A "class system" has developed for deepsky photography

A top-flight consumer digital camera, that will allow you to produce
noticeably better pictures in some circumstances will cost $2000-
$10,000. Before, only the lens determined the output for the most
part because 100 ASA/ISO film was 100 ASA/ISO film. So, a $400 SLR
body produced images pretty much the same as a $1500 body. But today,
the top sensors are full frame and low noise and cost considerably
more than the APS sensors in low-cost cameras.
Cutting-edge astrophotography is dominated by mega-thousand dollar CCD
cameras, $1000 filter wheels, and RC telescopes or other large
telescopes. 30 years ago, a big Newtonian, relatively affordable was
all that was needed because film was film, it worked the same way in
most cameras and was cheap. But today, expect to pay at least $10k to
get into the astrophoto big leagues. A class system has always
existed when it came to telescopes. Before AP was Questar and there
has always been Criterion and big dob scope classes. But the
photographic devices are stratified.
So, years ago, a guy with a 10" Newtonian and a basic camera could
theoretically produce near the same results as someone with a much
more expensive rig, but you have no chance today of doing that because
the receiving mechanism and its support componets are variables and
highly different from each other.
It's particularly funny when a magazine runs an astro-photo contest
offering rinky-dink prizes like an entry-level 5" Newtonian worth $400
when the winner of the contest will likely have $10,000+ worth of gear
at his/her disposal. What will they do with the cheap Newt, use it as
a doorstop?

Rich wrote:

A top-flight consumer digital camera, that will allow you to produce
noticeably better pictures in some circumstances will cost $2000-
$10,000. Before, only the lens determined the output for the most
part because 100 ASA/ISO film was 100 ASA/ISO film. So, a $400 SLR
body produced images pretty much the same as a $1500 body. But today,
the top sensors are full frame and low noise and cost considerably
more than the APS sensors in low-cost cameras.
Cutting-edge astrophotography is dominated by mega-thousand dollar CCD
cameras, $1000 filter wheels, and RC telescopes or other large
telescopes. 30 years ago, a big Newtonian, relatively affordable was
all that was needed because film was film, it worked the same way in
most cameras and was cheap. But today, expect to pay at least $10k to
get into the astrophoto big leagues. A class system has always
existed when it came to telescopes. Before AP was Questar and there
has always been Criterion and big dob scope classes. But the
photographic devices are stratified.
So, years ago, a guy with a 10" Newtonian and a basic camera could
theoretically produce near the same results as someone with a much
more expensive rig, but you have no chance today of doing that because
the receiving mechanism and its support componets are variables and
highly different from each other.
It's particularly funny when a magazine runs an astro-photo contest
offering rinky-dink prizes like an entry-level 5" Newtonian worth $400
when the winner of the contest will likely have $10,000+ worth of gear
at his/her disposal. What will they do with the cheap Newt, use it as
a doorstop?

But thats the trend, all for one. Only one survives.

A glance at other equipment-orientated hobbies suggests that $10k is
relatively small change. For example: Audio is a credit card, black
hole. Requiring only the most passive intervention by the user as he
constantly upgrades towards the unreachable stratosphere of pointless
investment in ever purer snake oil. All the while while lazing on his
fat arse in a comfortable armchair while listening for inaudible
nuances in the same track over and over again.

Fortunately the ownership of even the most expensive astro imaging
equipment demands infinite patience, real skill, deep knowledge, a
willingness to practice endlessly over long, antisocial hours with
real determination. Otherwise almost anybody with enough money could
do it. Rather than just the elite few. Who constantly make us gasp
with awe at their amazing work.

I also seem to remember a number of people who produce absolutely
breathtaking planetary images with a relatively inexpensive Newtonian
set-up with a webcam. Yet, surprisingly, considering the relatively
low investment required, very few other mortals seem able to remotely
match their results. ;-)

On 25/08/2011 05:04, jwarner1 wrote:


Rich wrote:

A top-flight consumer digital camera, that will allow you to produce
noticeably better pictures in some circumstances will cost $2000-
$10,000. Before, only the lens determined the output for the most
part because 100 ASA/ISO film was 100 ASA/ISO film. So, a $400 SLR
body produced images pretty much the same as a $1500 body. But today,
the top sensors are full frame and low noise and cost considerably
more than the APS sensors in low-cost cameras.

More "Rich" trolling from the brain dead Canute.

And yet the humble webcam for around $20 and registax (freeware) allows
a patient planetary observer with a relatively modest 8 or 10" scope to
take images that professional ground based observatories could not even
dream of in the days of film. It has opened up a new vista and resulted
in Jupiter impacts being captured more or less in realtime since there
is now a very good chance that someone somewhere on the planet is
imaging Jupiter for lucky imaging with almost continuous coverage.

http://www.space.com/8997-fireball-j...ywatchers.html

Suitable webcams were remaindered recently in the UK for £6.95!

Cutting-edge astrophotography is dominated by mega-thousand dollar CCD
cameras, $1000 filter wheels, and RC telescopes or other large
telescopes. 30 years ago, a big Newtonian, relatively affordable was
all that was needed because film was film, it worked the same way in
most cameras and was cheap. But today, expect to pay at least $10k to
get into the astrophoto big leagues. A class system has always
existed when it came to telescopes. Before AP was Questar and there
has always been Criterion and big dob scope classes. But the
photographic devices are stratified.

