LENS vs. TELESCOPE for Photographing Deep Space
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 бер 2024
- What is the REAL difference between a telephoto lens and small refractor telescope? Find out in this video... The contenders are:
William Optics SpaceCat 61 WIFD - tinyurl.com/spacecat61 (Use code NEBULAPHOTOS for $100 off any CAT series telescope 51-71)
TTArtisan 500mm f6.3 - tinyurl.com/ttart500
Canon RF100-300 f2.8 L - bhpho.to/3Pbj8KQ
=============================
❤️ Patreon ❤️
=============================
If you like what you see on this channel, consider joining my Patreon. It starts at just $1/month: / nebulaphotos
=============================
Social:
=============================
Twitter: @nebulaphotos
Instagram: @nebulaphotosdotcom
Astrobin: www.astrobin.com/users/2ghouls/
=============================
Channel Disclosures
=============================
I am a member of the High Point Scientific, Agena Astro, eBay, ZWO, All-Star Telescopes, B&H Photo Video, Astrobin, TTArtisan, Turing, William Optics, and Amazon affiliate programs. Product links in my video descriptions are typically affiliate links, which means, at no extra cost to you, I will make a commission if you click them and purchase something. I also have working relationships with the following companies/brands to receive products to test: Askar, ZWO, DwarfLab, OG Star Tech, Svbony, High Point Scientific, Agena Astro, QHYCCD, William Optics, SmallRig, Venus Optics, Astrogear.net, Night Sky Camera, Woodland Hills Camera & Telescope, Hunt's Photo & Video. Any gear received for review and/or brand deals will be fully disclosed in the video. If you have any questions about any of this, please get in touch.
=============================
Video Disclosures
=============================
The TTArtisan lens and William Optics SpaceCat 61 were sent to me for review. I am also a member of their respective affiliate programs so if you use the link in my description, I get a commission payment. Other than that there is no financial relationship, and neither company has any say into what I share about these products.
Another great comparison Nico!
All great lenses, but man that TT for $329 is 🤯
Late to the comments as usual, but I find myself sitting firmly on team camera lens in recent years. Influenced heavily by them not being one trick ponies. I have also found that, if you're willing to ditch sharpness in the corners, that the optical speed of some lenses allow for resolving objects faster and brighter than most astrographs could ever hope to. The tradeoff to that is large amounts of coma, and chromatic aberration. Not really that comparable to telephoto, but I have used the a 50mm f0.95 (yes the actual red dot one for those who really want to know), and the capability of that aperture for resolving the night sky is kind of bonkers. That said, the coma an chromatic aberration tradeoff is almost off the charts, with the coma forming basically small crucifixes in the corners of the image.
Finally the TTArtisans test I was waiting for! Well done. Thank you
Niko, you're just awesome! I've literally scoured the internet for the TTArtisan review as a lightweight mini-refractor in the past few days, and today I updated my subscription and see it on your mount, with comments and direct comparison 🔥🔥🔥
Thanks to you!
I started my astrophotography with a sigma 15 - 600 lens and my nikon ff camera. my final guiding solution, was a small rig cage, with an arca swiss clamp on the top and they guide scope on an arca swiss plate
I recently got the 150-600m, how are you finding it for astro? What other gear you have for astro photography for this lens?
Thanks Brutha for all the hard work you do. We all appreciate you😃😃
This is what I have been curious about since I started to this hobby! Great video❤
Yes! I wanted you to review that lens and here you are!
I love these comparison videos. Nice work Nico!! Cheers!
Thanks, I needed this! I was waiting for a lot more lens reviews. :D
I’ve recently been in this very situation. I’m a long time terrestrial photographer and had a selection of Canon Big White lens already as I started to look at Astro photography. I rapidly became apparent that the disadvantages of the native lens out weighed using them. Not least of which (which I don’t think you mentioned) is weight. The 300/2.8 and 500/4 EOS lens I have are heavy and that affects the mount. Then as you mentioned all the accessories particularly as I wanted to use a EAF and a dedicated Astro camera, so I need an adaptor. In the end I just bit the bullet and brought a Askar FRA300/5 and it been simply brilliant and easy to use, just what a beginner wants.
Great video again Nico, and boy do I fee lgood, because the TTArtisan lens arrived last week for some occasional astro and it's not disapoiting! Thanks.
Wonderful comparison Nico!
Great video as always!!!
Again a very nice in depth review about questions we all have when evaluating what to buy. I just love these videos and the coupon code as a bonus is really nice.
