wow those are some dope pics. great job guys.. how much does that scope hooked up to the comp go for?

 

My co-worker's husband makes lenses to take pictures with really long exposure times, not entirely sure about that. I should ask if he has a website.

 

holy crap, what's that setup cost you so far?

 

Ya that is a dope a$$ set up you have there.

 

That shot with the panasonic has superb sharpness!

 

I know a fair amount about this stuff. PM me if you want some advice. GPS (which is used for alignment, not tracking) is waste of $'s if you can get the same scope without it.

 

well that scope is owned by AztecRol (member here)

i believe he paid like $650ish for it, and it's a 1000mm F/10

we tried to use a tele-extender with it, but never got it to focus correctly.

it was our first time using the scope with a camera, so the pics didn't come out too well

but i have a lot of passion for photography and astrophotography.
i was hoping to join the Hidden Hills observatory group in livermore someday, but not until i get a scope of my own.

just bought myself a dell 9300 17" laptop which i use with my camera, and have some other programs on it like Space and Starry Night Pro 5.

hopefully by next summer i'll have the scope and will get more experience on taking astro photo's

 

wow! Incredible shots guys!

 

something with big aperture, deep sky viewing, gps tracking, MUST be compatable with a canon 10D EOS camera

and i'm looking for something around the price range of $3,000 but not much more

 

Ya it took my like 4 trys to get the focus just right.

 

yeah...have wanted to try bringing the telescope there sometime. Unfortunately being a student there is very demanding on any free time...!

I have a Meade ETX-90 which is suitable for my needs. It's small and still pretty good! Sometime will try to get some photos

 

Thank god for digital.

 

It sounds to me like you already have your mind set on a Schmidt-Cassegrain (SCT) beacsue that's the only thing that's really going to meet your listed requirements. Keep in mind though, that long exposures are generally more valuable in astrophotography than big apertures. This is why an majority of "serious" astro images are captured with 3" - 6" refractors. The keys are that the images are composed of very long exposure times and that the scopes are used on very accurate mounts that self-correct their tracking by locking on to a guide star.

The exceptions to this are lunar and planetary imaging where the increased resolution of the larger apertures brings out more surface details. Globular clusters also benefit. People that specialize in this type of imaging are the ones that usually use the big Schmidt-Cassegrains or large Dobsonians on tracking platforms. If you end up going that route though, you are quite literally better off imaging with a modified web cam than your Canon 10D. Not so much lunar, but definitely the planets. Sounds crazy, but it's true.

Now if you throw out imaging all togeather and just want a scope for visual use, then aperture is king. That's within a single given level of optics quality, of course. A high quality 4" scope is still likely to produce a more pleasing visual image than an el-cheapo 6" scope.

FWIW - I have two primary scopes. A Televue NP-101 4" refractor and a Starmaster 11" ELT Dobsonian. I probably use the Televue scope more than 80% of the time as the effort it takes to setup the 11" and wait for it to cool down isn't worth it unless I'm out in the sticks under dark skies. I also still have another 4" refractor that I no longer use as well as an 80mm refractor that is sitting idle for possible use as an imaging guide scope some day.

 

omgz. insane job with the photos guys. amazing.

 

Donte99TL, did you add any post-processing to your original image? It looks like some sharpness was added, but maybe not.

In regards to focusing on the moon, I had some trouble when I originally used my 17-85mm lens. I just couldn't see enough of the moon through the eye piece to tell if it was truly in focus. Now with my 200mm, it's much easier to tell. I don't know if you had the same trouble with yours. I'd suspect not if it has a 420mm lens.

 

Deyum Thats Wild!

 

Nope no post processing. I shot the pic in jpeg format so what ever processing took place was done by the camera.

I need to try it in raw format next time to see how it comes out.

 

Here is another one that I took tonight. I didn't come out right thought. I still need to figure out why.

 

still looks great

 

It does look good. What F-stop did you use? It looks like it may be close to an over-exposure near the bottom. There is also a bit of Chromatic Abrasion on the bottom edge of the moon (the purple). I don't know if that's from the F-stop being open too wide on your camera, or maybe from being zoomed in too far. Try for an F/8 or F/11 if you can when taking the picture. Also play with zooming out just a bit from your maximum to see if that helps.

 

Sweet, thanks for the tips Handruim. Always good to get tips from the pros

 

I'm certainly no pro. You'll find much more experienced photographers here than me. I've only been avidly doing this since October, but I've learned a lot by asking tons of questions, reading books, reading forums, and so on. If I can share what I've learned, I'm more than happy.

In context, I've been trying to take decent moon pictures much like yourself. So I asked around and people told me to try different things. The Chromatic Abrasion may not be solved on your camera by stopping down the apature, but it's worth a try.

For a quick example. Below is a picture I took this weekend while hiking around a park. I mistakely took the picture using my 50mm F/1.4 prime with the apature at F/1.8 in bright daylight (not a cloud in the sky, see moon picture below).

Besides the fact that the photo isn't very good, notice the heavy amount of chromatic abrasion around the bottom parts of the tree branches on the left side of the tree along with some of the base. My lens is known to introduce heavy CA with a wide apature in bright light. I should have stopped it down to a 2.8 or higher before taking the picture.

Tree with CA:



Back to moon pictures, below was a moon shot taken on that same hike around 3:00PM in the afternoon. It's a little bit soft because it was hand held. It may have been slightly out of focus also. I think it's interesting how different the angle of the shadow is compared to your picture. It could be due to our location differences.

F/6.3|1/250|200mm|handheld

 

FYI - The term is chromatic aberration

 

Proof in point. There is your pro.

Thanks for clarifying the term. Hopefully it'll save me from sounding like a complete ass in the future. At least I had the idea, just not the correct word.

 

After you made the slip the second time, I thought "I'd better let him know."

This is actually a term more common in astronomy than in photography which is how I have my exposure to it.