astrophotography

>>2967439
All that sounds good. However the main thing is the sky at your location.

If you live in buckfuk nowhere it's cool. Anywhere near a city (lights) not so much.

Still cool, give it a go. Better than taking a photo of your cat.

>>2967439
>if I were to be able to get a Nikon d7000
A D7000 will work. and its a fine camera for non-astro purposes, too.
>with a rokinon 135 mm lens
Great lens for things large enough to make its field of view appropriate. Sharp with low coma and CAs, even wide open, and wide open is f/2.0, which is pretty blazing fast for this. But you probably will find yourself wanting a longer lens, depending on the objects you want to hunt.
>and a sky watcher star adventurer
looks okay as an entry level mount. but if you later decide you want to bolt a proper telescope to the thing, it's rather undersized. It'll handle a DSLR and any lens that's light enough that you'd be able to hand-hold, but it won't give you much room to grow. Serious astro people commonly spend more on the mount than on a telescope. Long-exposure photography is great at showing up small guiding problems that are too small to notice with naked-eye observing.

Other thoughts:
Consider adding DeepSkyStacker to your software setup. It's finicky and a pain to use, but stacking 50 exposures by hand in photoshop is a pain.
I feel obligated to mention Pentax and their Astrotracer gizmo. It simulates an equatorial mount by linking the sensor-shift stabilization to a GPS receiver. It works, but most decidedly not as well as a real equatorial mount.
Like >>2967460 mentioned your success at any of this is dependent on having a decently dark sky. If you aren't prepared to drive several hours to the middle of nowhere, you're liable to not be able to see much in the sky.

File: Catalina single frame.jpg (349KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 1000x665px

>>2968558
>I feel obligated to mention Pentax and their Astrotracer gizmo...

I feel obligated to chime in... I have one. It works, but don't expect miracles from it. It can be very limiting in exposure (you can pretty much half the calculated exposure time) and calibrating it before using can be a hassle with big lens.
A well aligned tracking mount can do much more but then again it costs a lot more not to mention the needed telescope and software. It is better than cheap (read sub $1000) Go-To mounts though if used correctly.
It is very sensitive on the tripod and head design on minimizing wobble. Pic related was made with a 400mm lens on a cheap tripod and plastic 3D head.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	PENTAX K-3
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	600 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:29 13:29:26
Exposure Time	40 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	400.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

File: Andromeda.jpg (661KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

661KB, 1200x800px

>>2968793
This one was made on a sturdy 190XB tripod and 410 head, 70-200/2.8 lens, heavier than the 400mm lens. Much more stable but gathers more than twice the light (f/5.6 vs f/2.8)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:02 23:36:00

File: IMGP3813.jpg (820KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

820KB, 1000x667px

>>2967439
the rokinon 135mm is a great lens i have used it a bit to shoot some parts of the sky but its not ideal for deepsky objects. Stuff like north America nebula and maybe Andromeda are good for it, also consider if you can find modified dlsr without the IR filter, that gives you so much more objects to shoot.
What comes for the astrotracer on pentax cameras. It works but sometimes you have to calibrate the camera multiple times for it work perfectly.
Also see if theres any local observatories nearby. They might have some decent telescopes for you to use and are generally in dark location. I have one nearby and its like 25€/year to join the club and use the telescopes there.
Heres north America nebula taken with samyang/rokinon 135mm f2 using astrotracer on K1.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	PENTAX K-1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.7 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	135 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:21 14:28:18
Exposure Time	30 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	6400
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	135.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

File: DSC_0374.jpg (1MB, 4608x3072px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4608x3072px

>>2967439
One of these days I might get around to playing around with stacking right now I like to do these kinda pictures.
Easier to connect my DSLR to my 80mm telescope and aim it at the object and snap a picture and it's how it comes out without much work.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	720
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:18 04:20:16
Exposure Time	20 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Comment	JustStarGazing.com Orion nebula
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: DSC_0376.jpg (2MB, 4608x3072px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4608x3072px

>>2968871
Eh this was one of my first pictures I took I think this one might be a bit better hopefully if I picked the right thumbnail.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	720
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:18 04:19:43
Exposure Time	20 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Comment	JustStarGazing.com Orion nebula
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: DSC_0146.jpg (217KB, 4160x3120px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 4160x3120px

>>2968875
eh well fuck that was the wrong picture I dunno man heres Saturn.
I need to get back out and redo my Orion Nebula I guess.

File: ngc281_Ha.png (984KB, 1391x1039px) Image search: [Google]

984KB, 1391x1039px

Stack of 15x5min exposures with a H-alpha filter. Taken with an Atik 314l on a 200mm f5 reflector.

My guiding was horrible which is why the stars are egg shaped. I'm still learning about guiding.

>>2970256
>egg shaped stars
Look at my kidney nebulae in >>2968793 and tell me again your guiding was off. Or the huge star plate disks in >>2968795. Okay this one is due to slightly sticky focus ring, I just can't set the focus exactly where I want around infinity.

I agree yours is not pedantic pin-point sharp but it still gives most of the detail. Still a nice shot.

So how do you connect to a telescope?

>>2970302
If you have a DSLR you can buy a T-ring and a T-adapter. The T-ring is a ring with a camera lens thread on one side so make sure you buy one that fits your camera and on the other side of the ring there's a T-thread that connects with the T-thread on the T-adapter. The T-adapter then has a barrel that fits into your telescope focuser.

>>2970302
>>2970357
I can post pictures if you want.

>>2968871
>>2968875
>>2968876
Your camera has a built in shutter timer, use it mate.

File: ring nebula.png (1MB, 1391x1039px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1391x1039px

LRGB, 5min exposure with each filter.

Atik 314l on a 200mm f5 reflector.

>>2970448
The one in Lyra?

>>2970457
The one and only.

