View Single Post
  #6  
Old 19-02-2009, 09:29 PM
Quark's Avatar
Quark (Trevor)
Registered User

Quark is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Broken Hill NSW Australia
Posts: 4,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by iceman View Post
Thanks for taking the time to read it, guys.

Trevor - definitely. The DMK41 is definitely more suited to the moon, but the DMK21 excels in all other areas including guiding.

It's also a good point you make about The Imaging Source coming up with the next generation of planetary imaging cameras. I wonder if they're working on it?

The next-gen planetary imaging cameras are considerably more expensive than the DMK21's, but if you want the best results, for some people they'd be prepared to pay that extra if they can afford it.
Mike, I look at the images I can now produce with the DMK21AU and they are just worlds apart from the images produced by my original ToUcam.

Your point regarding the relative cost of the newer planetary cameras is well taken. It really does astound me how the relatively cheap DMK can produce the level of scientifically useful data that it does.

Me thinks that my pockets are definitely not deep enough to accommodate the latest and greatest, along with all of the other changes in equipment and computers required to run them.

It is fascinating to look back, at the reaction of the astro community to the ToUcam and then to the next major breakthrough with The Imaging Source cameras. Nothing really has yet surpassed them insofar as the broad acceptance they have enjoyed.

I think there is still more fine tuning that can be done with the DMK to eek out a bit more detail, then again, I suppose the most important thing in all of this is the quality of the seeing at your observing site, regardless of which camera happens to be mounted on the scope.

Regards
Trevor
Reply With Quote