|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Chris L Peterson wrote:
Both were made with high-end astrocameras. Yes, thanks Chris. In fact, they appear to use perhaps the same high-end camera (STL6303?), with the "turbinelegend" examples being false color renditions of SII, H-Alpha, and OIII wavelengths. *Far* beyond what I imagined possible for a 152mm refractor, even if it is a TMB ;-) Roughly analagous to what can be done with the sound of a fine guitar in a fabulously-equipped recording/audio processing studio. *Truly* stunning work. Maybe I'll skip the DSLR, and start with a lower-end dedicated CCD. Gregory |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Mark S. Holden wrote:
Gregory wrote: Thanks for the information, Mark; you recently wrote: It is more work, but the dedicated cameras can do much more than a DSLR. OK...exactly how does the "much more" appear in the finished product? In other words, what differences do you actually see? Here's a photo of the Lagoon nebula taken by Michael Downing. http://www.astroden.com/stl6303/tmb130/M8_Core.jpg Here's a shot of ngc6960 by Michael Sherick: http://www.turbinelegend.net/ASTRO/N...5/6-27-05.html Of course it's not just the equipment - these guys are experienced and gifted at astrophotography. They are nice, high end pictures, but there is $15-$20 thousands worth of equipment behind it. Not only the camera, but the scope, mount, accessories, time and location involved etc.. Surely not for beginners, unless Trump is your father. Julius |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 04:51:33 GMT, Gregory wrote: I am not sure which is the DSLR, and which is the high-end astrocamera... Both were made with high-end astrocameras. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com ....and high end telescope! Not Tasco class! Julius |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
szaki wrote:
snip They are nice, high end pictures, but there is $15-$20 thousands worth of equipment behind it. Not only the camera, but the scope, mount, accessories, time and location involved etc.. Surely not for beginners, unless Trump is your father. Julius Your estimate of cost is a bit low. The camera itself runs $13k. But a setup like this is reasonably priced compared to a vacation home, or a cabin cruiser. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Gregory wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote: Both were made with high-end astrocameras. Yes, thanks Chris. In fact, they appear to use perhaps the same high-end camera (STL6303?), with the "turbinelegend" examples being false color renditions of SII, H-Alpha, and OIII wavelengths. *Far* beyond what I imagined possible for a 152mm refractor, even if it is a TMB ;-) Roughly analagous to what can be done with the sound of a fine guitar in a fabulously-equipped recording/audio processing studio. *Truly* stunning work. Maybe I'll skip the DSLR, and start with a lower-end dedicated CCD. Gregory There's a guy in Poland who has taken stunning images with an SBIG ST-2000XM camera on a TMB 115. That's not exactly a low end camera - but it seems like a bang for the buck champ in its price range. (I've seen used ones go for about $2k) A DSLR can still be a good camera to start learning on - and you can use it as an everyday camera too. But magazine quality photos tend to come from the dedicated cameras, at the hands of folks who are experienced and meticulous. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Mark S. Holden wrote:
szaki wrote: snip They are nice, high end pictures, but there is $15-$20 thousands worth of equipment behind it. Not only the camera, but the scope, mount, accessories, time and location involved etc.. Surely not for beginners, unless Trump is your father. Julius Your estimate of cost is a bit low. The camera itself runs $13k. But a setup like this is reasonably priced compared to a vacation home, or a cabin cruiser. What ever, I've seen guys blowing lot more money on sport cars, boats, campers gambeling, woman etc... If some one has the money and enjoy taking pictures, why not? Julius |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
szaki wrote:
Mark S. Holden wrote: CLIP But a setup like this is reasonably priced compared to a vacation home, or a cabin cruiser. What ever, I've seen guys blowing lot more money on sport cars, boats, campers gambeling, woman etc... If some one has the money and enjoy taking pictures, why not? I wnder if you can get a mortgage on a CCD camera? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
lal_truckee wrote:
szaki wrote: Mark S. Holden wrote: CLIP But a setup like this is reasonably priced compared to a vacation home, or a cabin cruiser. What ever, I've seen guys blowing lot more money on sport cars, boats, campers gambeling, woman etc... If some one has the money and enjoy taking pictures, why not? I wnder if you can get a mortgage on a CCD camera? I imagine some folks use home equity lines to buy them. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Chris L Peterson wrote:
If you are interested in imaging typical DSOs through a moderate focal length instrument (like an SCT) there is little need for megapixels. Hi, Chris. I'd disagree there; I switched to a DSLR because the small chips in the usual dedicated CCD imager are far too small for typical DSO work at focal lengths above 2000mm. In a 12" SCT even the DSLR can barely accomodate globulars and smaller galaxies. The dedicated cameras are fine with shorter scopes or very small objects like planetary nebulae. John |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Digital camera astrophotography | Frank Mazzola | CCD Imaging | 1 | May 13th 04 06:28 PM |
Settings for digital camera moon photography | Dr DNA | UK Astronomy | 4 | March 8th 04 07:43 PM |
mating Radian eyepiece to digital camera | Gary | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | December 9th 03 08:16 PM |
best digital or slr for amateur astro piccys? | pete | UK Astronomy | 3 | November 7th 03 08:36 AM |
Using Digital camera for astro photos | Liam Feeney | Misc | 2 | October 28th 03 10:09 PM |