Whoops! Sorry for late reply: people are posting good new images so thick and fast this one disappeared off the screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmos
I didn't go around and count them all but damn there is a lot of arrows you've added in there M&T 
It's an exceptional image, well processed and leaves us with a sense of smallness in the universe |
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley
Gee M and T I only count 199. errh joking. Wonderful deep shot. These galaxy chain images are really popular shots and remind us just how much stuff there is in the Universe. Unimaginably large amounts of stuff.
Greg.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by codemonkey
So many little fuzzies! Super cool image, guys, thanks for sharing!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryderscope
A superb collection of ‘galactic’ proportions. Simply stunning to behold.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Haese
I reckon there are a heap of red shifted galaxies in there too Mike. Great colour and an image at depth. Nice going.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rustigsmed
not sure how i missed this one.
I really enjoyed scrollingaround the field and checking out the galaxies on my CX 77" oled.
do you have any idea what magnitude you got down to for this? so many ultra faint objects.
cheers
russ
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Bunn
These shots are my favourite. You have done a fine job IMO. I have some data on this on to.
|
Thanks so much everyone! We agree wholeheartedly with the general sentiment that Space is Big and We are Tiny. One thinks of what must happen to the locals when two galaxies collide.
Wikipedia suggests a 10 metre scope has a limiting magnitude of 27 per hour of exposure, assuming very dark sky. So a 0.5 metre telescope under similar conditions but 16.5 times more exposure, the signal to noise ratio might be about 5 times less than the big scope, giving about 1.7 mags worse, say 25 mags limiting if shooting in the Atacama. But we have far worse skies here. Ridiculously so.
Anyone know a good formula?
