Another Lovejoy PL16803

gregbradley · #1 08-01-2012, 10:42 PM

Here is another Lovejoy shot. This one was taken the next morning from the previous shot (it was Thursday morning between 3 and 4:40am).

Proline 16803, PMX mount, Lodestar guider, MMOAG, Pentax 67 55mm F4 at F5.6

LRGB 15 (3 x 5mins) 6 6 6 (2 x 3mins) all 2x2 binning.

http://upload.pbase.com/gregbradley/...40793803/large

Greg.

rat156 · #2 09-01-2012, 05:01 AM

Hi Greg,

Great shots, good to see the comet is still photographically visible.

I tried this morning to get some close and personal pics with the 10"RC. I couldn't find the comet in the FOV of the ST11k. Have you found the comet elements to be accurate? When you slew the PMX to the comet, is it centered in the FOV?

I had the right star field, just no comet. Nothing even diffuse. Nothing moving through the field.

Cheers
Stuart

Lester · #3 09-01-2012, 07:31 AM

Very nice view Greg, I like it.

gregbradley · #4 09-01-2012, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rat156

Hi Greg,

Great shots, good to see the comet is still photographically visible.

I tried this morning to get some close and personal pics with the 10"RC. I couldn't find the comet in the FOV of the ST11k. Have you found the comet elements to be accurate? When you slew the PMX to the comet, is it centered in the FOV?

I had the right star field, just no comet. Nothing even diffuse. Nothing moving through the field.

Cheers
Stuart

What I did Stuart as I did not have an ephemeris was take a widefield DSLR shot to show where it was, note a nearby star asterism, look that up in the Sky X and then slew to that and then take focus shots nad move around using the joystick until I picked it up.

That was with a TEC110FL at 616mm focal length and an ML8300 camera. Kind of close up as well. It should be near the South Celestial Pole around now I would imagine. Below it.

Greg.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lester

Very nice view Greg, I like it.

Thanks Lester.

jjjnettie (Jeanette) · #5 09-01-2012, 10:46 AM

I think the comet being so faint now is working to our advantage. The long exposures needed to image it are allowing all this colour and detail to be bought out.

OH, and a gorgeous shot Greg.

gregbradley · #6 09-01-2012, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjjnettie

I think the comet being so faint now is working to our advantage. The long exposures needed to image it are allowing all this colour and detail to be bought out.

OH, and a gorgeous shot Greg.

Yes that is an advantage for sure.

I did quite a large number of DSLR shots as well. But unless they are fairly short focal length lenses they usually had star trailing on one side that was distracting.

Thanks JJJ.

Greg.

RB (Andrew) · #7 09-01-2012, 03:35 PM

Beautiful shot Greg.

gregbradley · #8 09-01-2012, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RB

Beautiful shot Greg.

Thanks RB. I enjoyed your images as well.

Cheers,

Greg.

tilbrook@rbe.ne (Justin Tilbrook) · #9 09-01-2012, 05:46 PM

Hi, Greg.

That's a brilliant image!
Lot's of detail, can even see the centre brightness in the tail.
Lets hope it's still around in a few days when the moon is out of the way.

Cheers,

Justin.

gregbradley · #10 09-01-2012, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tilbrook@rbe.ne

Hi, Greg.

That's a brilliant image!
Lot's of detail, can even see the centre brightness in the tail.
Lets hope it's still around in a few days when the moon is out of the way.

Cheers,

Justin.

Thanks Justin.

I had a few sleepy mornings doing these! 3am to 4:30am - can't these comets be more considerate?

Greg.

CapturingTheNight (Greg) · #11 09-01-2012, 06:29 PM

Fantastic image Greg!

Love the detail you acheived.

Cheers
Greg

gregbradley · #12 09-01-2012, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obsidianphotos

Fantastic image Greg!

Love the detail you acheived.

Cheers
Greg

Thanks Greg.

I wasn't sure if I would be able to image it with my rig as the comet has to be high enough to clear the walls of the observatory.

Greg.

Ross G · #13 09-01-2012, 11:30 PM

Amazing photo of the comet Greg.

So much colour and detail...magic!

I went to Wiruna on New years Day and tried to capture it with a QHY9 and Olympus 28mm lens but it was so dim.

Ross.

gregbradley · #14 10-01-2012, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ross G

Amazing photo of the comet Greg.

So much colour and detail...magic!

I went to Wiruna on New years Day and tried to capture it with a QHY9 and Olympus 28mm lens but it was so dim.

Ross.

Thanks Ross.

I was amazed at how quickly it faded.

I have a bunch of DSLR images yet to process. I have mosaics, multiple images to be stacked and single super high ISO images with several types of lenses. I have flicked through some and not all turned out well. Its a bulk thing, take lots and a few may be just right!

Greg.

Paul Haese · #15 10-01-2012, 07:46 PM

I like this shot. Lots to look at and nice composition.

gregbradley · #16 10-01-2012, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

I like this shot. Lots to look at and nice composition.

Thanks Paul.

I have more to come of DSLR images. I took a lot of DSLR images including using my daughter in law's 5D Mk11 which was very nice to use.

Greg.

naskies (Dave) · #17 11-01-2012, 06:14 PM

Great work, Greg. I really like the depth and richness of the colours. Out of curiosity, how wide do the Pentax 67 mount lenses go? Is 55 mm considered wide for MF?

gregbradley · #18 11-01-2012, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naskies

Great work, Greg. I really like the depth and richness of the colours. Out of curiosity, how wide do the Pentax 67 mount lenses go? Is 55 mm considered wide for MF?

Thanks Dave.

From memory there is a Pentax 67 45mm lens. I used a guide with reviews about each to chose from. The 55mm F4, 165mm F2.8 and
300mm F4 get good reviews. The 300mm F4 EDIF is the best but its a long focal length for a camera lens, rare and expensive - about US$1500 to $2000. But see Marco's wonderful images using one. I have the 55 F4 the 165 F2.8 and the 300 F4 (non EDIF). They all seem sharp but the 165mm seems to me to be the best of those 3.

My PL16803 is twice the size of 35mm format almost so I suppose there is a negative figure you apply like -1.9 or something compared to 35mm format lenses. It seems pretty wide at 55mm. Probably similar to the field of view of about 18mm with my 40D.

Greg.

naskies (Dave) · #19 11-01-2012, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregbradley

From memory there is a Pentax 67 45mm lens. I used a guide with reviews about each to chose from. The 55mm F4, 165mm F2.8 and
300mm F4 get good reviews. The 300mm F4 EDIF is the best but its a long focal length for a camera lens, rare and expensive - about US$1500 to $2000. But see Marco's wonderful images using one. I have the 55 F4 the 165 F2.8 and the 300 F4 (non EDIF). They all seem sharp but the 165mm seems to me to be the best of those 3.

Thanks for the info - explains why I keep seeing the same few lenses in use everywhere.

Quote:

My PL16803 is twice the size of 35mm format almost so I suppose there is a negative figure you apply like -1.9 or something compared to 35mm format lenses. It seems pretty wide at 55mm. Probably similar to the field of view of about 18mm with my 40D.

Aah, I'd forgotten about the "reverse crop" factor. The PL16803 + Pentax 55 mm sounds like a killer combo for wide fields.