to 6x.
>>4518011Considering that anon was going to use some "less good lenses" for his "planetary slop", whatever 500mm+ lens he would use with a teleconverter is going to be pretty bad. Here's a result with a 600/4 with 2x teleconverter. https://imgur.com/lxTQTiY it's decent but a cheap telescope smokes the camera lens setup that costs several times more.
>>4517258>I reckon that's M31 low and right of center, and north is left?Correct!>>4517971>That's a pretty amazing lens you've got there. Pinpoint sharpness corner to corner! What camera and lens?Pentax 645 with an f/2.8 45mm lens. Shooting on 120 film for maximum quality.
>>4518063Film AP always looks so cool. What shutter speed did you use? How do you develop your photos? Do do it yourself or get it done at a lab? Do film photo labs even still exist? Do you have to give them specific instructions so they turn out good? I hadn't gotten into photography beyond instant cameras until the digital age, but with the rise of AI I'm seriously thinking about getting into film just to cut the proverbial Gordian knot. Plus there's something to be said for having something "real" and physical vs. a digital file, I appreciate that more the more years pass.One thing I've noticed digital cameras can't do better than film is noise. Digital noise always looks bad, film grain is much more tolerable.
>>4519955What shutter speed did you use?I use slide film (recommended because it's low ISO and doesn't pick up satellites + strong reciprocity failure resistance) and have everything on an equatorial mount that tracks the night sky. Can't use regular shutter speed settings, I put it in bulb mode with a shutter release cable and bracket. Typically 5, 10, 20, 30, 40 minute shots. Usually shooting wide open or 1 stop down. Most fainter stuff like emission nebulas, Andromeda, the Milky Way etc. require a tracker if you want to have it bright and not streak-y. You can get away with a tripod for some of the brighter stuff (Moon, Pleiades).>Do film photo labs even still exist?Yep, I use The Darkroom. Never got into personal development. Maybe one day.>Do you have to give them specific instructions so they turn out good?Yes. I have them push process the film (basically overcook it relative to the official box recipe) by 1 stop to bring out the colors. You often get weird color shifts as a result but it gives you punchy nebulas and stars and brings things that are really faint into better view.
>>4520135Don't have an EQ rig so I'd be shooting shorter exposures and probably faster film as well, untracked. Maybe a few seconds of exposure tops before planetary rotation starts smearing things iirc. Same way I do digital AP. With that in mind I obviously can't get anything like your long-exposure photos, I just try to capture things like I see them in the eyepiece.I guess I could try some super high ISO film for fun as well, I'm used to avoiding ISO noise like the plague but grain is kind of a vibe as the kids say.>Push by 1 stop.Noted. I called my closest photo lab and turns out they still do film, surprised to find that out but also happy since that means there must be a pretty decent amount of people still shooting film and having fun with it.There's a Fujica ST701 with a 55mm lens in good shape that I can get for 50 bucks. I'm seriously tempted. The more I learn about it the more I want it. It's speaking to me like the Green Goblin mask...
>>4520135I almost wish I was still using film so I *could* get 40 minute exposures. Yes, the digital has a bulb mode, but it gets red bleed after about a minute.Still... here's M57 after 20 seconds. 3010mm f/11 ISO 2000. Cropped from 6000x4000
>>4520184nebulae are so beautiful, it's crazy what only 20 seconds can reveal
that there dream lenses for astro
>>4520272>>4520273Speed is useful, but more important is edge-to-edge sharpness.
>>4520272>that there dream telescopes for astroftfy
>>4520345That's an insult to telescopes.
>>4520346why? I enjoy all the cool photos people take with their telescopes on /ast/
>>4520347Yeah those two lenses aren't comparable to telescopes. Not even close.
>>4520351that's why it was fixed to >dream telescopes for astro from >dream lenses because astro people with 300 1.8 money are dreaming of telescopes, not lenses.
>>4520347>on /ast/Say what now?
>>4520381Welcome, newfag. Go back. Post hands. Etc.Anon is talking about the /ast/ general. On this board. In this very thread.
>>4520394
