![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
A top-flight consumer digital camera, that will allow you to produce
noticeably better pictures in some circumstances will cost $2000- $10,000. Before, only the lens determined the output for the most part because 100 ASA/ISO film was 100 ASA/ISO film. So, a $400 SLR body produced images pretty much the same as a $1500 body. But today, the top sensors are full frame and low noise and cost considerably more than the APS sensors in low-cost cameras. Cutting-edge astrophotography is dominated by mega-thousand dollar CCD cameras, $1000 filter wheels, and RC telescopes or other large telescopes. 30 years ago, a big Newtonian, relatively affordable was all that was needed because film was film, it worked the same way in most cameras and was cheap. But today, expect to pay at least $10k to get into the astrophoto big leagues. A class system has always existed when it came to telescopes. Before AP was Questar and there has always been Criterion and big dob scope classes. But the photographic devices are stratified. So, years ago, a guy with a 10" Newtonian and a basic camera could theoretically produce near the same results as someone with a much more expensive rig, but you have no chance today of doing that because the receiving mechanism and its support componets are variables and highly different from each other. It's particularly funny when a magazine runs an astro-photo contest offering rinky-dink prizes like an entry-level 5" Newtonian worth $400 when the winner of the contest will likely have $10,000+ worth of gear at his/her disposal. What will they do with the cheap Newt, use it as a doorstop? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
another "developed internally..." idea from NASA to have a masssaving Orion's landing on LAND option | gaetanomarano | Policy | 6 | April 15th 08 06:29 PM |
He murdered 33, but there is a shocking vicious American thing in class "Go back to China, hahaha" | gb6726 | Astronomy Misc | 2 | April 19th 07 06:51 PM |
$ All sub-SYSTEMs have "surroundings", duh. Sub-SYSTEMs are "submerged" in SYSTEM "working fluid" AMBiENT. Sub-SYSTEMs ONLY EXCHANGE energy with "working fluid" AMBiENT. Go-go Google GROUP SEARCH: < | brian a m stuckless | Policy | 0 | November 23rd 05 11:34 AM |
$ All sub-SYSTEMs have "surroundings", duh. Sub-SYSTEMs are "submerged" in SYSTEM "working fluid" AMBiENT. Sub-SYSTEMs ONLY EXCHANGE energy with "working fluid" AMBiENT. Go-go Google GROUP SEARCH: < | brian a m stuckless | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 23rd 05 11:34 AM |