Thanks! What kind of telescope would I need? Are these different kinds for specific things?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
So i just took this sweet astrophotograph
- Thread starter Tornado Condor
- Start date
- Status
Thanks! What kind of telescope would I need? Are these different kinds for specific things?
Andromeda has actually a diameter twice the size of a full moon on the night sky. The problem is that the light isn't strong enough.
I've been venturing into Astrophotography and bought an 9.25 SCT Telescope. Need some more equipment to do efficient astrophotography (including a second scope for star tracking). Made a pic of Jupiter and three of his moons last time. It's a single shot with 1/20s exposure.
I overdid it a bit on postprocessing. The thingy that attached the camera to the scope is also a bit broken wich resultet in the shift you can see on the moons. A better way apparently is to record a movie and let some software calculate the best picture from the frames.
I would dearly love to get into astrophotography, but my camera is nowhere near good enough. A telescope is on my list of things to get, but it's hardly at the top of the "essential" list, so it's a long way off... I've tried taking pictures of the moon and the constellations, and some came out alright. I need a real DSLR, though, my Fuji F6500 just doesn't cut it.
Holy shit, that thing is 2º in diameter on the night sky?! I had no idea.
Examples:
Andromeda with barndoor tracker by Excaliber2013, on Flickr
Pleiades & California Nebula with Barndoor Tracker by Excaliber2013, on Flickr
If you guys have any questions fire away. Using a barndoor was pretty fun, except the nights when I tried to image Orion in the cold nights.
Kind of mind blowing that you can take pictures of other planets and galaxies with a simple DSLR (and some extra equipment). It's not some picture on the internet or in a an old book, it's a picture of an actual physical object that you looked at and took the picture of yourself. Amazing.
Astrophotography is the reason why I originally bought a DSLR until I realised that I can't see shit in London and I was too lazy to go to darker places far outside of London. But now that I live in the countryside I think I'm going to research this more and try to get into this.
fierrotlepou
Member
What? Where do I look?
Tornado Condor
Member
Find cassiopeia and the great square of pegasus. Andromeda is just in the middle of those two
Or easier yet, get one of those astronomy apps.
I'll be getting a Nikon D90 with a 55-200 lens (and I believe also a wider angle one too) from my brother tomorrow. First time I actually own a DSLR camera.
I will first try to get used to taking pics with it, then later on would love to start learning about AP. Too bad living in the middle of a big city I probably will have a really hard time seeing any single star
I will first try to get used to taking pics with it, then later on would love to start learning about AP. Too bad living in the middle of a big city I probably will have a really hard time seeing any single star
Tornado Condor
Member
Shot i took few years ago, just tripod and long exposure. This thread makes me wanna upgrade my set with new lens/ better tripod and follow motor. Barndoor solution seems like there might be lot of wobble, any other cheap solutions that work with basic tripods?
Nice pic. I think i see a globular cluster in there
Tornado Condor
Member
Shamelessly stolen from reddit but here's andromeda if it was more visible during the night.
It's HUGE and when you see it with your own eyes you will be in awe.
I wish I could be alive during the time when Andromeda would fill the entire night sky as it gets closer to its collision with the Milky Way.
The artist impression that was produced a while back was stunning.
Can't remember the time frame (obviously massive) but I wonder if the Earth would even still be here by the time of the collision (red giant phase, death of solar system etc)
The artist impression that was produced a while back was stunning.
Can't remember the time frame (obviously massive) but I wonder if the Earth would even still be here by the time of the collision (red giant phase, death of solar system etc)
Your tag made me laugh. I love these pictures, I love anything to do with space actually
While i'm not into astrophotography I do have a telescope and enjoy gazing at the planets when I get a chance.
Piercedveil
Member
Very nice, OP! I love doing those
So I have to know and since no one else asked, unless I missed it, why is there a naked man in this picture?
Really awesome shots in here.
My feeble attempts at capturing the stars and closer bodies.
_MG_6027_2 by RCSDI, on Flickr
Not quite stars, but I enjoy the halo next to the Jupiter.
totherightAndomeda by RCSDI, on Flickr
_MG_7230_1 by RCSDI, on Flickr
I have a telescope I could hook my t1i (Canon 500D) up to, but I have yet to get around to purchasing the attachments.
My feeble attempts at capturing the stars and closer bodies.
_MG_6027_2 by RCSDI, on Flickr
Not quite stars, but I enjoy the halo next to the Jupiter.
totherightAndomeda by RCSDI, on Flickr
_MG_7230_1 by RCSDI, on Flickr
I have a telescope I could hook my t1i (Canon 500D) up to, but I have yet to get around to purchasing the attachments.
Deadly Cyclone
Pride of Iowa State
So what's the best camera for this? I want to buy one anyways for vacations coming up and have around $500 to play with. Can I get something solid?
What extra equipment is needed for nighttime photography?
EDIT: Would the Canon EOS Rebel T3i be a good one?
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004J3V90Y/?tag=neogaf0e-20
What extra equipment is needed for nighttime photography?
EDIT: Would the Canon EOS Rebel T3i be a good one?
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004J3V90Y/?tag=neogaf0e-20
Always please me to see this thread get bumped. And with such great new content!
I've got a bunch of pics from Australian summertime skies, including a few Orion pics I'm working on. Will upload them here in due time.
Regarding which camera to use to the poster above, the Canon range are well regarded due to their lack of noise at higher ISOs, moddability (removing various UV filters for astro use) and their very impressive home brew firmware community (look up Magic Lantern). If I remember correctly, the T3i is the Canon 650d, yeah? Great camera.
I've got a bunch of pics from Australian summertime skies, including a few Orion pics I'm working on. Will upload them here in due time.
