Jupiter
Sep 3, 2019 14:25:35 #
The top photo was just fooling around with the P1000 (no tracking). 3000mm
Some night soon I'll put it on a tracking mount and see what it's capable of.
It has been a really pleasant surprise for "terrestrial" imaging and I keep it with me, in the car, at all times.
Bottom picture is what can be done with my Nikon D850 and a larger, "tracked" scope. You won't see as much detail with the (smaller aperture) P1000 even in a tracking mount...But the North and South equatorial band should be easy.
Imagine the top image...only sharper, and you'll get an idea.
Some night soon I'll put it on a tracking mount and see what it's capable of.
It has been a really pleasant surprise for "terrestrial" imaging and I keep it with me, in the car, at all times.
Bottom picture is what can be done with my Nikon D850 and a larger, "tracked" scope. You won't see as much detail with the (smaller aperture) P1000 even in a tracking mount...But the North and South equatorial band should be easy.
Imagine the top image...only sharper, and you'll get an idea.
Sep 3, 2019 14:47:40 #
Was the bottom picture a single shot or stacked video frames? How large was the scope, 12"?
mharvey wrote:
The top photo was just fooling around with the P10... (show quote)
Sep 3, 2019 15:18:09 #
Single shot. I don't stack or filter. All I'm interested in is what objects actually look like at the eyepiece!
That particular Jupiter was with a 14" f/4.5.
I have much better images that were done with my 28" f/3.7. But I was trying to avoid "great expectations".
All I'm interested in is what objects actually look like at the eyepiece!
Ex. the attached image of M-17 (top) and M-20 (below). Those are both 3-second images with a 22" f/4 and a new ATIK imager. No one will ever see them like that that at the eyepiece of ANY scope an amateur is likely to own...But Scope manufacturers sometimes (often) use such images in their advertising. What happens is that thousands of scopes and up stuffed in closets and tend if thousands of misled buyers lose interest in astronomy!
That particular Jupiter was with a 14" f/4.5.
I have much better images that were done with my 28" f/3.7. But I was trying to avoid "great expectations".
All I'm interested in is what objects actually look like at the eyepiece!
Ex. the attached image of M-17 (top) and M-20 (below). Those are both 3-second images with a 22" f/4 and a new ATIK imager. No one will ever see them like that that at the eyepiece of ANY scope an amateur is likely to own...But Scope manufacturers sometimes (often) use such images in their advertising. What happens is that thousands of scopes and up stuffed in closets and tend if thousands of misled buyers lose interest in astronomy!
Sep 3, 2019 16:50:51 #
Magnificent shots. I'm thinking your 14" setup cost more than $8,000 and your 28" setup around $20,000. I agree with your point about expectations, which is why I tried to show the OP what he could expect in his price range. But the cost in time and learning and physical work is probably even more.
mharvey wrote:
Single shot. I don't stack or filter. All I'm inte... (show quote)
Sep 3, 2019 17:24:21 #
Those prices are about right, when they were bought! š
They both have custom-figured mirrors, GO-TO and Tracking as well as additional upgrades.
Today you'd probably be looking at $15,000+ and $35,000+!
A 32", equipped like mine and built by the same maker, just went to Lowell Observatory for well over $50,000!
They both have custom-figured mirrors, GO-TO and Tracking as well as additional upgrades.
Today you'd probably be looking at $15,000+ and $35,000+!
A 32", equipped like mine and built by the same maker, just went to Lowell Observatory for well over $50,000!
Sep 3, 2019 19:10:10 #
Sep 3, 2019 19:20:59 #
Pbrico wrote:
I want the critique! Iām learning....
A breeze seems to effect it.
A breeze seems to effect it.
I shoot Canon. But we can still be friends. LOL. So I'm not really familiar with the Coolpix series. It definitely looks worthy.
If the lens extends that extremely, perhaps the telephoto bracket may be helpful. It is really intended for the really large zoom lenses.
But I want to lay a gentle reminder upon you. I was taught years ago, the camera does 1% of the work. The remaining 99% of the work is done by the nut in the viewfinder. Keeping this theory in mind definitely keeps you on your toes and knowing what you want the final photograph to look like.
I started learning photography in High School in 1976. Im still learning. I'm a hobbyist and not a pro. I hope you don't mind my limited knowledge and my gentle critique. I too would like the same from fellow Hoggers.
Happy Shooting!
Sep 3, 2019 20:11:02 #
Sep 3, 2019 20:20:45 #
carl hervol wrote:
where is the red spot?
Dark Side of the Moon - It's dimmed to a Pink (Floyd) spot.
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
Sep 3, 2019 21:06:28 #
I Derfdog wrote:
Dark Side of the Moon - It's dimmed to a Pink (Floyd) spot.
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
Cool! Another Pink Floyd fan.
Do you have a favorite album?
Sep 3, 2019 21:22:17 #
Sep 3, 2019 23:09:09 #
Unless I misunderstand, you're referring to the detailed image of Jupiter?
That was NOT taken with a P1000.
It was a Nikon D850 on a 14" f/4.5 telescope plus 3X Barlow (amplifier) lens.
I have not tried the P1000 on a tracking mount nor a large scope (the size of that lens rules it out).
That was NOT taken with a P1000.
It was a Nikon D850 on a 14" f/4.5 telescope plus 3X Barlow (amplifier) lens.
I have not tried the P1000 on a tracking mount nor a large scope (the size of that lens rules it out).
Sep 3, 2019 23:27:32 #
mharvey wrote:
Unless I misunderstand, you're referring to the detailed image of Jupiter?
That was NOT taken with a P1000.
It was a Nikon D850 on a 14" f/4.5 telescope plus 3X Barlow (amplifier) lens.
I have not tried the P1000 on a tracking mount nor a large scope (the size of that lens rules it out).
That was NOT taken with a P1000.
It was a Nikon D850 on a 14" f/4.5 telescope plus 3X Barlow (amplifier) lens.
I have not tried the P1000 on a tracking mount nor a large scope (the size of that lens rules it out).
You must have one hell of a mount on that 14" to be tracking. At f4.5 I imagine it's a reflector?
Sep 3, 2019 23:42:16 #
All-aluminum construction (truss tube) on a Dobsonian mount.
They're made by Starstructure. Over the years, I've tried all the big Dob makers, and there are several excellent brands. But, in my opinion, NOTHING is equal to the Starstructures. You can look them up online.
They're made by Starstructure. Over the years, I've tried all the big Dob makers, and there are several excellent brands. But, in my opinion, NOTHING is equal to the Starstructures. You can look them up online.
Sep 3, 2019 23:46:25 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.