Nikon Coolpix P900 83x zoom (2000 mm) $500

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 3:55:15 PM UTC-7, Razzmatazz wrote:
On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 3:05:16 PM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 12:19:54 PM UTC-7, Razzmatazz wrote:
On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 1:56:53 PM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 10:33:01 AM UTC-7, Razzmatazz wrote:
On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 10:45:25 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
Throw your telescope away, right now! LOL!
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...ightExtend.JPG

Jupiter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JiO4jZr9CE

Nikon P900 photos of the ISS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjt22yeps5o

Throw your telescope away? Right. And then what, look at the sky with a 1" aperture at best? Don't you realize that the whole idea is to gather light, and that light gathering is proportional to the square of the aperture?

And as far as seeing two bands on Jupiter, I can do that with a cheap and cheerful 50mm 30x achromat that you can pick up in any department store.

Let me know when a digital camera can take images like this: http://saturn.cstoneind.com/
http://jupiter.cstoneind.com/

No, it can't take fine images like that, but don't need a truck to haul all that astro gear either and cost 1/10 less.
Planets are bright, so don't need large aperture telescope to see them well.
I think, this $500 camera can be lot of fun not only for astronomy but for birding also.
I all ready have the Canon SX40 35x zoom, did nice photos, videos of solar eclipses, Moon hand held, no tracking, without setting up my much more bulkier astro gear.

I'm not arguing against anything that you say, but come on - "throw your telescope away??" Nothing takes the place of clear aperture. resolution and light grasp both depend on aperture. And you can make a powerful telescope out of just a few components. They don't have to weigh a ton either. Some are super portable. Last century Robert Cox built a portable reflector that fit in his pocket, complete with eyepiece. Based on Horace Dall's DK design.

Razzy

Can't take a joke?
This is a long focus. low cost, consumer bridge camera, not even a professional camera. LOL!
Not even designed for astro photography, just another possibility for to use!
I'm sure if the lens elements would be made APO with exotic glass or fluoride materials, it would work even better, 5x the cost.

It is an apo made with exotic glass. Ordinary achromat lenses don't work with digital technology. And no, it won't cost 5x as much. The apo elements are tiny compared to a telescope. What is it about aperture that you don't understand? Cost of optical glass goes by the cube of the diameter. Therefore a 4" aperture glass costs on the order of 8 times as much as a 2" diameter lens of the same glass. That's why refractive optics are out of bounds cost-wise above about 8" and most scopes above that are mirror types that can do with the most basic inexpensive glass materials.

Razzy

How about this photo lens for $98K?
https://www.adorama.com/fuj14545mppl...rD4aAjsD8P8HAQ

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 7:13:39 PM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 3:55:15 PM UTC-7, Razzmatazz wrote:
On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 3:05:16 PM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 12:19:54 PM UTC-7, Razzmatazz wrote:
On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 1:56:53 PM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 10:33:01 AM UTC-7, Razzmatazz wrote:
On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 10:45:25 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
Throw your telescope away, right now! LOL!
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...ightExtend.JPG

Jupiter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JiO4jZr9CE

Nikon P900 photos of the ISS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjt22yeps5o

Throw your telescope away? Right. And then what, look at the sky with a 1" aperture at best? Don't you realize that the whole idea is to gather light, and that light gathering is proportional to the square of the aperture?

And as far as seeing two bands on Jupiter, I can do that with a cheap and cheerful 50mm 30x achromat that you can pick up in any department store.

Let me know when a digital camera can take images like this: http://saturn.cstoneind.com/
http://jupiter.cstoneind.com/

No, it can't take fine images like that, but don't need a truck to haul all that astro gear either and cost 1/10 less.
Planets are bright, so don't need large aperture telescope to see them well.
I think, this $500 camera can be lot of fun not only for astronomy but for birding also.
I all ready have the Canon SX40 35x zoom, did nice photos, videos of solar eclipses, Moon hand held, no tracking, without setting up my much more bulkier astro gear.