Kind regards from a fan.
Great advice! Thanks Nico.
nice video Nico!
just got a 70-200 f2.8 for sports and Astro in addition to the 135 G2 I had which cannot be used for sports 😅
Awesome test!
Excellent review thanks 🙏
It comes down to having the right tool for the job. Great video on this comparison. It really helps.
Very helpful information as usual!
Love these side-by-sides.
Excellent video
Thank you Nico for sharing this helpful video highlighting what I always thought was an uncommon practice in astro which is using a telephoto lens for deep sky astrophotography. I love my Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary and have gotten really great images of a variety of objects, that's what I love about variable zoom lenses, you are not fixed at one focal length, however the tradeoff is image sharpness.
Great video. Thanks.
Good comparison. There are mounting kits for the more popular camera lenses such as the Samyang/Rokinon 135 f2 of course which allow the easy attachment of accessories such as guide scopes, auto focusers and if yo use them with astronomy cameras filter wheel and draw adapters are also available. If the lense comes with a foot it can usually be attached to a losmandy plate or vixen style dovetail bar. The good thing these days is that there is so much gear available to people wishing to get into astro photography to suit most budgets.
Thank you very much for overview! Perfect! Superb! This overview is what I !
From last 2 days i was searching deep space results using ttartisian 500 mm. Thank you so much
The TT surprised me! bummed it doesn't appear to have a micro 4/3 mount. Great info👍👍
Thx a lot for this one! It's probably also because you are so experienced and are able to get the best out of every lens / telescope.
Not to be contrary (I know a contrary opinion on the internet, how rare? lol) however, while Nico is without a doubt top tier when it comes to getting the most out of an image what he did here was actually a pretty simple comparison that I think anyone at the beginner end of things with the same gear could achieve quite quickly, just a few subs, not much integration time and a quick stretch in Pixinsight. Without a doubt if he were to put all three up for a multi-night shoot then spend hours on each one optimising the workflow then yeah I think that would skew the results a bit
I did buy an extra long Vixen dovetail for my 30mm mini guide scope. It worked but wasn’t ideal. I switch between cameras and scopes, so I had to move the guide scope for each setup. (Each scope has its own dovetail plate, and then I have another for camera lenses.) But I now have a nice solution with excellent cable management. My guide scope is shoe-mounted on the side of my AM5 saddle plate. The AM5 manual says you can put an ASIair in that spot, but I put the ZWO 30F4 and ASI120MM guider there. I put my ASIair mini on the side of the AM5 next to the 12v output port. ZWO does not recommend it there, but with what I’ve done it is good and will not crash into the mount. It is mounted so the WiFi antenna is always pointing to Polaris. I bought very short USB cables with 90 degree connectors so that there is clearance to the Alt-Az portion of the AM5 base. It is also important to keep the Az lockdown levers moved flush up against the mount after you lock down. Anyway, power comes up from Jackery to the AM5 12v input. Then, I have a very short 12v cable with 90 degree connectors from AM5 12v output to ASIair mini 12v input. These two move together, so short cable is wrapped tight 1.5 times around the ASIair dovetail. Similarly, I have a very short USB cable with 90 degree connectors from ASIair to AM5. Again, these move together, so cable is just long enough and doesn’t even need to be wrapped around the ASIair dovetail. Now I need a longer and more flexible USB cable from ASIair to ASI120MM. I got one with 90 degree connectors, coiled so it stretches, and fabric sheathed. It goes from ASIair and wraps 1x times around the round black neck of AM5 that is under the saddle plate, and then into the ASI120. So it is never hanging loose. It accommodates pointing anywhere in the sky without any hang ups. It works rather perfect. For now, that is all my cabling. I’m shooting with my Fuji mirrorless camera, but eventually I will get the ASI2600 and deal with additional cables. But for now, when you look at my setup, you don’t even notice the cables except for the main power cable from the Jackery. And, with the guide scope on the side of the saddle plate, it’s easy to swap scopes and camera lenses at will without needing to move the guide scope. Also, even the AM5 carrying case has a cutout in the foam to accommodate the shoe on the side of the saddle plate. I don’t use the AM5 hand controller, so the ASIair mini fits inside that spot within the AM5 case. Anyway, with very careful selection of which cables to buy (on Amazon), I’ve got this setup really, really neat and tidy. I’ve never seen anyone else do it like this, especially putting the guide scope on the side of the saddle plate.
nice review, i got the tt-artisan,waiting for first light
Hi Nico, great video. May I suggest using washers between hex screws and dovetails? This prevents slips and screws don't damage the dovetails.
