View Single Post
  #10  
Old January 11th 17, 02:37 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default Time for stabilization to be incorporated into telescopes

On Monday, 9 January 2017 10:45:43 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 17:10:12 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Image stabilization. To damp images in case of wind, or touching the scope to reduce or eliminate damp-time, using high-power eyepieces, taking images. Camera stabilization is reaching incredible quality, you can now (with some of them) take hand-held images with normal lenses with 1-4 second exposure times. Stabilization isn't needed on scopes all the time, obviously, since we have tripods and mounts, but sometimes it would be an advantage when looking at objects where critical resolution is required.
However, I wouldn't want it if it costs as much as the ridiculously overpriced stabilization in binoculars.


Image stabilization is routine with imaging setups. For visual, it's
problematic. Inertial stabilization (like that used on camera lenses
and binoculars) isn't sensitive enough to correct for the amount of
movement you get at high magnifications.


This could be tested with a camera attached since most new cameras with in-body stabilization (wake the f--- up, Nikon and Canon) will accommodate lenses up to 2000mm or so. Of course, it would only be for low magnification and won't do anything about atmospheric turbulence.