Thank you very much Cazza. The telescopic shots were taken with a Televue 85 mm f/7 refractor fitted with the Televue f/5.6 corrector and a QSI 683wsg camera. The mount was a EQ 3 driven with 0.5-sec corrections to help moderate its multiple periodic errors.
When it comes to imaging: quality, dedication and technique are more important than aperture. Having a big scope helps, especially for faint, small galaxies, but I wouldn't get hung up on getting a big scope. It is more important to ensure that whatever gear you buy it is very high quality, and then concentrate on developing good data collection technique and post-processing skills.
Having said that, I agree with you. People produce fantastic results using f/4 Newtonian telescopes fitted with Baader or Wynne coma correctors. I am thinking of venturing down that path myself. Fast Newtonians can also be used for visual deep sky observing which is an added bonus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cazza132
Fantastic work! Like the first LMC shot. Amazing details with the B&W Andromeda shot - never seen such detail so close to it's core, even if the highlights are a little blown (not much of that really). Nice details on the M45 cloud structure. The California Nebula came up well. What sort of gear were you running? I'm seriously considering a jump to an 8" or 10" f4 Newtonian. Would be stoked to get half the detail you're turning out here!
|
So much HII in the LMC there huh? Either of the versions is ok to me.
And well done with the fantastic work you're doing - with a system less than 500mm FL! I would be happy to stick with the shorter focal length systems - deep sky galaxies haven't captured my attention yet. Wide field nebulae are what I am finding most interesting atm, so a system with a FL less than 1000mm is what I'd be looking at. Hey, would a 8" f4.0 newt imaging circle cover a full frame DSLR sensor? Haven't found much info about that.