Just a thought as a photographer and budding astrophotographer, I feel like a top tier prime lens would have been a more fair comparison for the telephoto lens. There's less elements, and they tend to be just a hair sharper than the zoom telephotos, particularly when stopped down by 1/3 or 1/2 stop. I just acquired my first scope, and I deliberately went with a long focal length because my 300mm f/2.8 prime and my 600mm f/4 prime have been doing quite well up to this point. Cheers, and thanks for the comparison!
Great comparison. Note that if you use a tracker with a heavy setup, it will need to be an expensive heavy duty model. The telescope is much lighter. I am an all around photographer with a mild interest in astro, and my go-to lens is a Canon 70-300mm L on a Canon 6D. It covers 90% of anything I do. I actually captured Orion's nebulae. I didn't even know I did until I had the images on my computer, then zoomed and cropped. A very pleasant surprise!
Lovely video, Can I reccomend you try mirror lenses? They're like mini SCTs that are lenses, they seem to produce good results if you get the right one
That TTartisan looks fantastic for DSO (and moonscapes)
Thanks for another great video. The one thing you omitted to mention was the speed of the Canon vs the other lenses and the massive reduction in imaging time. A fairer comparison may have been the 300mm f/4 or 400mm f/5.6 L lenses
I stopped it down, but should have mentioned this. Thanks!
You’re the man, Nico! I have the Canon RF 100-500 that I picked up for astro, sports, to attempt wildlife photography, and even certain styles of portraits. I’ve had it for a couple of months and am really pleased with it, but I did wonder if a spacecat or other small refractor would have been a better choice for astro (buyer’s remorse, maybe?). I feel that your comparison here reaffirms my choice - the lens provides great results and gives me an all around option for multiple types of photography. Thanks for sharing as always, and clear skies!
From what I am reading, the 100-500 L lens is excellent general purpose lens. Trying to use it for an occasional astrophotography application isn't a bad idea, but ergonomics favour a dedicated telescope
I wonder how prime vs zoom lenses (the same lenght, make, speed) would perform? Great work Niko!!!
Nice work!
My Canon FD 600mm lens has the correct filter size so I'll give it a try soon.
Thanks for the informative videos....HB
I noticed you used the new RF canon zoom RF 100-300mmF2.8 lens it's a whopping 10,000. Canon have really gone wild with the price. I have a Canon EF 300mm F2.8LIS this lens I got new almost 20 years ago its just like new still they are very solid durable lenses. These days you can get them for cheaper second hand for around the cost of the WO scope. Also when you use the Canon R cameras you can buy an EF-R converter that has a filter slot so you can nicely add any filters you want between the lens and camera. I have absolutely no blurring near edges so likely its to do with the new zoom mech. The 300mmF2.8LIS prime was one of Canons sharpest. Also I find you can actually autofocus perfectly on stars and it's great for wildlife/Birds BIF. The lens has plenty resolution to resolve with a 32mp apsc Canon R7 and the 1.4xIII converter so you can have 420mm F4 or 600mm F5.6 with the 2xIII.
I'm using an EF 70-200 f2.8 on an EOS RP and it works wonderfully!
Agreed, I am using my old 400/5.6L lens and 1.4x extender for extra reach with my R7 this way
Canon lenses do come with some sticker shock, but consider what else you said: you can use them for decades. I have a couple manual lenses from the film SLR days that are 40+ years old, and they're still fantastic today (except for the lack of autofocus).
When you factor in expected age, the price doesn't seem as out-of-touch. And that's not addressing the exceptional image quality from Canon's lenses. I wouldn't expect 20+ years out of a TTArtisan, or even a Tamron or Sigma (they're more mid level now, but they used to be the cheap lenses).
EDIT: All of that said, I'd only buy used Canon lenses today. My personal finances can't justify the cost of new ones, since photography is a hobby for me and not a profession.
I have that same 300mm 2.8 IS lens. It hold up today very well and still produces sharp images on my R5
I also STRONGLY recommend looking at vintage FD lenses, particularly the New FD 300mm f/2.8L. It’s incredible how good the image quality of those older lenses are. You won’t have autofocus and will need a mount adapter, but if you’re okay with that, then the FD lenses are wonderful.
Great content, Nico- Until the S50 and other smart scopes hit the market, a camera and tracker were the "gateway drug" to AP. Thank you for showing that it's still viable! Newbs in my astronomy club are hell bent on spending a fortune on gear that they see on UA-cam before they really learn the craft.
