Too many small imagers out there

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 16:08:51 -0500, RichA wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 10:19:47 +0100, Steven Van Impe
wrote:

RichA wrote:

I admit these scopes do nicely when it comes to large
DSOs like M31, or starfields, but there is nothing
particularly interesting or useful about
1/2" wide images of M42, etc.

http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/Oriondeepfield.html

Come again? :-)


Beautiful image! BTW; Is that little black spec the Horsehead?

If you are being sarcastic, then someone that looks at an image of the
Horsehead may wonder what the whole scene looks like and how the
object fits with it's surroundings.

If you're not, then yes, the little black area a third of the way up
and a third of the way in from the left is the Horsehead.

--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk
Global Projects - http://www.globalobservers.net

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 21:42:26 +0000, Pete Lawrence
wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 16:08:51 -0500, RichA wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 10:19:47 +0100, Steven Van Impe
wrote:

RichA wrote:

I admit these scopes do nicely when it comes to large
DSOs like M31, or starfields, but there is nothing
particularly interesting or useful about
1/2" wide images of M42, etc.

http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/Oriondeepfield.html

Come again? :-)


Beautiful image! BTW; Is that little black spec the Horsehead?

If you are being sarcastic, then someone that looks at an image of the
Horsehead may wonder what the whole scene looks like and how the
object fits with it's surroundings.

If you're not, then yes, the little black area a third of the way up
and a third of the way in from the left is the Horsehead.

Not really sarcastic, the image is amazing, as a wide-angle image, no
question. But widefield images abound.
-Rich

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:38:28 -0500, RichA wrote:

Beautiful image! BTW; Is that little black spec the Horsehead?

If you are being sarcastic, then someone that looks at an image of the
Horsehead may wonder what the whole scene looks like and how the
object fits with it's surroundings.

If you're not, then yes, the little black area a third of the way up
and a third of the way in from the left is the Horsehead.

Not really sarcastic, the image is amazing, as a wide-angle image, no
question. But widefield images abound.

Sorry, I just wanted to cover my bases ;-)

--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk

"RichA" wrote in message
...
I've clicked on quite a few links to
images. Things like M42, M27, etc. They
could be anything, only to be confronted by
tiny images created with widefield, small
aperture instruments. I admit these scopes
do nicely when it comes to large DSOs like
M31, or starfields, but there is nothing
particularly interesting or useful about
1/2" wide images of M42, etc. I figure that
people are using these things because they are
easy to carry around, generally pretty fast
(focal ratio-wise) and can be mounted on inexpensive,
lightweight GEMs or forks to do photography with.
But when the images look like they might have
come from a Canon 300mm telephoto, generally something
is missing. There is something to be said for
images of individual deepsky objects created with scopes
having focal lengths of 1000mm or more, and enough
aperture (and hence focal speed) to capture the details
in the average sized deepsky object. I remember a guy
named Martin Germano who used to use a C8 to shoot
planetary nebula, and I thought it was "daring" at the
time because of the small image scale, but he even shot
with longer (barlowed) focal ratios and long periods to
obtain some decent image scale. I even remember one of
the most memorable shots of the interior of M42 having
been shot with a C11 used at 3900mm over a long exposure,
and it was one of the first I ever saw to really capture
the interior detail of the nebula and trapezium. Prior
to that, I saw small m-42 shots all looking alike, with burned out
cores and the outer nebula showing.

I don't know how you can tell how tall the 'imagers' are by looking at their
images ! I'd guess they are 5'8" average
Try typing M27 LRGB in to Google. 9 / 10 of the links show images 1/2
screen across.
Same goes for m42 LRGB.
Cheers, Dave

"RichA" wrote in message ...
I've clicked on quite a few links to
images. Things like M42, M27, etc. They
could be anything, only to be confronted by
tiny images created with widefield, small
aperture instruments.

well rich, instead of posting endless postings about optics and equipment ramblings, why not
start posting a few images yourself.
BTW, I totally disagree with you. Most images here are made with 8" or bigger aperture.

--
md
10" LX200GPS-SMT
ETX105
www.xs4all.nl/~martlian

I'm 5'-7", am I tall enough to do astroimages?

Mathew Ota

RichA wrote:
I've clicked on quite a few links to
images. Things like M42, M27, etc. They
(snip)