AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Best telescope for astrophotography 20142/27/2023 ![]() I effectively need to double my exposures to reduce the noise in my North America nebula to a level I would deem acceptable and aesthetically pleasing. During summer nighttime temps, at least 81 frames, but 100 (a full 10x reduction in noise) is preferable. For more details, read our Celestron NexStar 5SE telescope review. In my experience and opinion, for a DSLR like the 7D at spring and fall nighttime temperatures, 50 frames is the MINIMUM. The Celeston NexStar 5SE is quite portable, and since it's comprised of three different components the optical tube, mount and steel tripod assembly takes no more than about 10 minutes. If you are using a thermally regulated CCD, 25 frames might be getting to the point where noise is low enough to be acceptable."MIGHT BE GETTING TO".įor a DSLR, 25 frames is never enough (even when the outside nighttime temps are around 0☌). The Celeston NexStar 5SE is quite portable, and since its comprised of three different components the optical tube, mount and steel tripod assembly takes no more than about 10 minutes. To get a 3x reduction, you need nine frames.to get a 4x reduction, you need 16 frames.to get a 5x reduction in noise, you need at least 25 frames. However, there is a LOT of noise in a single frame, a 2x reduction in noise isn't remotely close enough. So, to reduce the noise by a factor of two, you need to stack four subs. ![]() The amount of noise drops as the square root of the frames stacked. The last sample here, a you can see, has a completely unacceptable level of noise. You can very clearly see the milky way, so clearly that all the dust lanes show up to the naked eye, and all the larger Messier objects (like Andromeda, Triangulum, etc.) is also visible to the naked eye. I want to get up there sometime and see what it's like. There is one spot in the north western corner of Colorado that is 100% free of LP of any kind. I agree, though, it's amazing what you can see under dark skies. I know many people who image under white zones. Either way, with an LP filter, you can image under heavily light polluted skies. I'm under a yellow zone that, depending on the atmospheric particulates, often turns into an orange zone (I generally judge by whether I can see the milky way or not.if I can faintly see it, then my LP conditions are more yellow-zone, if not, then orange zone. I use the Astronomik CLS, which is one of the better ones for blocking pollutant bands.Īll of my images were shot under light polluted skies using the Astronomik filter. They don't work as well for galaxies (which are mostly stars, so broad band emissions), but for nebula (which are narrow band emissions), they work wonders. For these telescopes, the eyepiece controls. There are many compact, long-focal-length telescopes on the market for visual observers (think Schmidt-Cassegrains and Maksutov-Cassegrains). ![]() The trick is using a light pollution filter. Long focal-length, deep-sky astrophotography (starting around 2,000 mm) is best done from outer space, or when you're well along the challenging learning curve. I actually shot this only a few miles from Denver, CO. ![]() Light pollution doesn't have to be a problem these days. ![]()
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |