![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Chaps,
Now with 2 pictures being posted that reveal far more detail than any others(Sorry Pete) if this weather holds clear as it is this morning i will be out with my 200mm lens tonight to see what i can do!!! Why would the picutres taken through a camera lens look better than through the scope??? Is is because if the wider angle??? Rob |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:24:07 -0000, "Robert Geake"
wrote: Chaps, Now with 2 pictures being posted that reveal far more detail than any others(Sorry Pete) If you're referring to Stefan's fantastic image on www.spaceweather.com from yesterday, I suggest you web-search the name of the camera and lens he used, check out their price ;-) if this weather holds clear as it is this morning i will be out with my 200mm lens tonight to see what i can do!!! Why would the picutres taken through a camera lens look better than through the scope??? Is is because if the wider angle??? Down to more light sensitivity at the end of the day. A 200mm f4 lens will be a faster system than a 1000m f/9 telescope. A big difference can also be seen between the run of mill cheapskate lenses (of which mine are) that only go down to f/4 or f/5.6 and the 'holy-cow - how much!' lenses that go down to f/2.0 or f/2.8. Of course, you trade off image scale as you switch to the camera lenses but, unless you are aiming to pick up coma detail (and there doesn't seem to be a lot of this with Machholz), stick with the wider angle shots and try to get a nice shot that captures the tail(s). Now I've got to figure out what to sell to get me a better imaging system! My soul by the looks of it ![]() -- Pete http://www.digitalsky.org.uk |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Pete Lawrence" wrote in message
... On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:24:07 -0000, "Robert Geake" wrote: Chaps, Now with 2 pictures being posted that reveal far more detail than any others(Sorry Pete) If you're referring to Stefan's fantastic image on www.spaceweather.com from yesterday, I suggest you web-search the name of the camera and lens he used, check out their price ;-) if this weather holds clear as it is this morning i will be out with my 200mm lens tonight to see what i can do!!! Why would the picutres taken through a camera lens look better than through the scope??? Is is because if the wider angle??? Down to more light sensitivity at the end of the day. A 200mm f4 lens will be a faster system than a 1000m f/9 telescope. A big difference can also be seen between the run of mill cheapskate lenses (of which mine are) that only go down to f/4 or f/5.6 and the 'holy-cow - how much!' lenses that go down to f/2.0 or f/2.8. Of course, you trade off image scale as you switch to the camera lenses but, unless you are aiming to pick up coma detail (and there doesn't seem to be a lot of this with Machholz), stick with the wider angle shots and try to get a nice shot that captures the tail(s). Now I've got to figure out what to sell to get me a better imaging system! My soul by the looks of it ![]() -- Pete http://www.digitalsky.org.uk Ill be one of the lucky ones that inherited holy-cow style 200 and 300mm lenses that go down to F2.8. They can suffer from seagull stars though when i use the lowest F ratio!! Why not sell your practically constan clear skies??? Ill give you £5 an hour ![]() R |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:16:54 -0000, "Robert Geake"
wrote: Down to more light sensitivity at the end of the day. A 200mm f4 lens will be a faster system than a 1000m f/9 telescope. A big difference can also be seen between the run of mill cheapskate lenses (of which mine are) that only go down to f/4 or f/5.6 and the 'holy-cow - how much!' lenses that go down to f/2.0 or f/2.8. Of course, you trade off image scale as you switch to the camera lenses but, unless you are aiming to pick up coma detail (and there doesn't seem to be a lot of this with Machholz), stick with the wider angle shots and try to get a nice shot that captures the tail(s). Now I've got to figure out what to sell to get me a better imaging system! My soul by the looks of it ![]() Ill be one of the lucky ones that inherited holy-cow style 200 and 300mm lenses that go down to F2.8. They can suffer from seagull stars though when i use the lowest F ratio!! Hmm - I'm not sure if the "holy cow" lenses have that feature Rob ;-) Why not sell your practically constan clear skies??? Ill give you £5 an hour ![]() You're on. £5/hr x say 8hrs per night for 365 days a year = £14,600. Do you want to pay in advance. I've already submitted an order for a large format CCD camera on the back of this. -- Pete http://www.digitalsky.org.uk |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
machholtz light (FRET) ? | Thierry | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | January 9th 05 12:40 PM |
Machholtz Movie | Sayf Connary | UK Astronomy | 0 | January 7th 05 02:08 PM |
Comet Machholtz, unusal? | Mike Boschat | Amateur Astronomy | 6 | December 31st 04 11:57 PM |
Comet Machholtz | TMA | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | December 18th 04 06:20 AM |
Comet Machholtz | Doink | Amateur Astronomy | 7 | November 30th 04 05:20 AM |