|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Time for stabilization to be incorporated into telescopes
On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 12:04:00 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 08:55:37 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 11:06:56 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 23:34:19 -0800 (PST), "Chris.B" wrote: I wonder whether this is due to natural competition between imagers? I don't think so. I think it's because you can do so much more with so much less. I'm not talking about people with expensive scopes, mounts, and cameras. Most of the young people I see getting interested in astronomy now have fairly inexpensive scopes/mount combos ($1000-$2000), and are either imaging with DSLRs or with astronomical cameras that are under $1000. So it's a pretty low entry cost, and you have quick, tangible, good results. You are not limited nearly as much by poor skies as you are with visual astronomy, there's a low learning curve and therefore reduced time commitment- with modern equipment you don't need to learn the sky deeply, know how to star hop, interpret charts, or train your eye. And, of course, there's the simple reality that many people (especially younger people) just enjoy the technology as much as they enjoy the astronomy itself. I'd say that about half of the new amateur astronomers I encounter now are primarily or exclusively imaging, and I expect that will continue to go up as the tools become less expensive and easier to use. You must not get out much: http://www.telescope.com/catalog/top...r&categoryId=1 Many of these are the sort of scopes I find sitting in people closets, abandoned after a few half-hearted observing efforts. You check people's closets do you, peterson? I don't base my comments on what kind of scopes one particular company is selling, One of those scopes resembles my first, peterson. But then, you were harmed by a 60mm refractor, so who the hell are YOU to give an opinion. but on the actual amateur astronomers I encounter in my community, at my own club, and at the many clubs I speak at. Who and which are not even remotely representative of the population of amateur astronomers at large. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Time for stabilization to be incorporated into telescopes
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Time for stabilization to be incorporated into telescopes
On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 12:23:50 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 09:13:48 -0800 (PST), wrote: I don't base my comments on what kind of scopes one particular company is selling, One of those scopes resembles my first, peterson. But then, you were harmed by a 60mm refractor, so who the hell are YOU to give an opinion. Those kinds of scopes are often very good first scopes, and they are representative of the first scopes of a great many amateur astronomers. There you go. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Time for stabilization to be incorporated into telescopes
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 09:27:27 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 12:23:50 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 09:13:48 -0800 (PST), wrote: I don't base my comments on what kind of scopes one particular company is selling, One of those scopes resembles my first, peterson. But then, you were harmed by a 60mm refractor, so who the hell are YOU to give an opinion. Those kinds of scopes are often very good first scopes, and they are representative of the first scopes of a great many amateur astronomers. There you go. But so what? This has nothing to do with the point I'm making, and does nothing to support yours. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Time for stabilization to be incorporated into telescopes
On Saturday, 14 January 2017 17:06:56 UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 23:34:19 -0800 (PST), "Chris.B" wrote: I wonder whether this is due to natural competition between imagers? I don't think so. I think it's because you can do so much more with so much less. I'm not talking about people with expensive scopes, mounts, and cameras. Most of the young people I see getting interested in astronomy now have fairly inexpensive scopes/mount combos ($1000-$2000), and are either imaging with DSLRs or with astronomical cameras that are under $1000. So it's a pretty low entry cost, and you have quick, tangible, good results. You are not limited nearly as much by poor skies as you are with visual astronomy, there's a low learning curve and therefore reduced time commitment- with modern equipment you don't need to learn the sky deeply, know how to star hop, interpret charts, or train your eye. And, of course, there's the simple reality that many people (especially younger people) just enjoy the technology as much as they enjoy the astronomy itself. I'd say that about half of the new amateur astronomers I encounter now are primarily or exclusively imaging, and I expect that will continue to go up as the tools become less expensive and easier to use. Thanks. I must admit to being shocked by the very small field of view of the commercial "webcam" style cameras when using "long" OTAs. [f/8 to f/12.] Ideal for planetary imaging but not for whole disk, Solar and Lunar. Perhaps I'd better start saving for a DSLR with a much larger sensor. DSLR's have never excited me for "normal" photography when a zoom compact can be taken everywhere. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Time for stabilization to be incorporated into telescopes
On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 12:50:44 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 09:27:27 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 12:23:50 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 09:13:48 -0800 (PST), wrote: I don't base my comments on what kind of scopes one particular company is selling, One of those scopes resembles my first, peterson. But then, you were harmed by a 60mm refractor, so who the hell are YOU to give an opinion. Those kinds of scopes are often very good first scopes, and they are representative of the first scopes of a great many amateur astronomers. There you go. But so what? This has nothing to do with the point I'm making, and does nothing to support yours. Your comment "Those kinds of scopes are often very good first scopes, and they are representative of the first scopes of a great many amateur astronomers" supports my point perfectly, ie many more people can or will start with inexpensive telescopes than with $2000 ones. Your comment obviously contradicts the one you made earlier. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Time for stabilization to be incorporated into telescopes
On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 8:35:26 AM UTC-5, Chris.B wrote:
I must admit to being shocked by the very small field of view of the commercial "webcam" style cameras when using "long" OTAs. [f/8 to f/12.] Ideal for planetary imaging but not for whole disk, Solar and Lunar. The pixel count is usually small, which is the bigger problem. Perhaps I'd better start saving for a DSLR with a much larger sensor. DSLR's have never excited me for "normal" photography when a zoom compact can be taken everywhere. The lenses on compacts and cell phones are a weak link and exposure times are often limited. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Time for stabilization to be incorporated into telescopes
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Time for stabilization to be incorporated into telescopes
On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 10:18:19 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 03:27:46 -0800 (PST), wrote: Those kinds of scopes are often very good first scopes, and they are representative of the first scopes of a great many amateur astronomers. There you go. But so what? This has nothing to do with the point I'm making, and does nothing to support yours. Your comment "Those kinds of scopes are often very good first scopes, and they are representative of the first scopes of a great many amateur astronomers" supports my point perfectly, ie many more people can or will start with inexpensive telescopes than with $2000 ones. Your comment obviously contradicts the one you made earlier. I see that your most recent stint in the booby hatch has done nothing to improve your ability to reason. If you think that "Most of the young people I see getting interested in astronomy now have fairly inexpensive scopes/mount combos ($1000-$2000)" and that those young people are typical, then you certainly belong in a loony bin, peterson. What YOU see is irrelevant, peterson. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Image stabilization for the "Lap Telescope" | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 4 | January 10th 08 07:03 AM |
Pay for time Internet base Telescopes? | themeanies | Amateur Astronomy | 5 | February 2nd 05 05:02 AM |
Interferograms for Four High Quality Telescopes and Two Commercial Telescopes | Edward | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | January 11th 04 02:02 AM |
Corning Incorporated to Manufacture Primary Mirror for NASA's Space-Based Kepler Photometer | Ron Baalke | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 5th 03 10:28 PM |
Corning Incorporated to Manufacture Primary Mirror for NASA's Space-Based Kepler Photometer | Ron Baalke | Misc | 0 | November 5th 03 10:28 PM |