I have an old Tamron mirror lens -- 500mm f/8 -- that did pretty well during the eclipse. I'm going to try it for deep space objects when the weather cooperates.
I noticed CA on both the SpaceCat and Canon lenses as well. It would've been nice if you compared them to the CA you found on the TT Artisan and noted the difference.
Nico, great video. I have a 14 inch Celestron EdgeHD with ZWO ASI 6200 Pro full frame sensor that I have been taking DSOs for years. However, for the total solar eclipse last month I bought a Sky Watcher GTi portable mount and already had a Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens. I use the EF EOS to ZWO adapter with 48 mm filter drawer to connect my ZWO sensor. I was wondering how good DSOs would look with this setup since it is very portable to travel to dark sky’s. This video was helpful in answering that question. Of course, there is a big difference in focal length 400 mm Canon vs. 715 mm w/HyperStar lens on the 14 inch SCT. Thanks for your videos. I am really impress with all your videos as well as your carpentry skills building your own observatory.
I have a 600mm f4 mark ii for birding photography and used it for astro but my William's refractor is so much easier to focus manually
As usual, a very even-handed review of three very different lenses, showing that each has advantages. And that while no one will buy a $10k Canon Zoom specifically for Astro Photography, it can be used and with the proper add-ons produce a very satisfying result! Great job, Marco!
if you already have the lens, it is a great way to start off and learn, without spending a fortune on astro gear
This is the review I've been waiting for as I have been considering the TT lens for my SA GTi. However I'm trying to resist my G.A.S.
I just got back from a stargazing trip using a telephoto lens (sigma 150-600 contemporary) and while I know it has some CA and other undesirable behaviors it still does a pretty good job. Haven't processed the pics yet but I know we got some great photos. I did just get an EQ6-R mount, so that helped a ton. Luckily I was able to attach it to the mount using a tripod shoe I already owned, but it certainly wasn't the most secure option. Still had a great time, and I'm looking forward to getting a real telescope and guide camera for those really long exposures
Update: My photos weren't as good as I expected, but it's because we went for dim objects with only 10-20min of exposures. I've now upgraded to the Askar 103APO, and I've learned how to use my equipment much better in just the last month. The jump from tripod and zoom lens to mount and scope is huge. And I made the leap just in time for the eclipse.
the mounts and the auto-guides working wonders behind the scenes here!
and those aren't pennies either :'''''(
anyway, another great video Nico, cheers and clear skies
zwo 662 + светосильный гид svbony 60mm - 400 долларов
Это недорого, по сравнению с результатом
Ну еще нужен ноутбук, если вы снимаете не на астрокамеру, а на фотоаппарат. Nina бесплатная
@@TMichman Посмотрим, насколько плох мой переводчик :)
Ну, эти цены не так уж и ужасны, но у меня есть несколько объективов и зеркальная камера, которые, по моим подсчетам и часам чтения того же самого, требуют как минимум EQ5 Pro SynScan GoTo mount, который стоит около 900$. Не конец света, я думаю, но это не считая автогида и остальных мелочей.
Когда-нибудь :)
i sold my telescope and my 120-300mm f/2.8 wildlife lens so i could get a modern 400mm f/2.8, and i use it for deep space alongside a standalone autoguider, it’s amazing :) it has its downsides, but that speed just can’t be replicated by any 400mm focal length refractor. plus i can use 2” filters in the drop in filter slot inside the lens, no clip in filters needed! it’s worth noting that a lot of telephoto lenses use drop in filters around the 2” size, so clip in filters may not always be your only option
I have exclusively used a modified Canon 5D mark III and a 300 F2.8 mk2 for all my AP. The advantage of the 300mm f2.8 is the 2" drop in filter so you can use AP filters.
Really interesting, thanks for this. I have some Nikon long zooms and was wondering if they could be used in this fashion. But it may be cheaper or the difference not so costly to go with a setup telescope wrather than adapt other plain lenses. Also for those less experienced in this form of photography like me, a dedicated system may be easier to get decent results out of....
Dang, sorry Nico for getting your name wrong. I as also impressed with your handling of the $300 500mm lens. No surprises with the William Optic 'scope, except that it is more affordable than I thought. Again, thanks for your insightful efforts!
Nice. I could do with a mount. I recently sold my 400/5.6L as it just sat on the shelf and have other lenses that cover that range. I defo need to get out more, last time I tried to capture NEOWISE just on a late one.