File: ngc_7331.jpg (325KB, 1391x1039px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 1391x1039px

21x5min exposures but only like 4 of the first looked good. I think that either my mirror or my filter got struck by dew. It would have been a much better image if all of the 21 images looked like the first ones.

File: ngc7331.jpg (383KB, 1391x1039px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 1391x1039px

>>2971193
I went ahead and only stacked the four good ones. I think it improved.

any good suggestion for a good astro photog telescope that won't cost more than $1000 CAD?
I want to get photos of deep sky objects like orion/seven sisters, possibly andromeda if I can, and better shots of the moon etc.
I'm hoping there's a good black friday deal on some stuff that I can get and hopefully get started on this. I shoot with a 70d

>>2971193
>>2971208
Invest in a focusing filter mask to nail focus right.
Otherwise nice shot. You can use a DIY dew screen with a bit of scaffolding and dark cloth, much like a lens hood.
And/or investing in a mirror thermostat unit.

File: DSC_0386.jpg (3MB, 4608x3072px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4608x3072px

>>2970373
lmao to be honest it's my tracking mount I use anything over about 20sec exposure will cause star trailing I've taken some eh okay pictures here's my ring nebula.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3100
Camera Software	Photos 1.5
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72
Vertical Resolution	72
Image Created	2016:11:05 20:25:10
Exposure Time	15 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Comment	JustStarGazing.com-
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4608
Image Height	3072
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>took 20 frames until the clouds moved in
>getting too cold, pack up and go on my merry way
>finally get to stack the frames after a week
>processing final image, bringing out colors
>notice horrendous purple blob creeping up from the bottom of the image
>light leak!
>goddamn forgot to put on the viewfinder cap
>can't take the frames again because since then it is generally bad weather, rain and fog, if not then thick clouds
And I'm sitting here after a week of stressful work kicking myself over forgetting such a tiny little piece completely destroying my image.
Lesson learned the hard way...

>>2973262
My friend has the same problem but with <10 sec exposure. Means the gears/mechanics are worn out giving inconsistent movement during the cycles.

>>2973783
Not sure what your setup is, but if you use a shutter release cable, attach whatever you cover the viewfinder with, to the shutter cable. It makes it real hard to forget that way.

>>2973783
Don't worry, nothing of value was lost.

>>2973783
>except it's astro and absolutely nobody gives a shit

>>2973920
I give a shit

>>2973792
I use an IR remote.
>>2973891
Thank you senpai
>>2973920
You gave enough shit to reply, famillamia

Have: Bentax with Astrotracer feature
Don't Have: Telephoto to use it with

Recommendations on something 200-300mm ish? I heard lots of the older teles have problems with chromatic aberration and the exact location of the infinity-focus stop, how true is that?

>>2976104
Cheap 300mm is the Tair 3s 300/4.5 or an A* 300mm, expect CA but it can be dealt with.
I use a Tamron 70-200/2.8 at 200mm and a cheap Sigma 400/5.6 manual focus, maybe I'll try out the 50-500 but I don't expect any good results from it. Primes are always better than zooms especially in astro.
About the infinity stop, don't worry, just pop into liveview, find a bright star, magnify with [OK] and nail the focus. If you let the gear cool down to ambient temperature you only need to do it once.
Make sure your tripod is sturdy and can take the weight without going jelly, it can really shit up your shots like here: >>2968793

One thing to understand that the astrotracer is just a simple tracker designed for starscapes with peak performance at 35-50mm and not very efficient at longer focal lengths but still some DSOs can be done with it.

File: _IMG5221.jpg (353KB, 798x1200px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 798x1200px

Moon and Venus

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: m31_r.jpg (461KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

461KB, 800x1200px

no new asto stuff for me, the weather is shit in switzerland. I move to my new house in about a month, will have my telescope on the roof and stuff.

M31
skywatcher 200/1000mm, canon 6d (EQ5 mount)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5580
Image Height	4089
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	72 dpcm
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:10:10 01:36:09
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	800
Image Height	1200

File: justastrothings.jpg (77KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 640x960px

>>2977033
also, a wild fox ate my cables

File: fox_stealing_my_cables.jpg (365KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 1200x800px

>>2977035
fuck you, fox.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON
Camera Model	COOLPIX AW130
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4608
Image Height	3456
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:04 02:49:07
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Auto
Focal Length	4.30 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: _dsc5165-_dsc5309-IRIS_LO_MED-PS.jpg (659KB, 634x950px) Image search: [Google]

659KB, 634x950px

Taurus molecular cloud @ 135mm.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4813
Image Height	7142
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Unknown
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:12:05 13:20:48
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	634
Image Height	950

>>2977033
Do you take photos of other shit, or just DS? I don't think I've ever seen you outside of an astro thread, which is a shame as your work is excellent.

File: IMG_7424.jpg (272KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 1000x667px

>>2977043
I also had a fox problem... fucker ran away with my tripod bag.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 70D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows)
Photographer	Carl Ost Wilkens
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:08 18:52:06
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	130.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2979802
daaaw

>>2977749
nice!

File: MWTrucklightS.jpg (302KB, 665x1000px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 665x1000px

My tripod snapped when I was tightening it in -16F :( I was in fairbanks AK and the sky was amazing. Completely ruined my weekend as I was unable to get a new one. Hopefully I can get a new one next weekend.

Anyone have any examples of good shots from a 50mm? I am hoping to get a couple lenses for christmas 14mm Rokinon for milky way, and then a 50mm for dual purpose daytime/portrait shots, but I was wondering if the 50mm is viable for Astro too.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3200
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	914
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4000
Image Height	6016
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:24 10:41:20
Exposure Time	25 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	665
Image Height	1000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: 2016-12-10_12-05-03.jpg (867KB, 658x1000px) Image search: [Google]

867KB, 658x1000px

Cant wait to get to my parents place on the countryside. Got a new camera and set of lenses as well this year, no more gimped 500D.