I'm not arguing against anything that you say, but come on - "throw your telescope away??" Nothing takes the place of clear aperture. resolution and light grasp both depend on aperture. And you can make a powerful telescope out of just a few components. They don't have to weigh a ton either. Some are super portable. Last century Robert Cox built a portable reflector that fit in his pocket, complete with eyepiece. Based on Horace Dall's DK design.

Razzy

Can't take a joke?
This is a long focus. low cost, consumer bridge camera, not even a professional camera. LOL!
Not even designed for astro photography, just another possibility for to use!
I'm sure if the lens elements would be made APO with exotic glass or fluoride materials, it would work even better, 5x the cost.

It is an apo made with exotic glass. Ordinary achromat lenses don't work with digital technology. And no, it won't cost 5x as much. The apo elements are tiny compared to a telescope. What is it about aperture that you don't understand? Cost of optical glass goes by the cube of the diameter. Therefore a 4" aperture glass costs on the order of 8 times as much as a 2" diameter lens of the same glass. That's why refractive optics are out of bounds cost-wise above about 8" and most scopes above that are mirror types that can do with the most basic inexpensive glass materials.

Razzy

Here's a used Sigma 500mm f/4.5 EX DG APO HSM Auto Focus Telephoto Lens for Canon EOS Cameras .
Price:$2749
Two Extraordinary Low Dispersion (ELD) glass elements produce excellent image quality.
So, those 2 pieces of ELD glass elements would cost so much?
How would Jupiter look like in this telephoto lens?

https://www.adorama.com/us%20%20%20%...Jk0aAt9M8P8HAQ

From this Sigma zoom lens I can buy 5 Nikon P900 camera, with 4x more optical zoom.

yea, and I can buy a lot of cups of coffee. So what. The Sigma has an aperture of over 4" diameter, so it gathers lots of light, but at 500mm it's hardly any good for taking planetary images. Way too short. Seems to me you really know nothing about how an optical system works. So why keep blathering on and on about telephoto lenses?

In order to get a decent image of a planet you need 2 things, an aperture of at least 6" (more would be better), and a focal length of at least 2000mm (again more is better). Even with those minimums you can hardly get anything on Mars and Saturn. $" will get you 1 arc sec resolution, 8" will get you 1/2 arc sec on the best days, if the optics are decent. Beyond that you need to do some serious stacking and processing. There are no camera lenses that can outperform a decent telescope, and even a cheap and cheerful lowly 10" Newtonian will outperform the most exotic glass camera lenses hands down when it comes to planet resolution and imaging.

Razzy.

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 7:56:01 PM UTC-7, Razzmatazz wrote:
On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 7:13:39 PM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 3:55:15 PM UTC-7, Razzmatazz wrote:
On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 3:05:16 PM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 12:19:54 PM UTC-7, Razzmatazz wrote:
On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 1:56:53 PM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 10:33:01 AM UTC-7, Razzmatazz wrote:
On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 10:45:25 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
Throw your telescope away, right now! LOL!
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...ightExtend.JPG

Jupiter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JiO4jZr9CE

Nikon P900 photos of the ISS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjt22yeps5o

Throw your telescope away? Right. And then what, look at the sky with a 1" aperture at best? Don't you realize that the whole idea is to gather light, and that light gathering is proportional to the square of the aperture?

And as far as seeing two bands on Jupiter, I can do that with a cheap and cheerful 50mm 30x achromat that you can pick up in any department store.

Let me know when a digital camera can take images like this: http://saturn.cstoneind.com/
http://jupiter.cstoneind.com/

No, it can't take fine images like that, but don't need a truck to haul all that astro gear either and cost 1/10 less.
Planets are bright, so don't need large aperture telescope to see them well.
I think, this $500 camera can be lot of fun not only for astronomy but for birding also.
I all ready have the Canon SX40 35x zoom, did nice photos, videos of solar eclipses, Moon hand held, no tracking, without setting up my much more bulkier astro gear.

