«

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 00:08:49 +0000 (UTC), "Luke" <> wrote:

The mount is indeed very important. However, digital cameras have far surpassed
film for lunar (moon) and planetary (e.g., Mars) work. For planetary, the
technique is to take a lot of digital images in a short period of time, and then
combine them. Film still rules for widefield stuff IMHO, though digital cameras
are catching up.

Strangely, cheaper digicams and webcams are better for planets than DSLR's as
you don't get mirror vibration in the former, and you can capture a huge number
of images in a short time with the latter.

See also my other post on this topic.

Dick

>Kulvinder,
>
>From what I understand as far as the average consumer goes you will be able
>to do much better with film than with any normal digital camera.
>
>To get a good exposure you need very slow shutter speeds and you will
>generally end up with too much noise in a digital camera. Film doesn't
>really have the same problem, you can take very long exposures and still
>maintain dynamic range.
>
>CCD's used in astronomy are cryogenically cooled to reduce the dark current.
>
>For any consumer grade telescope if you want to take a photo which will
>revel detail on Mars one of the major limiting factors will be how still you
>can keep the telescope. You will need a very firm mount and don't go
>anywhere near it whilst you are taking the exposure.
>
>Good luck, it's a fascinating project, but don't expect miracles unless you
>can get hold of some top notch astronomy kit.
>
>Luke
>

> For planetary, the
> technique is to take a lot of digital images in a short period of time,
and then
> combine them. Film still rules for widefield stuff IMHO, though digital
cameras
> are catching up.
>

What do you use to adjust alignment in recombination? Or do you just stack
and hope for the best?

Luke

DL wrote:

> See
> http://www.szykman.com/Astro/AstroDigiCamFAQ.html
> which is the FAQ from the digital_astro
> yahoo group.
>
> You definitely need a telescope. The size you need is another matter, but let's
> just say that size isn't everything
>
> Here's what I'm doing with my 4" refractor:
>
> http://home.houston.rr.com/dtlocke/Mars-2003.htm
> -Dick

Dick:
Wow! Your images are very impressive for a 4-inch
refractor. Great work.

Roger Clark

Kulvinder Singh Matharu writes:

> I have a 400mm zoom, but I gather that this is
> inadequate and that I'll need to at least get a teleconvertor.

Mars will be no larger than 25 arc-seconds across, which is about 1/1200
the field of view of a 400 mm lens, and 1/60 the diameter of the full
moon. You'll need more than a teleconverter.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Bob O`Bob writes:

> In a few days, it'll be closer than at any time
> in the last 60,000 years.

But only very slightly closer. It will still not be clearly visible as
a disc to the naked eye; it will just be a red point of light.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 17:56:23 -0600, "Roger N. Clark"
<> wrote:

[snip]
>That said, the 10D is superb. If you can pull it
>together, take lots images trying for the most
>stable air (which may last only a fraction of a second
>every minute or so).

Thanks very much for the advice!

Took a hand-held photo of the Moon using my 28-135mm IS zoom lens a
couple of months go...

http://www.metalvortex.com/photo_art/moon/index.htm

I rather like to think that it came out OK!

--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Contact details : http://www.metalvortex.com/form/index.htm
Website : http://www.metalvortex.com/

"It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice" - The Clash

Kulvinder Singh Matharu <real-address-in-> wrote:

> Took a hand-held photo of the Moon using my 28-135mm IS zoom lens a
> couple of months go...

> http://www.metalvortex.com/photo_art/moon/index.htm

> I rather like to think that it came out OK!

I think so too. I like the clouds. We usually see "just the moon" shots.

--
Charlie Dilks
Newark, DE USA

Love the composition of that shot - great! Zol.

"Kulvinder Singh Matharu" <real-address-in-> wrote in message
news: .co.uk...
> On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 17:56:23 -0600, "Roger N. Clark"
> <> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >That said, the 10D is superb. If you can pull it
> >together, take lots images trying for the most
> >stable air (which may last only a fraction of a second
> >every minute or so).
>
> Thanks very much for the advice!
>
> Took a hand-held photo of the Moon using my 28-135mm IS zoom lens a
> couple of months go...
>
> http://www.metalvortex.com/photo_art/moon/index.htm
>
> I rather like to think that it came out OK!
>
> --
> Kulvinder Singh Matharu
> Contact details : http://www.metalvortex.com/form/index.htm
> Website : http://www.metalvortex.com/
>
> "It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice" - The Clash

> Mars will be no larger than 25 arc-seconds across, which is about 1/1200
> the field of view of a 400 mm lens, and 1/60 the diameter of the full
> moon. You'll need more than a teleconverter.

Here is where My Sony F-717 will be In the next few Days :
http://www.mvas.org/archive/jbspo/jbpicnic.jpg

At this scope It's a 12" reflector F-12 Made just for Planetary
Observations and photography!
http://www.mvas.org/archive/jbspo/12inch.jpg

I'll post the results!

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 18:15:31 +0100, in
<. uk>, Kulvinder Singh
Matharu <real-address-in-> said:

>Took a hand-held photo of the Moon using my 28-135mm IS zoom lens a
>couple of months go...
>
>http://www.metalvortex.com/photo_art/moon/index.htm
>
>I rather like to think that it came out OK!

Nice!
I'm very impressed. I'll have to try it myself with my 100-300mm 'L'
lens.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------