Quote:
Originally Posted by poider
Thank you all for your experience and knowledge, I guess I will have to fight the urge that closer is better, I need to learn better stacking, I took a bunch of subs and lights and darks etc but didn't really like the result.
It's hard to think of taking photos of objects so far away and not using every bit of magnification.
I am already starting to think the Star adventurer was a waste with the amount of cloud we have here in Adelaide.
|
The Star Adventurer is ideal for lens imaging. That is what I use my Lighttrack ii for.
So far though the Redcat 51 is too heavy for it and a small refractor would be pushing it.
But its perfect for lens imaging up to say arbitrarily 135mm or so, perhaps 200.
I use mine for nightscapes not for deep sky particularly but I did do one deep image of the Large Magellanic Cloud.
A decent mount is the starting point.
You can get a decent image with a lousy camera and lousy lens on a good performing mount.
You can't get a decent image with a lousy mount even with the best camera and lens.
Astrophotography of deep sky objects tends to start with the ability to get round stars in 10 minute long exposures.
Not entirely true these days with the ASI and ZWO CMOS cameras where 30-90 second exposures are common.
Even then, to get round stars at 90 seconds with optics 300mm or longer is surprisingly difficult.
Greg.