Quote:
Originally Posted by alpal
Very nice but yes - the blue is missing.
Did you see my recent pics?
I was using a standard DSLR - unmodded / no filter,
& there was plenty of blue information.
For some reason other people are getting nearly all red for Eta Carinae.
|
Appreciate the feedback ,but I suspect you'll find DSLR's (not just yours) are missing a serious amount of deep red....due their IR blocking filters.
Hence they paint Eta with way too much blue/green.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley
Yep that's a beauty. You seemed to have captured a lot of stars and lots of really faint ones. Star sizes are very impressive. So tiny. That is an elusive goal. Star shapes and sizes was one concern I had for the RHA but it seems to be unfounded.
How do you think it compares with an APO? The main difference I can see in this image is the number of fine stars that most likely would not show up in an APO and the star sizes which even for an APO are very small.
I suppose also you got the detail much faster.
Greg.
|
Thanks Greg.
The star sizes are so pristine on the RHA that I'm finding I can pick even a few thou shift, due focuser orientation changing, as the scope moves during the night.
I think star sizes are smaller than say an AP155 APO...but only just. Then again at F3.8 this scope does test my ability to focus, hence I may need to migrate to an electronic focuser to know for sure.
The big difference I am finding is it captures equally good data compared to the APO, by virtue of its aperture, in about 1/4 of the time.
Colour correction is superb, with very consistent star sizes from SII through to Blue filters....
Lastly....The scope is so good it shows small homogeneity differences with various filters...with some small sections of the field having odd shaped stars that in effect, go against the grain, so to speak.