Cant remember what that stacking software was called though..

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2012:12:07 22:24:17
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	658
Image Height	1000

>>2980796
There is DeepSkyStacker and RegiStax, the two I know of. And of course Photoshop but it only has a very basic kind of stacking method.

>>2980796
Very nice shot BTW, fisheye lens? Tracking mount or simple tripod?

>>2980818
Ah yes, deekskystacker is the one, I remember the terrible website now.
Thanks.

>>2980820
Thanks. It was shot on my 8/3.5 samyang and 500D, using a standard tripod.
I tried with some of my other faster lenses but I couldn't get enough light before the stars started trailing too much.
Got more light out of the fisheye before trailing, which is why I'm excited over my 12/2 samyang lens.

Would love to get a tracking setup in the future.

>>2980827
>deekskystacker
>terrible
nope, you only think it's terrible because you don't understand how to use it

>>2980828
Read again, I called the site terrible.

>>2980833
My bad, yeah that shit is pretty outdated

>>2980828
It craps itself from my atsrotracer RAWs, no matter what I try to do. Simple RAWs work fine so I am stuck with post adjustment, export to tiff and then stack the tiffs.
Useless piece of crap and the devs won't do a damn thing about it. RegiStax is the epitome of crap UI.

>>2980828
It's also crap because it's a 32-bit program in almost 2017. Turn on drizzling and watch it slam into the address-space limit and crash.

>>2980927
I did. It wasn't pretty.

File: m33_1200w.jpg (379KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 800x1200px

>>2980828
deepskystacker is working fine for me (except the random crashes with some of my raw files). Did anyone try PixInsight? lot of people talking about it on astro forums. I guess I'm just too lazy to change my workflow at this point.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3237
Image Height	4848
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:11:07 01:19:03
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	800
Image Height	1200

File: ic434-3.jpg (129KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 667x1000px

^above is M33 galaxy (skywatcher 200/1000mm, Canon 6D, cls filter, EQ5 without autoguiding)

< horsehead and flame nebulae (from last year, same setup)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3670
Image Height	5496
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:12:03 02:14:51
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	667
Image Height	1000

File: veil_sigma_1200_w.jpg (598KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

598KB, 1200x800px

western part of the veil nebula in Cygnus

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4290
Image Height	2856
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:08:22 02:18:12
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800

File: heart_1200_w.jpg (745KB, 1200x801px) Image search: [Google]

745KB, 1200x801px

heart nebula with the telephoto lens (Canon 400mm f5.6)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4803
Image Height	3207
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:12:15 01:43:35
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	801

File: m42_3scopes.jpg (204KB, 1200x667px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1200x667px

M42 Orion nebula with different scopes and gear.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 1100D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	667
Image Height	1000
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:08:14 00:58:32
Exposure Time	30 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	6400
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	667
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: M20_sigma1web.jpg (318KB, 1200x799px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 1200x799px

>>2977802
Thanks! I mostly do astro stuff, but also macro and bird photography some times.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3531
Image Height	2351
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:07:15 02:56:24
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	799

>>2980947
PixInsight is a professional astrophotog software and is priced accordingly also no pirate version because of hardware key protection. Fucking outrageous!

File: IMG_7206-2w.jpg (53KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1200x800px

>>2980963
I wouldn't mind spending a few shekels on a software if I was sure it would improve my images. But Im so used to PS and Lightroom for all my editing.. I mean stacking is stacking, isnt Pixinsight just a bunch of filters that you can achieve in other software?
sorry for poor englisherino, Im swiss.

>Venus, Jupiter and 4 of its moons

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 1100D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4035
Image Height	2690
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:07:01 01:00:59
Exposure Time	4 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: IMG_5914w.jpg (225KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1000x667px

tried to do some sunspot imaging with my homemade solar filter (1500mm Maksutov-Cassegrain scope)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 1100D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4272
Image Height	2848
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:01:22 14:45:07
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: IMG_3585w.jpg (211KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 667x1000px

and some eclipse stuff

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 1100D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2848
Image Height	4272
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:03:20 13:08:21
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	667
Image Height	1000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: IMG_3585c.jpg (400KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 1000x667px

>>2980973
more eclipse shots.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 1100D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2848
Image Height	4272
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:03:20 13:10:56
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: eagle_m16_web.jpg (418KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 800x1200px

M16 Eagle nebula

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2573
Image Height	3865
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:07:14 03:04:29
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	800
Image Height	1200

File: ngc281_web2-980x653.jpg (187KB, 980x653px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 980x653px

>>2970256
I also took this object, less detail than yours (no HA filter) and wider field of view

>>2980966
No. PixInsight is like Photoshop where DSS and Registax is MS Paint. The Windows 3.1 version MS Paint.
It is a very powerful software, all the Nasa images with the fake color grading from various filter stacks are made with it, no wonder it is priced so high.
I wouldn't complain if DSS and Registax was updated now and then and wouldn't have to use a 32 bit 6 years old software on 16Gb memory chugging along like it was run on a 2001 Pentium.

I liked registax when it was command line. Simpler times.

>>2981193
I want to like RegiStax but it is too complicated for me for a simple stacking and the tutorials and documentation are a massive clusterfuck.
Also last update was 5 and a half years ago. No 64 bit just like with DSS.

File: SigmaCombinedFiles.jpg (477KB, 1425x950px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 1425x950px

Rosette nebula in h-alpha.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D5100
Camera Software	Adobe DNG Converter 9.6.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	974
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4948
Image Height	3280
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:12 16:24:33
Exposure Time	91 sec
F-Number	f/7.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	840.00 mm
Comment	Ville was here
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1425
Image Height	950
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2977749
Man there's so many stars we'll never get to explore.

