horsehead and hose head same izzit? i always refer this to horsehead nebula...Originally posted by Flare
Hose head nebula~ One of the most commonly shot object in the night sky...
The actual Horsehead (Barnard 30) is a dark nebula, however it's surrounded by IC 434 which is a reflection nebulae (the red bit) which is illuminated by Sigma Orionis. To the lower left is NGC 2023 that is a large reflection nebula.Originally posted by isomers007
horsehead and hose head same izzit? i always refer this to horsehead nebula...anyway...this one is de dark nebula type, rite? juz clouds of dust which blocks de light from behind...btw, nice pic!
Actually it's one of the most commonly attempted objects, very few shots of it are successful due to it being all but impossible to see the Horsehead visually.Originally posted by Flare
Hose head nebula~ One of the most commonly shot object in the night sky...
Not to mention a lot of patience... 60 minutes exposure.Originally posted by isomers007
i think de 1st thing u muz have is a telescope![]()
Sure, all you need is a telescope that can take a camera and is of a good sized aperture, siderial drives to allow tracking, mirror lock up on the camera, a temperature controlled vaccum chamber with the right gas mixture to modify the flim, plus the perquisite astronomy and photography knowledge and a decade or two of practice and you'll be able to take a shot like the one aboveOriginally posted by eadwine
goood goood can someone teach me how to take such pictures??? =D
wah...like that also can? this is hardcore..Originally posted by Ian
a temperature controlled vaccum chamber with the right gas mixture to modify the flim
i cleared my cache and i refresh...still can see leh...Originally posted by ckiang
The pic disappeared.
Regards
CK
I can see it now. Probably some intermittent network problem. Yes, this is indeed a very spectacular shot! :thumbsup:Originally posted by Wai
i cleared my cache and i refresh...still can see leh...
IT depends how you want to price the entire system, if you include all my scopes and the special hand built MF astrocamera and the 300/2 lens then it's well in the 6 digit range. Take out the 300/2 and custom astrocamer and it's back in the 5 digit range.Originally posted by Klause
Whao very nice! Ian, how much did you spend on the setup? Just curious, I heard that Astrophotography is an expensive hobby.
The shot was actually taken at the Schmidt Cassegrainian Focus position, a position that is frequently misrepresented by people who should know better, for example writers for the major astronomy magazines whom incorrectly refer to it as 'prime focus'.Originally posted by djork
prime focus.
It's actually a gas/dust pillar that exists, however how it appears to an observer will depend on their position relative to the pillar. From Earth at present it looks like the shot above, in 100,000 years time it will look different no doubt.Originally posted by seamon
wow... thats cool... does it really exist?
Originally posted by roygoh
Hi Ian,
Anyway, the eyepieces that came with the scope are pathetic 0.96" type, so I looked around the internet and saw the William Optics DCL-28 24mm Plossl eyepiece that has a 28mm thread so that it can be attached sirectly to a CP995. I ordered that after reading some good reviews on dpreview.
Unfortunately, the scope is fitted with a 0.96" focuser, so I also went ahead to buy a 0.96" - 1.25" adapter.
The DCL-28 eyepiece will provide a magnification of approximately 37.5x with the DS-80. The optimal focal length of the CP995 in macro mode is about 70~100mm (35mm equivalent). That means that I can get an equivalent focal length of 2625~3750mm.
I know it will be relatively easy to get a full-frame shot of the moon with this setup. Is this good enough for photographing the farther planets like Jupiter and Saturn?
Have you had any experience wih Meade's autostar tracking? Will it track the planets smooth enough for photography?
Is the 0.96" focuser going to cause significant vignetting?
I'd not expect there to be much vignetting with your digicam, if there is then there's not much you can do about it anyway. Vignetting with an SLR typically occurs even with a 2" focuser on most scopes. I did some calculations for a 10" scope and found the optimal focuser for astrophotography was 2.75" inner diameter, which is a bitch as no one makes one in that size.Originally posted by roygoh
Hopefully, I can get enough experience in shorter than 20 years
and progress to SLR photography. I guess the FM10 body should be the best candidate among the equipment I own for this purpose. Do I absolutely have to toss the 0.96" focuser and go for 1.25 or 2" if I want to have any success with SLR astrophotography?
I know the DS-80 is quite a modest scope, but what exactly would be its limitations?
Sorry for throwing such a big bunch of questions. You are the only person I "know" who is experienced in this.