A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Time for stabilization to be incorporated into telescopes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old January 14th 17, 06:03 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default Time for stabilization to be incorporated into telescopes

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.

I don't base my comments on what kind of scopes one particular company
is selling, but on the actual amateur astronomers I encounter in my
community, at my own club, and at the many clubs I speak at.
  #32  
Old January 14th 17, 06:13 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default 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.

  #36  
Old January 15th 17, 02:35 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris.B[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,001
Default 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.

  #38  
Old January 22nd 17, 12:32 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default 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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.