I'm not arguing against anything that you say, but come on - "throw your telescope away??" Nothing takes the place of clear aperture. resolution and light grasp both depend on aperture. And you can make a powerful telescope out of just a few components. They don't have to weigh a ton either. Some are super portable. Last century Robert Cox built a portable reflector that fit in his pocket, complete with eyepiece. Based on Horace Dall's DK design.

Razzy

Can't take a joke?
This is a long focus. low cost, consumer bridge camera, not even a professional camera. LOL!
Not even designed for astro photography, just another possibility for to use!
I'm sure if the lens elements would be made APO with exotic glass or fluoride materials, it would work even better, 5x the cost.

It is an apo made with exotic glass. Ordinary achromat lenses don't work with digital technology. And no, it won't cost 5x as much. The apo elements are tiny compared to a telescope. What is it about aperture that you don't understand? Cost of optical glass goes by the cube of the diameter. Therefore a 4" aperture glass costs on the order of 8 times as much as a 2" diameter lens of the same glass. That's why refractive optics are out of bounds cost-wise above about 8" and most scopes above that are mirror types that can do with the most basic inexpensive glass materials.

Razzy

Here's a used Sigma 500mm f/4.5 EX DG APO HSM Auto Focus Telephoto Lens for Canon EOS Cameras .
Price:$2749
Two Extraordinary Low Dispersion (ELD) glass elements produce excellent image quality.
So, those 2 pieces of ELD glass elements would cost so much?
How would Jupiter look like in this telephoto lens?

https://www.adorama.com/us%20%20%20%...Jk0aAt9M8P8HAQ

From this Sigma zoom lens I can buy 5 Nikon P900 camera, with 4x more optical zoom.

yea, and I can buy a lot of cups of coffee. So what. The Sigma has an aperture of over 4" diameter, so it gathers lots of light, but at 500mm it's hardly any good for taking planetary images. Way too short. Seems to me you really know nothing about how an optical system works. So why keep blathering on and on about telephoto lenses?

In order to get a decent image of a planet you need 2 things, an aperture of at least 6" (more would be better), and a focal length of at least 2000mm (again more is better). Even with those minimums you can hardly get anything on Mars and Saturn. $" will get you 1 arc sec resolution, 8" will get you 1/2 arc sec on the best days, if the optics are decent. Beyond that you need to do some serious stacking and processing. There are no camera lenses that can outperform a decent telescope, and even a cheap and cheerful lowly 10" Newtonian will outperform the most exotic glass camera lenses hands down when it comes to planet resolution and imaging.

Razzy.

Yes, Sigma is a wide field telephoto lens, design for sport or nature photography. I have an 80mm f/5 APO refractor, have to throw some barlow's and high power eyepieces at scope to get some power out of it to see planets, specially Mars. Even than 200-250x is the most power I can get out of it in a good seeing night, while my old 4" f/9 Vixen/Celestron APO, easily can hit 100x/inch on a good seeing night.
I'm not a telescope builder, I don't know the prices of these ED glasses,
but they're just glasses to me. I think there's some scam going on, overrating these special glasses to charge more for the instruments.
I use to precision grind and polish YAG and Sapphire for high power lasers, much harder than any glass. Sapphire is all most as hard as diamond!Diamond powder the only thing that works on them for polishing/cutting.
My imaging skills are very limited, long time ago took some pictures of the planets with film, using 8" SCT! Not easy, specially focusing!
Astro imaging is another field , takes skill.
As I said, Nikon P900, not an astro camera, was not designed for it, but if one wants to show a kid the Moon or the other planets, it can be done.
Tried it with my Canon SX40 35x , don't work. Can't even get in focus on Jupiter, just show a blob.

On Monday, 26 June 2017 11:45:25 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
Throw your telescope away, right now! LOL!
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...ightExtend.JPG

Jupiter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JiO4jZr9CE

Nikon P900 photos of the ISS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjt22yeps5o

P&S superzoom cameras, especially Nikons, produce pretty dismal images. There is no free lunch in photography.