File: mindblown.gif (494KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 200x200px

>>2983072
You are already exploring them by looking at them

File: test.jpg (741KB, 1099x934px) Image search: [Google]

741KB, 1099x934px

A few years ago I read an artice/watched a video on Spectral Instruments camera that was so sensitive and noise free it could image stars during the daylight (the faint exposure sitting a marginal fraction above the sky exposure somehow being sensitive enough to separate them).

Well I thought if thats actually true, other cameras should be capable of that if you stack enough images.

Tried with 83 images with a cropped section of the sky from my A7s at ISO 100 stacked with median method in PS, stretched contrast out.

Failed, but did get something interesting, the shape of the lens aperture is littered randomly all over the image.

>>2983369
Those are dark spots, seems more like a dust issue than an actual sky image.

File: DSC01543.jpg (181KB, 1000x668px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1000x668px

>>2983801
It isnt dust, it is the aperture imprinted all over the image, if you look closely it is pentagonal and oriented all in the same direction.

Pic related is one of the original images, there's plenty of dust I need to clean off, but the crop was taken from this image stacked from a clean section of the sky, and the contrast and local contrast expanded af.

>>2983890
It still doesn't explain why the spots are dark unless they block the light. Dust can look like aperture shape especially if the aperture is closed and the dust is further away from the sensor, like on the front element.

>>2984018
The thing is its not really dark, its such a miniscule fraction darker its not visible even on flat areas in normal images unless you manipulate it and expand the shit out of contrast to reveal it.


This is the general process to make it show up, though it was done on a single image rather than stack above, some is lost in noise of iso 100 but you can still clearly see it.
http://imgur.com/a/zLSWQ

>>2983369
This looks cool

>>2984053
The fact that it is darker even if minuscule means those are not from the stars, rather something blocking the light. Stars would show up lighter than the surrounding area because light adding up, just like during dusk (but in that case it is much more visible).
I am still skeptical about your experiment showing stars.

>>2984110
Yes I know its not stars, I said it was a failure, please read the post. But its the aperture imprinted in the image for some reason at extremely faint levels as to not be visible normal photos.

>>2984595
>But its the aperture imprinted in the image
Yeah, because of dust.

>>2984595
You are new to photography, aren't you?
You probably photographed dust or bugs or birds or whatever far away but they are so out of focus only the CoC shows up that is limited by the closed down aperture giving it the pentagonal shape.
Maybe finish elementary school first before you attempt to tinker with "science" next time.

>>2984612

>>2984615
>focus from 2m to infinity
>out of focus because far away


It aint dust newfags.

Dust shows up on the image, this doesnt show unless you stretch the contrast out to unreasonable levels, it isnt visible in the normal image.

Dust doesnt show up as the aperture shape either.

Fuck, you newfags have really bad comprehension from the get go.

>>2985267
Don't be upset, this is an actual unknown stuff (for us anyways) and going through all the possibilities and writing them off can lead to a suitable explanation.

Still, how would extra light cause darker spots?
You also didn't give any specifics about the setup, having an adapter with glass or the A-mount adapter with the mirror would explain the dust issue. In this case it can be very fine dust you can't see with naked eyes but the camera picks up the difference.

Have you tried recreating it? Maybe do two shots on different angles and crop from the same area. If it stays it is definitely from something inside your camera.

File: flat13.jpg (60KB, 700x467px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 700x467px

>>2985267
>Dust doesnt show up as the aperture shape either

But it does. Here's a so called flat image used in astrophotography. The dust shows up as the aperture of the telescope.

>>2986089
wtf i want to believe now

File: cpltest.jpg (917KB, 1000x2004px) Image search: [Google]

917KB, 1000x2004px

Ages back google a lot on polarising filters to see if theyd with light pollution at all, most answers seemed to say the scattering is diffuse and not polarised so they wouldn't.

No one tested it though.

Decided to go try it now and was expecting 0 results.

No exposure adjustment in raw conversion.

mades some space gifs

http://i.imgur.com/fV63Obr.gif

http://i.imgur.com/E1KnFzM.gif

http://i.imgur.com/rogC461.gif

>>2986103
>▶
very nice

how many seconds?

>>2986171
I wanna say 25-30 seconds, it was shot with a 16mm lens

>>2986174
mmmh, falling stars should look different.. or not?

>>2986176
I mean, i' m impressed how they look

>>2986176
>>2986179
Yeah I dont know whats flying through the frames because they are present for quiet some time, and at way different rates. In one of them the more blueish one, at the very end in the center a slow one comes through

>>2986182
could be the ISS, maybe

>>2986097
Thats neat, try with longer exposures and lower iso.
Might get a polfilter for my wide angle if it proves useful.

>>2986176
>>2986182
Those were definitely planes and satellites, not meteorites

Got a Celestron Nextar 6SE for Christmas

I already own an okayish Sony alpha 5000 and managed to buy a decent range of eyepieces.

Got a 3x barlow and all the T rings working just fine, also I ended up buying two T2 adapters because I'm that much of a chicken.

Tomorrow there will be clear skies from 11:00pm onwards, it's going to be cold as fuck but to be honest I'm pretty stoked. Hopefully by summer I will have enough money to buy a better camera.

Anyway bump

>>2989082
Get a cheap used entry Canon and get the sensor IR cut filter replaced to allow for H-alpha wavelength. There should be a few places to do the job or someone nearby on an astro forum.
Anything with Canons old 18MP sensor will do the job and those are getting cheap as nails.
Also get BackyardEOS from O'Telescope, it is the single best tool for astro work.

>>2989499
>>2989082
Oh, and use the wedge to translate the Alt-Az mount to equatorial

File: DSCF9765-Full.jpg (3MB, 4896x3264px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4896x3264px

Took this widefield shit over christmas

I can see andromeda clearly, but does anyone know what the thing straight below almost at the bottom of the picture might be? Another galaxy?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-T1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5.1 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:26 21:17:58
Exposure Time	13 sec
F-Number	f/1.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	-16 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2990732
Might be M33?