Depends what you want to image. There are not that all many targets for
deep sky imaging that require a huge field of view to record them. And
mosaicing is not beyond the wit of man with modern software. Peltier
cooled CCDs are now commonplace in amateur observatories and benefit
from the low cost per image and easy digital manipulation of images.

Film was film in the old days, but you had to pay a lot extra for astro
hypered 103aE and the like. It didn't keep well. Cold cameras were very
tetchy to work with and pretty much beyond the reach of all but the most
dedicated amateurs. Autoguiders were hopeless so to get round stars
required continuous manual guiding. You have selective memory.

So, years ago, a guy with a 10" Newtonian and a basic camera could
theoretically produce near the same results as someone with a much
more expensive rig, but you have no chance today of doing that because
the receiving mechanism and its support componets are variables and
highly different from each other.

Lucky imaging with a cheap webcam and registax will get amateur results
for planetary imaging that are almost as good as professional ground
based observatories. The equipment cost need not be a barrier to entry.

And modern gear has autoguiding that actually works!

A few lucky amateurs now even have realtime tip tilt correction of first
order seeing problems for deep sky imaging.

It's particularly funny when a magazine runs an astro-photo contest
offering rinky-dink prizes like an entry-level 5" Newtonian worth $400
when the winner of the contest will likely have $10,000+ worth of gear
at his/her disposal. What will they do with the cheap Newt, use it as
a doorstop?

But thats the trend, all for one. Only one survives.

Another worthless astro troll adds his two penneth.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:50:05 -0700 (PDT), Rich
wrote:

A top-flight consumer digital camera, that will allow you to produce
noticeably better pictures in some circumstances will cost $2000-
$10,000...

So the fact that using better equipment (which is, unsurprisingly,
more expensive) allows imagers to produce better images introduces
some sort of "class system"? You have a bizarre view of reality.

In any case, however, you are wrong. The transition from film to
electronic imaging hasn't significantly changed the requirement for
good optics or a good mount. Even in the film days, if you spent more
for these, you generally got better results. And today, a $2000 camera
gives every bit as good of images as a $10,000 camera.

Money doesn't buy you better images. What it buys you is the ability
to make those images with less work. It buys reliability and ease of
use. Anybody with some skill can produce as good of images with $5,000
worth of equipment (a good scope, a good mount, a good camera) as they
can with $50,000 worth.

In article ,
Rich wrote:

It's particularly funny when a magazine runs an astro-photo contest
offering rinky-dink prizes like an entry-level 5" Newtonian worth
$400 when the winner of the contest will likely have $10,000+ worth
of gear at his/her disposal. What will they do with the cheap Newt,
use it as a doorstop?

That's foolish of the magazine to offer the useless prize, and in some
sense foolish of the winner to have entered above his grade - if you
have a Kennel Club champion German Shepherd, you shouldn't bother
entering it to the dog show in the local park.

Tom

On Aug 25, 8:01*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:

So the fact that using better equipment (which is, unsurprisingly,
more expensive) allows imagers to produce better images introduces
some sort of "class system"? You have a bizarre view of reality.

I object to t;he terminology as well. After all, the 200-inch
telescope on Mount Palomar cost a lot of money. Of course imagers as
well as telescopes are expensive.

For deep sky observing, you want large apertures and long exposures,
and that latter desideratum lets out a Dobsonian.

So something like even a 14" Schmidt-Cassegrain, a CCD from SBIG...
the fact that there are now some professional SLR cameras that are
better for astronomical use and which cost a lot of money seems to me
not to have changed this.

And for deep sky instead of planetary photography... well, of course
it's a rich man's game! You have to own a *car* to do that sort of
thing, if nothing else. To get to where the dark skies are.

John Savard

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 08:01:21 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote, in part:

So the fact that using better equipment (which is, unsurprisingly,
more expensive) allows imagers to produce better images introduces
some sort of "class system"?

I will tend to agree with that. After all, the 200-inch telescope on
Mount Palomar was quite expensive.

And deep sky photography requires long exposures. So the usual
inexpensive deep sky telescope, the Dobsonian, is right out.

A 14" Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope... a CCD from SBIG... you're talking
serious money.

So the fact that some expensive SLR has come out that works better for
astrophotography is neither here nor there.

In any event, for deep sky astrophotography as opposed to planetary
astrophotography... well, _of course_ one has to have money.

One has to own a *car* to get out to where the dark skies are.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 19:50:39 GMT, lid
(John Savard) wrote:
One has to own a *car* to get out to where the dark skies are.
John Savard

You don't necessarily have to OWN the car, it's sufficient to have
access to it. As an alternative, you can move to a rural dark place.

On Aug 27, 12:34*pm, Paul Schlyter wrote:

You don't necessarily have to OWN the car, it's sufficient to have
access to it. As an alternative, you can move to a rural dark place.

But then you have to be able to afford a team of lumberjacks. Who will
cheerfully cut down as many trees as you can afford. Thereby
destroying the entire planet as we know it. One day we may all carry
our carbon footprint records over a lifetime. smug