Are eyepieces becoming obsolete

[pdalek (Patrick)]

If I look at M42 I will see a rather uninteresting smudge. Cen A is even less exciting. With real time stacking using new cheap, sensitive cameras I can see much more. For lunar/solar observation, the effects of seeing can almost be eliminated. I would guess that I have about $5000 of eyepieces at current prices. For 1/3 of that I could have better views and not have to sit out in the cold.

Comments?

[GrampianStars (Rob)]

Originally Posted by pdalek

If I look at M42 I will see a rather uninteresting smudge. Cen A is even less exciting. With real time stacking using new cheap, sensitive cameras I can see much more. For lunar/solar observation, the effects of seeing can almost be eliminated. I would guess that I have about $5000 of eyepieces at current prices. For 1/3 of that I could have better views and not have to sit out in the cold.

Comments?

You are NOT SEEING anything with the use of your (cheap) electronic digital image capturing device instead of an eyepiece at the telescope .....

Just sell everything you have & view on the internet for better images i.e. NASA, Web, Hubble, etc

as 4 the Arnie would say "girly man"

[glend (Glen)]

Your becoming an imager, nothing wrong with that. Many people get tied of viewing faint grey smudges and want the thrill of being able to use the arriving photons to build something beautiful. The problem with the human eye is "time", it can only ever construct an image in an instant of time. If the human brain could retain the image over time and build on it there would be no imaging probably. Don't buy into that BS that 'I want to see it directly, and that is the only valid approach to astronomy - as no one sees it directly if your using a scope. People use magnified narrow field of view through a scope and EP, then the arriving photon has to hit the right cell in your retina and the ensuing 'electrical signal' be relayed to the vision centre of your brain via the nerve pathways, where the brain builds a real time image using the incoming data. Tell me that is not just biological imaging.
As people age their eyes age and in many cases lose resolving power, or change shape and need correction, all of which pushes people into looking at augmentation. Make the best use of your time while you can see the wonders of space. I too have a collection of very nice EPs but rarely use them anymore. I have gradually been selling them off as I spend more time imaging. Whether you stack photons into images over long periods of time or use video enhancement to capture your just building on the basic performance of the human eye - enjoy it however you choose.

[Kunama]

I think you need to keep your eyepieces and increase your aperture !!!

That uninteresting smudge of M42 becomes much more beautiful when you see colour and detail.........

Try that smudge in an 18" scope or larger .... Size Does Matter !!!!

[Atmos (Colin)]

Originally Posted by Kunama

I think you need to keep your eyepieces and increase your aperture !!!

That uninteresting smudge of M42 becomes much more beautiful when you see colour and detail.........

Try that smudge in an 18" scope or larger .... Size Does Matter !!!!

Or even a 32" Obsession (a dream I have had)

[N1 (Mirko)]

No amount of inches will increase M42's surface brightness. If it did, there'd be no need for electronic night vision devices.

The "slippery slope" of astrophotography actually starts long before you even consider becoming an imager. It starts when deep sky observing becomes synonymous with astronomy. For many, it appears to lead to aperture fever and constant dissatisfaction.

I love the grey "smudges", really I do, but every time I look at Saturn in decent seeing after counting filaments in some neb, I think who am I kidding. No DSO is even remotely as good visually. Period. Regardless of aperture. Interestingly, the same is true for images on the net. I've yet to see a DSO image that even vaguely approaches Cassini imagery. And that's just one planet.

[glend (Glen)]

It takes a large amount of light for the human eye to detect colour, which is one reason that DSOs are grey smudges. Agreed that no amount of amateur aperture is going to make the String of Pearls display the blue of the Pearls.

[bigjoe (JOSEPH)]

Hi Glen.

I myself only get a sort of vcarious pleasure looking at AP , even my own feeble attempts.

The thrill I still get , is when I show aomeone else the Cassini division ,GRP, Tuc 47 , etc

through an EP.

That priceless look on there faces!

Cheers bigjoe.

[RB (Andrew)]

My illuminated reticle eyepiece is essential for my AP.

[bigjoe (JOSEPH)]

Ya got him!!

Sorry Glen.

bigjoe

[astroron (Ron)]

Why don't you just set up your computer to capture all the hubble or other telescope pictures and download them and save yourself some big bucks
You can even process them anyway you like, after all thats what astro imagers are isn't it?
Image processors
Put what you want into the computer and walk away till it's done, then play with processing the stuff that is in the computer.
Job Done.

Throw away or sell your telephoto lens/Telescope, plus camera's while your at it. and just sit in your lounge room and watch the TV.
Cheers

[drylander (Peter)]

Don't hold back Ron tell him what you really think
Pete

[RB (Andrew)]

[raymo]

Love the fun, but seriously, I just enjoy being outside at night with my scope, even
after 60yrs of doing it.
raymo

[glend (Glen)]

I have to wonder if any of the posters actually read, and understood, what I wrote to the OP back in post #3? Or just saw an opportunity to bag someone different to themselves.

[raymo]

I'm not bagging anybody, each to his own.
raymo

[bigjoe (JOSEPH)]

Too much vino!!!

bigjoe

[andyc (Andy)]

Depends what you like to do! I love the concept of photons direct from a distant galaxy, travelling for tens/hundreds of millions of years, then hitting my retina after bouncing off some glass and through a little more glass. Not a representation of the photons, but the photons themselves. And aperture/dark skies help! a bright galaxy that's a bare smudge from the city can look surprisingly detailed from a dark sky with a big scope. And the pleasure of hunting down details in a nebula, or locating a wee group of galaxies hidden away in a corner of the sky.

But... I also get a heap of pleasure from getting all my photography gear to work, then getting a distant galaxy to pop out and you can see details in spiral arms, nebulae or whatever. Very different satisfaction, but valid all the same!

If the direct views aren't satisfying, try photography. If the images aren't satisfying... hmmm, another hobby!

Do what makes you happy

[bigjoe (JOSEPH)]

Originally Posted by andyc

Depends what you like to do! I love the concept of photons direct from a distant galaxy, travelling for tens/hundreds of millions of years, then hitting my retina after bouncing off some glass and through a little more glass. Not a representation of the photons, but the photons themselves. And aperture/dark skies help! a bright galaxy that's a bare smudge from the city can look surprisingly detailed from a dark sky with a big scope. And the pleasure of hunting down details in a nebula, or locating a wee group of galaxies hidden away in a corner of the sky.

But... I also get a heap of pleasure from getting all my photography gear to work, then getting a distant galaxy to pop out and you can see details in spiral arms, nebulae or whatever. Very different satisfaction, but valid all the same!

If the direct views aren't satisfying, try photography. If the images aren't satisfying... hmmm, another hobby!

Do what makes you happy

I agree Andy.

One of my biggest thrills was seeing spiral structure in M83

In a C6 from sydney in LP!!

[alpal]

The Orion Nebula was amazing in a 2" eyepiece at Mt Baw Baw

with an 8" f6 Newt.