>>2990732
You took the photo upside down, mate

>>2990732
Stellarium is a great program and I suggest you make use of it.

>>2990793
Woah didn't know about that. So cool. Looks like it is indeed M33

File: horsehead.png (1MB, 1391x1039px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1391x1039px

Horsehead Nebula

Exposure: 30x60s Ha
Telescope: Startravel 80
Camera: Atik 314l+
Mount: Advanced VX
Guiding: N/A

File: orion.png (1MB, 1391x1039px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1391x1039px

Orion Nebula

Exposure: 15x30s Ha
Telescope: Startravel 80
Camera: Atik 314l+
Mount: Advanced VX
Guiding: N/A

File: ngc_2244.png (1MB, 1391x1039px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1391x1039px

Rosette Nebula

Exposure: 60x30s Ha
Telescope: Startravel 80
Camera: Atik 314l+
Mount: Advanced VX
Guiding: N/A

File: Crab.png (1MB, 1391x1039px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1391x1039px

Crab Nebula

Exposure: 8x300s Ha
Telescope: Startravel 80
Camera: Atik 314l+
Mount: Advanced VX
Guiding: Orion Starshoot with 50mm guide scope

Is there some special trick to focusing a lens on the stars. I've been using live view with no success.

>>2990878
Looks like my gf's cold sore.

>>2990904
use live view better. Use magnified live view on a bright star in the frame. Remember that modern AF lenses usually focus past infinity. If you're trying to actually use autofocus instead of focusing manually, don't do that. It just doesn't work, except for the moon.

You can also use a Bahtinov mask or something. Basically it's a pattern of slits that causes diffraction spikes to show up around the stars. You can then align the spikes precisely to determine proper focus. Most of the ones you can go out and buy are for telescopes, not camera lenses, but there are some in standard filter sizes. Alternatively you could just use a spare UV filter, some black cardboard, an exacto knife, and a spare hour to make one yourself.

I live in Maryland. Dark site finder says my immediate area is in the reds. I don't go out much specially at night. Am I pretty much shit out of luck?

>>2990873
>>2990875
>>2990876
>>2990878
Nice! You are definitely getting good details out of those images but it still appears soft. Maybe you need to do some collimation job on the scope and/or clean the mirror and optics. But you are definitely getting there.

>>2990921
You can get light-pollution filters. They're calibrated to block the ugly orange color from the sodium-vapor lamps that we insist on festooning our roads with, while letting most other bands through. The astronomical ones are fairly expensive, the cheap version is a "red intensifier", which was originally made to let film photographers alter the color response of their film, but happens to block the same orange wavelength.

Those help but they are not at all magic. You can still image larger, brighter objects in polluted areas, if you use them, but you have to take lots more images (the light pollution kills contrast) and you'll never get the same amount of detail as you would out of a proper dark sky. The only real solution is to get in your car and drive.

You could also send haranguing letters to your city council about how wasteful it is of electricity and taxpayer dollars to have everything lit up all the time, but don't hold your breath for success.

>>2990927
Not him but you are retarded.

>>2990935
>>2990927

>Startravel 80
Sorry, didn't see the refractor scope. Scratch the collimation, get a nice 150 or 200 size newtonian and keep the refractor for guiding or use it with a DSLR for a wider field scope.
The shots are still nice.

>>2991141
I already have a 200mm reflector. I'm wating for my new mount (NEQ6 Pro) and coma corrector. Couldn't get guiding to work with the amount of weight on the AVX mount.

Does anyone here know how to convert sky limiting magnitude to EV value?

Or if you know your sky limiting magnitude, can you check what EV value (aperture, iso, shutter speed) your sky hits middle grey at?

Mine hits it about EV -7 to -7.5

>>2990921
Im buying a optolong UHC soon, theyve been tested to be pretty good, it blocks the most light pollution for a single (ignoring stacking) exposure colour image.

If you go via taobao you can get them in 77mm and 82mm too not just 2 inch (48 mm).

File: Astrotracer.webm (1MB, 900x654px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 900x654px

I didn't make this one but I think it looks cool

>>2991795
Tonight its about EV -8.1 for sky fog to reach middle grey, about 20.7 Mag/sq arc-sec.

Obviously colour balance is way different, but about 3 stops more exposure to reach an equivalent middle grey exposure from what I can tell with the filter.

Thats an improvement to a potential of 22.96 with objects that respond the best (objects that fit mostly entirely within the wavelengths not cut out).

Gonna go test it out on some imaging now.

File: helvetin-huonosti-kuvattu-andromedan-galaksi.jpg (490KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 1024x683px

M31 with 120ED and NEQ-6 Pro. lel forgot to take flats so the results are shit.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	7378
Image Height	4980
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:16 18:15:02
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1024
Image Height	683

>>2992864
Nice light leaks

File: SigmaCombinedFiles-gamma3-xs.jpg (275KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 1024x683px

here's the central part with C14. no flats, no reducer, no field flattener, shit seeing.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	7223
Image Height	4815
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Unknown
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2017:01:01 13:36:03
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1024
Image Height	683

File: orion.jpg (348KB, 1000x668px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 1000x668px

>>2992834
Single straight out of camera jpeg, auto white balance, with the Optolong UHC.

135mm f/3.5, nano tracker.

Major improvement in visibility like that, cant wait for this to stack.