On Friday, 30 June 2017 23:47:03 UTC+2, RichA wrote:

P&S superzoom cameras, especially Nikons, produce pretty dismal images. There is no free lunch in photography.

Do these "free lunches" come as food stamps in the packaging with other cameras, then?

I could do with an occasional free meal after spending a fortune on my P&$ Fuzzywuzzy Mk7.

On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 11:19:48 PM UTC-7, Chris.B wrote:
On Friday, 30 June 2017 23:47:03 UTC+2, RichA wrote:

P&S superzoom cameras, especially Nikons, produce pretty dismal images. There is no free lunch in photography.

Do these "free lunches" come as food stamps in the packaging with other cameras, then?

I could do with an occasional free meal after spending a fortune on my P&$ Fuzzywuzzy Mk7.

Here's how to get FREE meal!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBMBxxOgf4o

On Saturday, 1 July 2017 08:43:17 UTC+2, StarDust wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 11:19:48 PM UTC-7, Chris.B wrote:
On Friday, 30 June 2017 23:47:03 UTC+2, RichA wrote:

P&S superzoom cameras, especially Nikons, produce pretty dismal images. There is no free lunch in photography.

Do these "free lunches" come as food stamps in the packaging with other cameras, then?

I could do with an occasional free meal after spending a fortune on my P&$ Fuzzywuzzy Mk7.

Here's how to get FREE meal!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBMBxxOgf4o

Very funny. But the "star" doesn't look [remotely] like he's going hungry.
Are we really allowed to double shame him online?
For stealing _and_ for being overweight!

What about ideas for a new TV advertising campaign?

"Real thieves choose Apple."

"Made by [filthy rich] discerning thieves and appreciated by [poor] simple thieves!"

"Apple steals your life away.. if you're a forced economic slave..
Apple steals your life aw_a_a_y.. tra-la!"

"I bought my kid an iPhony.. And she looked up 30 years later and screamed her [real] life was over! Now she's suing me for spinal curvature and child endangerment!"

A school leader says: "We spent a million on kid's playground equipment."
"And all they did was stand idly around photographing it with their [damned] iPhonies!"

"Apple has always offered augmented reality. It's overpriced and under-performing!"

An Irish saying: "An Apple a day keeps the Tax man at bay!"

Should I go on? [And on.] Probably not. ;-))

On Saturday, July 1, 2017 at 1:27:29 AM UTC-7, Chris.B wrote:
On Saturday, 1 July 2017 08:43:17 UTC+2, StarDust wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 11:19:48 PM UTC-7, Chris.B wrote:
On Friday, 30 June 2017 23:47:03 UTC+2, RichA wrote:

P&S superzoom cameras, especially Nikons, produce pretty dismal images. There is no free lunch in photography.

Do these "free lunches" come as food stamps in the packaging with other cameras, then?

I could do with an occasional free meal after spending a fortune on my P&$ Fuzzywuzzy Mk7.

Here's how to get FREE meal!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBMBxxOgf4o

Very funny. But the "star" doesn't look [remotely] like he's going hungry.
Are we really allowed to double shame him online?
For stealing _and_ for being overweight!

What about ideas for a new TV advertising campaign?

"Real thieves choose Apple."

"Made by [filthy rich] discerning thieves and appreciated by [poor] simple thieves!"

"Apple steals your life away.. if you're a forced economic slave..
Apple steals your life aw_a_a_y.. tra-la!"

"I bought my kid an iPhony.. And she looked up 30 years later and screamed her [real] life was over! Now she's suing me for spinal curvature and child endangerment!"

A school leader says: "We spent a million on kid's playground equipment."
"And all they did was stand idly around photographing it with their [damned] iPhonies!"

"Apple has always offered augmented reality. It's overpriced and under-performing!"

An Irish saying: "An Apple a day keeps the Tax man at bay!"

Should I go on? [And on.] Probably not. ;-))

Some how they never steal telescopes, eh?
I think, they ran out of food coupons?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saBAKHZEMT0