Regarding which camera to use to the poster above, the Canon range are well regarded due to their lack of noise at higher ISOs, moddability (removing various UV filters for astro use) and their very impressive home brew firmware community (look up Magic Lantern). If I remember correctly, the T3i is the Canon 650d, yeah? Great camera.
When I lived in Okinawa I could have taken some amazing photographs. Now I live in Oregon, and I see the sky about 6 times a year
That's cool man. I lived in Okinawa and now I live in Seattle
Nothing on the scale some of these others are obviously but here's a few shots from my first time trying outdoors photography (yes there was a smudge on my lens and yes, I was pissed when I got home and realized it because I drove several hours for these photos...)
Obviously not much of a photographer, but thought I'd share the relevance
Obviously not much of a photographer, but thought I'd share the relevance
That's a pretty great start, well done! I assume it's a lengthy exposure (30 seconds?), relatively high ISO? So the easiest way to improve and get a feel for what you're doing is to open up your aperture (as open as you can get it, f/2.0 or whatever), keep your high ISO (800-3200, depending on your camera), and shoot for 10-15 seconds.
You'll get a bunch of information, a whole bunch of noise and minimal star trails. From that starting point, you can alter your settings until you find the sweet spot for out-of-camera ("OOC") photos: aperture lower, ISO lower, 20 second exposure, or perhaps higher ISO, same aperture, 10 second exposure.
There are two extremes to work towards, depending on your interest and desired output: the first is excellent OOC exposures. These will be shorter exposures, but high ISO and wide open apertures. The result will be lots of information in each photo, but high noise, perhaps star trails at the edges of your photos and other artifacts.
The second will be relatively lower ISO, still wide apertures but probably shorter exposures. The photos will have far less light immediately noticeable in them, however, if you take 20 of these photos and 'stack' them, you'll be amazed at what your camera is actually capturing. Which leads to another entire aspect of astrophtography: 'stacking' photos. If you're interested, let me know and I can direct you to a bunch of resources to set you on your way.
Nothing on the scale some of these others are obviously but here's a few shots from my first time trying outdoors photography (yes there was a smudge on my lens and yes, I was pissed when I got home and realized it because I drove several hours for these photos...)
Obviously not much of a photographer, but thought I'd share the relevance
Beautiful, thank you both for sharing. Your third photo batbeg, is wonderful.
Tornado Condor
Member
Pleiades, about 30minutes exposure, canon 550d + 50mm@1.4f.
There has been nice clear skies (and freezing weather) in Finland and I've been able to practise for few nights now, this is the latest result.
Great shot! Unfortunately, i don't have a tracking mount yet so i'm really limited to what i can do. Here's a lame picture i took of pleiades with the 75-300mm:
And here's one of the moon:
Yes, that's a good camera and you can do astrophotography with it. I would buy a cheap shutter release cable if you want to do astrophotography. They're like 15 bucks
Took this a couple days ago
How can I improve?
Follow this advice. Elfinke knows his stuff ;b :
Lovely shot of the moon, salva!
Here's a touched up, cropped shot of Orion I took several nights ago. This was taken at 50mm (on an APS sensor), ISO800, f/1.8 for 18 seconds:
I use a Pentax K30, which has vibration reduction built into the body of the camera, rather than the lenses. One benefit of this is that with the addition of a GPS/astro module, it allows for built in astral body tracking while in bulb/long exposure mode. It's bloody brilliant for things like this.
Here's a touched up, cropped shot of Orion I took several nights ago. This was taken at 50mm (on an APS sensor), ISO800, f/1.8 for 18 seconds:
I use a Pentax K30, which has vibration reduction built into the body of the camera, rather than the lenses. One benefit of this is that with the addition of a GPS/astro module, it allows for built in astral body tracking while in bulb/long exposure mode. It's bloody brilliant for things like this.
Marky Mark
Member
I was also curious but I didn't want to be that guy.
HappyBivouac
Member
"Astrophotograph?" It's a picture of stars. This is like taking a picture of your food and saying "Yeah lately I'm really into the Gastrophotography scene," or taking pictures of plants and calling it "Botaniphotography." Christ.
AVIstack is the bees knees for that job. I had tremendous success imaging Jupiter using it.
Ok, sure.
HappyBivouac
Member
I take pictures of Octopodes. I am a Cephalophotograper.
Sure, why not? I mean, it's more syllables than needed to describe what you're doing, and the word 'Cephalophotgrapher' doesn't really relay any extra information to a listener about what you're actually doing, or what that activity entails, but go for it!
Whereas astrophotography is a well established word, with a long history. It covers all bases of what the activity is (imaging light waves not visible to the eye, imaging objects not visible via a telescope, combating the rotation of the Earth and so on), whereas 'imaging stars' is missing a bunch of detail, both about the activity and the targeted objects.
Your posts also suggest you might be a 'reductiveographer', too. Might wanna add that to your business card.
Des0lar, which island was that on?
Is there a minimum size of scope one needs to see some of the more interesting nebula or other deep sky objects? I'd love to see the Horsehead Nebula but it seems like that one is crazy difficult to see - I'd settle for a number of other objects that are easier. I realize you probably don't see the objects as you would in a photo (unless you want to start jumping into taking photos) but that's alright.
Is there a minimum size of scope one needs to see some of the more interesting nebula or other deep sky objects? I'd love to see the Horsehead Nebula but it seems like that one is crazy difficult to see - I'd settle for a number of other objects that are easier. I realize you probably don't see the objects as you would in a photo (unless you want to start jumping into taking photos) but that's alright.
Tornado Condor
Member
You must be quite popular at parties.
- Status