>>2980796
fantastic

File: IMG_6518-1.jpg (796KB, 3154x4894px) Image search: [Google]

796KB, 3154x4894px

My shots always look out of focus. Sometimes I don't have something to focus on when I'm out there. How do you get clear photos? Is this clear? (I always think they're out of focus because of my shit eyes.)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	PENTAX K-3
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Macintosh)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	31 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:03 13:55:59
Exposure Time	30 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	-2 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	21.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Close View

File: oreezy.jpg (1MB, 1287x1800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1287x1800px

just was testing how this lens handles Astro, don't have a tracking mount but better than I thought for the shutter speed.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:02 23:05:23
Exposure Time	2 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	6400
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	200.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2994466
30s exposure is too much, there's trailing.

Also, if your camera has a liveview function, use it to zoom on a distant light or a bright star, then manually adjust the focus. Or you could make a bahtinov mask and focus using that.

>>2994510
>30s exposure is too much, there's trailing.
What would you suggest? I can go up to 6400 iso but I would rather have trails than grain.

It does have a live view, but it(me) had trouble focusing on far away lights. I could zoom in with the lens and focus, but when I pull out with the lens (sorry, don't know the correct term), the focus changes, doesn't it? I also wear glasses and I've always had problems with this, even in daylight. :(

>>2994505
Which lens? Canon or third party

>>2994610
For the noise problem, you could take multiple shots at 6400, align and stack them. Should help with the noise. Look into Deep Sky Stacker or alternatives.

File: mountain-night-sky-milky-way.jpg (1MB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1600px

>>2994664
Would you be able to explain this further or point me to a video that can? I only have Lightroom and I prefer to only minimally edit my photos. Will Deep Sky Tracker be able to do something like the attached? The two screen shots on the website didn't really tell me much.

>>2994672
>I only have Lightroom and I prefer to only minimally edit my photos
Well, you're gonna have to get over that.

Photos like the one you posted are not single exposures. You take shots of the sky. If you're doing very wide angle stuff, or are willing to take a great many shorter exposures, you may not need to use tracking. You take a bunch of dark frames (a photo of the inside of the lens cap) to stack with them - this reduces noise. You may also take flat frames, a frame filled with evenly-lit nothing, which you use in the stacking to correct vignetting. Then you do all this stacking. it can be done in PS or GIMP, but its a tedious manual process, which is why people use DSS, crappily-coded though it is. You take what it spits out and edit it. That photo has been cooked to within an inch of its life. Saturation boosted, contrast boosted, colors altered, plenty more.

Now you have half your photo.

The other half being the foreground. Tracking will fuck your foreground, you're moving the camera to follow the moving sky, which makes it blurry. Multiple exposures of the sky will do the same thing, since the sky will move over the course of several minutes, and will have to be re-aligned in stacking, so it shifts the foreground all over the place. So what you do is after photographing the sky, you photograph the foreground. Fuck trailing, just get the foreground to look good. This is probably a much longer single exposure (possibly with its own dark frame(s) at its own exposure settings to reduce noise) Even if you neither track nor stack you need to do this, because good exposure for the sky and for the foreground are so different. So now you go home and take the foreground and cook THAT photo to within an inch of its life.

You now shoop the two photos together.

File: IMGP0910.jpg (250KB, 2000x1337px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 2000x1337px

>>2994672
>>2994682
Here's a photo that demonstrates why you can't do this in one exposure, or get by with minimum editing. This is a photo I took on a trip a while back. It was late, I'd been driving for twelve hours that day, and I stepped out behind the cabins I was staying at and took some quick snapshits, without bothering to do any real setup beforehand or fancy post-processing after.

It's a 20-second exposure at 14mm, which is about as long as you can go without doing the track-n-stack rigamarole. Note the difference between the sky and the foreground, and within the foreground. The sky is washed out, even in a national park with minimal light pollution. It's just dim, is all. The way you make it pop like in your photo is to collect more light to give you enough to generate more saturation and contrast, and support for boosting them further in post. You can also see the heavy vignetting my cheap Samyang 14/2.8 produces when shot wide open.

In the foreground, the window in the cabin is a bit blown out, as is the area to its left (someone turned their headlights on) But the picnic table in the front is far underexposed. The exposure's already been pushed a bit, it's still dim and very muddy. What I would have needed is essentially an HDR photo of the foreground. You do HDR, of course, by exposing for the various parts in turn and combining them. Now none of those would have gotten me anything in the sky, since exposing to stop the window from blowing out would leave the sky very dim due to the short exposure, and exposing for the picnic table would have required at least a minute, which would mean trailing.

The result isn't all that impressive. Its the multiple exposures and heavy editing that make it impressive, and I didn't do that in this photo. You can make impressive landscape astro, but you have to be willing to go through the rigamarole.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	PENTAX K-1
Camera Software	RawTherapee
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	15 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	7368
Image Height	4924
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:08:27 21:53:48
Exposure Time	20 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	6400
Exposure Bias	-1/2 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	15.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

>>2994661
Canon 80-200

>>2980013
It may have ruined your weekend mate but that shit is great
I dunno I have weird taste so maybe I'm wrong

>>2994672
>>2994664
It will only take care of electronic noise, the photonic noise still shows up with its sporadicity.

File: crop.jpg (388KB, 970x1042px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 970x1042px

>>2992942
crop

>>2994854
nice, but a wider crop with the M42 would be much nicer.

File: DSCF9984-Full-2.jpg (1MB, 2212x1475px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2212x1475px

Shot Orion Nebula with Fuji XT-1 and the 18-55 mm lens.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-T1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	79 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:06 13:43:55
Exposure Time	6.5 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Brightness	-10.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	52.70 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2996619
With that lens you should try capturing the whole Orion region, not just the M42. There is the horse head nebula, the Orion loop and the witch head nebula and part of the Milky Way, a whole lot of stuff to see.

How do I astro for cheap.
I got a nikon dlsr and I'm interested in developing my own rig for shit and giggles since I'm familiar with positioning equipment.

What can I get to put in between my rig and my dslr that could produce neat stuff in the following price ranges, describe what can be done with each pretty please.
100europoors
250europoors
500europoors

>>2996805
You can try to DIY a barndoor tracker with stepper motor drive and arduino controller, you will need a sturdy tripod, a wedge and a threaded head like the 410jr from Manfrotto or a sturdy ball head like 498RC2
Get a small refractor, 400-450mm focal length equivalent and use the BackyardNikon software.

>>2996822
I'm not worried about the rig, I'm well equipped there.
The optical bit is lacking.

>>2996830
http://www.astrophotography-tonight.com/astrophotography-comparing-three-80mm-refractors/

>>2996805
500e should get you EQ-5 with NEMA14 stepping motors (20-30e) and belt mod (around 20e), connected to PC via AstroEQ (100e) to have go-to and accurate tracking. When you have tracking mount, all is good.

What is the general consensus on the Skywatcher Star Adventurer? Star Adventurer or the new Star Adventurer Mini with the wifi control?
I want to get something that can reliably track with up to a 300-400mm lens

File: DSC_6586_1736.jpg (253KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1000x1500px

Newtonian telescope + barlow lens 2x + nikon D7100.

Not sure if it doesn't look sharp due to the barlow lens, or if it was caused by the clouded sky.

I'm still waiting for a clear sky to try to take some better photos.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D7100
Camera Software	ViewNX 2.10 W
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	1004
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:05 21:16:51
Exposure Time	1/13 sec
F-Number	f/3.3
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1500
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2994684
Sorry for delay. I actually like your photo more. How would I do that? Is this just a single photo at 20sec exposure and then slightly edited? I took some shots of the Milky Way but none of the purple came out and I was disappointed.

>>3000293
Not that anon but I think the photo was an example to show a single exposure is bad for milky way shots with foreground. You should do a separate exposure or even a whole stack fr the milky way in ETTR then another exposure or more for the foreground and stack them together by hand.
For example if you want to do an elaborate lighting for the foreground but you have limited number of lights and light painting is limited due to exposure time then you do the lighting for different subjects in each frame and then stack together to have a multiple lighting foreground shot. Then you can add the milky way background from the milky way stack.
There are a number of tutorials for this on YT.

I am that anon

>>3000293
>Is this just a single photo at 20sec exposure and then slightly edited?
Yes. The example you posted is a bit overcooked, but it's a lot better than my photo. If I remember right the main thing I did to mine was just bumping the contrast, saturation, and exposure a bit. You can do that in 60 seconds but >>3000581 has it right, it's much more an example of the limits of what you can do with a single frame.

If you want color in your milky way shots you need two things. One, you need stacked exposures, as mentioned. The goal being to collect a lot more light (the fancy term in astro is "integration time") Two, you need a place free from light pollution. I live near Chicago and even fifty miles away from the city there's still way too much light pollution to shoot the milky way very well, it's washed out and all an ugly orange-brown color. Go on Dark Site Finder and look for a place that's blue on their map.

>>3000603
With ETTR method you can extract a lot from light polluted areas. I remeber there was a tutorial video on how to do it in PS on YT. Just search for ETTR method.

>>3000756
Why is it so out of focus?

>>3001852
>Why is it so out of focus?
The atmospheric turbulance was really bad. Focusing in live view was difficult, the stars were like lumpy blobs moving about. I took 15 and 30 second exposures and the stars looked like noisy blobs, stacked not as noisy blobs.

I really do need to make a Bahtinov mask and stop photographing objects above a restaurant kitchen and next to a street light.

File: a-3.jpg (627KB, 1000x637px) Image search: [Google]

627KB, 1000x637px

The Antares region (Rho Ophiuchi Nebula Complex) and Milky Way

Taken with Sony A7s, ISO25600, 80 images at 5sec, Lens Canon 24-105mm f/4 @ ~55mm bei f/4, no guiding at all, just a tripod.

Images were stacked with DeepSkyStacker and then processed in Photoshop Lightroom

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:10 02:02:32
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: cirrus.jpg (814KB, 1000x639px) Image search: [Google]

814KB, 1000x639px

>>3003808
Same Image data, but this time the cirrus supernova remnant (image center), NGC 7000 (upper left corner) and Milkyway.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:10 02:02:41
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: Moon.jpg (457KB, 1000x845px) Image search: [Google]

457KB, 1000x845px

>>3003809
Sony a7s with MTO 1000mm f/10@2000mm f/20 (2x tele extender), Exposuretime 1/2000sec@ISO20000

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7S
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:10 02:12:53
Exposure Time	1/2000 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	20000
Brightness	-4.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: 084.png (102KB, 300x256px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 300x256px

>>3003811
>Exposuretime 1/2000sec@ISO20000

>>3003833
>sony user

File: IMG_9530L.jpg (476KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

476KB, 2000x1333px

I went out to photograph the moonrise last night and remembered that the Orion nebula [M42] is supposed to be overhead at this time. I easily spotted the Orion Constellation but it was directly overhead and my tripod isn't designed to point that way. With no telescope and no tracking ability - and using a Mac so no stacking ability either... I managed to capture this image handheld by holding my camera against the side of my car as I crouched on the ground for a 4 second exposure. Surprised to see there was some color too. Now I wonder how I'd go if I had (and understood) access to a tracking array.

Just edited this earlier today by tweaking it slightly in Photoshop. I know, it's crap. But I was amazed to see my first nebula on the LCD of my camera. I did NOT expect to be able to photograph it (especially hand-held ... although this Canon lens has a 4-stop I.S.).

Camera: Canon EOSM (Mk1) Mirrorless.
Lens: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM

I just visited my local telescope store last week to buy an inexpensive Bahtinov focus mask for my lenses to assure better focus at night. I saw some incredible photographs at the store taken with the smallest of their telescopes. All on very expensive mounts with tracking. The guy at the store told me that the mount is always more important than anything else you buy (other than the telescope). You probably don't need to spend crazy money if you just want to clip your camera to the back of it. Some of the really affordable Celestron telescopes (eg Celestron Nextstar 5?) have a wedge built-in to the base - which enables you to track objects with your camera mounted right where the eyepiece is... or clipped to the tube. A wedge gives your system the ability to better track with the Earth's rotation.

