So it is a workstation with the ability to be customized similar to a laptop. Great thinking Apple.... I'll pass
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
well It was not about the motive, its a bridge against the sun, nothing fancy . It more about that I can dig out information from one raw file from sun into shadows with out banding and noise in the shadows. You need two different exposure to do the same with a Canon, I can do it hand held, you must use a tripod. This file are now saved 4 times as a JPG =not optimal.
A swap to this model of using Adope CS6 will cause some problems for big organisations that have to secure their datas .
The head of the IT department in the organisation where I work, is in doubt whether the state bureaus is allowing to open the firewall/safety-solutions to use this cloud based software. It is to risky. They are in fear to get hacked.
And we own really a lot of CS6 licences.
Okay, repeat after me: This is NOT a cloud application. This is Not a cloud application.
From Adobe's website: "And, as always, your applications live on your desktop, not in a browser and not in the cloud."
It is just a confusingly-named marketing scheme.
The problem I have, regardless of whether the software resides in the cloud, on your desktop or on Pandora, is a requirement for an internet connection so that every time you start the application a license check is performed. That would cause a great deal of heartburn on my part.
i think you want the samyang 14mm. I have one that i use for the sort of silly stuff you can do with 14mm, and astro shots. I've yet to aim it at the stars because i've been so busy, but i'm pretty pleased with it for the more earthly shots i've taken with it.
I took some shots of a wedding couple last night with it. i had to convince them to step closer, closer, closer still. "i swear, i'm not just taking a photo of your belt buckle!"
I think you're right, I just have two questions, does the lens have a hard stop at infinity and is it sharp enough wide open?
I think for planets a webcam is more often used than a DSLR (those are more suitable for DSO).
I don't know if there is an astronomy club close to you?, you could go out there to get some information and possibly ''play'' with some of the gear available before purchasing any.
I have a dobson telescope and used it with an adapter to take pictures of the moon and saturn/jupiter.
Results of the moon are great, but a full frame body for planets is not putting enough pixels on them.
Also for planets / nebulas (basically anything but the moon), you combine many images to get a far better result.
For DSO's you want longer exposures and need a good tracking system, then afterwards you correct each image before combining them to 1 image ( ideally you use different filters: for example for a galaxy a R V an B filter, take multiple exposures (different lengths) in each filter to reach a certain number of counts that reach your sensor, then you correct each image for a : flat field/dark/bias and combine the different images to one nice image).
This requires a good tracking system, ccd and software.
There are lots of people who make beatiful images with their DSLR (they also correct for dark i think), and us tracking system with follow scope(to ensure the tracking keeps tracking correctly).
Last time i checked tracking systems (even simple ones) were quite expensive (eq5 and eq6 were 600-1200 dollars), a good dobson telescope for DSO is another 1000.
For planets a ''simple'' refractor and 20$ webcam (modified) will yield better results than a dslr!, you take hundreds of images and combine them afterwards with software.
I think you dont need a good tracking system for that either , a bit more work on aligning the images afterwards maybe but it should be doable.
The moon is the most easy to do, but you will want more, where i live there is an astronomy club(not 2 many members), where for 50 euros/year you get membership and access to the telescope ( +- 24 inch/60cm reflector with a great tracking system, where you can connect your dslr with an adapter).
Alternatively you could visit a university for more information!, most people who are into these kind of things love to share knowledge and give advice/tips etc.
If you got something like that close to you, there would be no need to spend a lot of money , and you can photograph different objects ( moon/planets and dso's). Or at least orientate a lot better before spending the money!
Hope it was of any use.
I was hoping I could get some advice regarding using a camera for astrophotography. Any advice is greatly appreciated!! I am not looking for exceptional pictures of nebulas, but something that can take pictures of some of the larger planets and the moon.Back in the 70's and 80's I did a fair amount of astrophotography, using film. And I was involved in the making of telescopes, mainly reflector types. While times have changed, the basic techniques are still the same.
Unfortunately, my budget is rather limited. As much as I would love a star tracking telescope system, I am hoping to settle for a dobsonian reflector.
What I am looking at is as follows:
Orion SkyQuest XT8 - F/5.9 @ 1200mm (build a scope version)
Orion 2" low profile focuser
Canon T-mount adapter and Orion 2" Zero-Profile Prime Focus Camera Adapter
And a kit of 2" eyepieces for when I want to do viewing rather than imaging
I read that refractors are considerably better for astrophotography, but ouch are they expensive. I am always open to suggestions though!
I am hoping to get into astrophography, but fear spending money on a system that isnt compatible or wont give good results at all (I have heard focusing issues is a common problem).
Thanks! Feel free to post pictures you have taken or of the setup you use to photograph the night sky!
As a rule of thumb, a refractor is a good telescope for planetary use. High magnification, and good contrast. Reflectors are better suited for deep space use (the secondary mirror tends to reduce contrast a little). That said, they both can be used for general astronomy.
For tracking, an equatorial mount is best, although, I believe an alt-azimuth mount can be used with todays computer controlled systems. Dobsonians are really best used for visual observations, as they tend to be set on a simple alt-azimuth mount, which is manually controlled. I tended to use an equatorial mount in the field, and use a small guide scope to keep things on track.
From a camera perspective, the Canon 60Da is designed for astrophotography. It has the IR filter removed and a number of other enhancements. In the film era, it was common to run exposures (for deep space objects) for up to 2-3hrs. In the digital era, its more likely to take a great number of short exposures, then combine them later. This is done to cope with sensor noise, as long exposures tend to get very noisy.
Lots of stellar recommendations in this thread. So, here's my question to any and everyone. I have PS and LR and DPP came with my cameras. I don't consider myself expert with PS (and often spend time with forums on the Internet trying to figure out exactly how to do something) but LR is a lot more intuitive and seems to work for my needs. My biggest complaint with my post processing is the time commitment I need to get through a bunch of RAW pics. So, what is different about Nik /what can it do for me / will it decrease my time per shot? I would like to hear about your experience.
As always, thanks.
Nevermind, I figured it out.
Also, gotta say I'm glad to see it go. It was a deservingly popular camera for a long time, but the 5DIII is definitely a huge step up in a lot of ways. Namely image quality.
Then again, now that they're dropping the two anomaly SLRs (5DII and T3 as soon as the B is out), they only have one SLR in the whole range that isn't 18MP. That looks to me like a lack of creativity.