I was so impressed with the fun I had with my camera last night that I really do want a telescope now. I'd love to see what I can get whilst tracking a nebula. You'll want at least 200mm lens or higher though.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS M
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5184
Image Height	3456
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:17 10:19:05
Exposure Time	4 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	6400
Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	400.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1333
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3003833
either, he shot handheld, or he didnt know that the focal length vs shutterspeed rule of thumb dont apply when using tripod

>>3004021
400mm on 1.5s still produced trailing, gotta bring that down to 1s or below. If you want slower shutter speed then bring down the focal length to 200mm. Still 4s would be too much.

File: M42 Orion 2.jpg (136KB, 1000x694px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1000x694px

>>3004021
Id suggest to get a good tracking mount, a 400mm lens like the 100-400 L II is an excellent refractor scope. Get at least an EQ3 or EQ5 mount or a good sturdy tripod and a Star Adventurer. The bigger one.
I felt the same when I got my first nebula shot, with M42 as well, pic related. On a crappy tripod with plastic parts that went jelly state under the 400mm lens.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi

File: IMG_2966.jpg (605KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

605KB, 667x1000px

>>3003833
>>3004051
With 2m focal length, and windy conditions a tripod is not making it absolutely fixed.
The image was shot during dawn, which, at the location (top of the roque-de-los-muchachos@2300m) always is quite windy, so you still need a low exposuretime to not make it blurry.

>>3004015
I also use a Canon 6D

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6.1 (Windows)
Photographer	Matthias Bergmann
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:10 01:55:21
Exposure Time	30 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	12800
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3004088
>I also use a Canon 6D
Quite badly by the looks of it.

>>3003808
>>3003809
>those corners
You definitely need a prime lens to take these again. Get a Pentax M 50/1.7 and if you can a Super Takumar 135/2.5 or SMC Pentax-K 135/2.5 too. Excellent lenses for astro work

>>3004217
The corners are from movement of the sky during the capture, since I didn't use any tracking.
After stacking only the central third of the image was sort-of usable.

>>3004233
Use RegiStax next time. It's a hassle compared to DSS with the UI from the 2000 basic Linux design but it is much more powerful and gives better results

>>3003808
Damn DSS really makes wonder on the noise.

Now Im hyped to try it some more.

File: LIDAR_V3.jpg (525KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

525KB, 1000x667px

>>3004129
Might not've choosen the best example

>>3004271
Nah, changing of the software wouldn't change much, maybe the method of stacking.

>>3004332
Yes, it did a great deal, stacking pictures really helps increasing the SNR.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows)
Photographer	Matthias Bergmann
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2015:06:08 20:52:13
Exposure Time	15 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	12800
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3004367
>maybe the method of stacking.
Not him but I really can't work with the DSS files from the raw files (perhaps I am missing something).

Going about things backwards, I've raped the raws in RawTherapee, saved to tiff and then stacked in DSS.

The work flow maybe longer but it seems to be working (ish).

>>3004271
>Use RegiStax
Is it much better than DSS? Just getting back into astro. I've had it installed for ages but never got around to figuring it out. I always thought it was for planetary stuff.

>>2967439
I use a Optolong 2 inch (48mm thread) UHC filter on my 135mm - it is an amazing filter, if you shop on taobao you can get them in 77mm and 82mm too.

It made a huge difference for me, but you need to be careful any reflections even very dim reflections in dark conditions throws red casting across the image, so shade the lens with some kind of long hood even if its just black paper or something.

>>3004233
I have that problem on my 28mm if I profile correct the lens for vignetting and distortion prior to bringing the images in to DSS, if I dont, no issue.

>>3004271
Better results in what metric? Is the registering/stacking faster?

>>3004367
>changing of the software wouldn't change much, maybe the method of stacking
This is really it, the method of stacking in RegiStax is just better, more control, I could extract more from the results then from DSS. Where in the DSS results the color info starts to fall into noise the RegiStax still gives detail. This is how I discovered the stacks had awful light leaks. The DSS result was overly noisy and the RegiStax result showed the telltale coloring of the light leak.
It is horribly designed though, looks like the creators never seen anything with a UI before. And it also crashes when it hits the memory ceiling, definitely needs a 64 bit revamp. And a decent UI.

>>3004423
Dude, don't lens correct before stacking. You're not photographing a 200 lighyears sized brick wall

>>3004597
I figured that after the first go, but it fixed the vignetting without needing a bunch of flats, I mostly shoot tele not wide anyway

>>2967439

Following this thread with great interest. I have little no no experience with astro photography, so bear with me.

Measured in seconds or minutes, how long would you guys say would be the upper limit for a single exposure using, say, a Sky-Watcher SynScan GoTo mount combined with a short refractor (500-600 mm) before small tracking inaccuracies cause oval stars or even more severe star trailing?

In other words; Are stacking techniques more or less obligatory when photographing more dimly lit deep sky objects using telescope (500-2000 mm), not short-to-medium lens-type (85-135 mm) focal lengths?

>>3005852
It is an Alt-Az mount, convert it to equatorial. Then you can take images. If you can get an 80 size 400-450mm scope instead, it is wide field in astro. You can get easier and more interesting complex structures instead of the hassle of going for DSOs. Better to start with the smaller scopes then with enough experience and equipment you can go for DSOs.
Watch YT videos, start with "small refractor astrophotography". Also watch all of Forrest Tanakas astro videos. Scott Manley also has an interesting astro video too and many others explaining astro and rocket science stuff.

>>3005852
>bear with me
That sounds dangerous m8