12:04 Hi Nico, I’m pretty sure you’re aware of this, but perhaps not all viewers are.
Your choice of exposure time for the SpaceCat puts it at a significant disadvantage compared to the Canon lens, if I remember correctly how this is supposed to work. The aperture of the Canon is f/4 and the SpaceCat is f/4.9. If we are to compare the real light gathering power of both apertures, we should work with the squares of the f-numbers: 16 vs. ~24. The difference is a factor of 1.5. So if we want to compensate for the larger aperture of the Canon, we should allow the SpaceCat a total exposure time of 1.5 x 12 minutes = 18 minutes.
I must say I did notice the SpaceCat result being more noisy, so it does seem to have an effect.
Yes, I was trying to account for the number of glass elements as well (lots of glass elements means less light to the sensor), but perhaps went overboard as I agree the Spacecat result looked a little noisier which likely comes down to me messing up the calculation. First time trying to adjust for SNR (in the past I've just done equal integration), and not sure if I'll stick with it. Always just trying things out with these comparisons to see what works. Thanks for the input! Cheers, Nico
@@NebulaPhotos Interesting approach! Did you find a reliable source for the transmissibility (is this a word?) of the tested equipment?
@@JulesStoopNo, I think that was my problem - its very dependent on the coatings used, so I just did a best guess based on a few different random sources, but it seems they were wrong. Lesson learned! Maybe in the future I can put together an optical bench and try to figure these things out for real. In any case, hopefully the SNR differences weren't too distracting. I think my main points about the Spacecat being the best corrected in the corners of full frame, the TTArtisan having some CA, and not seeing huge differences in the amount of detail at center with any of them still came through.
@@NebulaPhotos I enjoyed watching the comparison and your main points certainly came across.
The TTartisan, linked to a speedbooster, will do a great 350mm F4,5 in front of my Sony A6500 !
Wow the tt artisan performs kind of awesome for what it is
Thank you for this comaprison! I'll probably stick to lenses a while longer since I'm quite happy with the results. I'd like to add one thing: some lenses show diffraction spikes from their apertures on bright stars (yes, even wide open). Like for example my fuji 150-600 mm lens, which gives me 9 spikes due to the 9 bladed aperture. I happen to find them pretty, but they can make life diffcult, e.g. when trying to use starnet to reduce stars. I think elsewehere you mentioned that by putting a few step down rings in front, the aperture can be rounded in exchange for a little bit of light. I haven't tried it myself but it makes sense to me optically.
Yes, the step down rings do work for that, but I've had challenges with flats correction using them, so there are major tradeoffs. Thanks for the reminder about this, wish I would have mentioned it.
Great review/comparison. Cheap lenses have really come a long way in the last 10 years, and that's helping me get back to doing more photography again.
6:37 Clear Bahtinov mask? Doesn't that add a touch of muddiness to the view? I'm sure William Optics did their testing and it's fine, but I'm having trouble imagining how the extra front/back surfaces wouldn't impact the view while focusing even if the diffraction spikes remain sharp. Especially if it's made of acrylic (as it appears to be) and prone to scratches from even the softest of cleaning cloths.
It has smaller solid patterns laser etched into it. Should have mentioned that.
@@NebulaPhotos Aha! Pretty clever of WO to do that. I knew there had to be something I was missing for a company like them to do it -- I trust them to not deliberately compromise the light path quality. Thanks for the extra info.
Finally someone comparing telephoto lenses with telescopes 👏🏽👏🏽
Currently I'm planning to use a Medium Format telephoto lens that works with my MF Film Camera for my digital astro kit. Lets me use 1 lens for two bits of kit and despite it's age it's a very sharp piece of kit and more affordable for me than a new Astrograph.
Read earlier about apt and it does auto focus on some lenses
I'm very interested in the newly released $600 Askar 71f flat-field, quad element, APO refractor. Seems like it's very cheap when compared to most APO OTA's of the similar size and even more so against any flat field APO astrographs. But nervous buying something I haven't seen independently tested.
Those IS/VR lenses tent to drift focus through out the night. The TTArtisan 500mm can be modified to DSLR mount or even telescope M48x0.75/M42x0.75 etc threads.
May I ask your best resource for learning of a lens’ resolving power. I believe the 70-300 mm I have by Tamron does not have the resolving power to take out detail of distant objects. The moon does not have a lot of detail in this lens and I’m trying to find a place to find resolution power/review of sorts
Will the TT artisan fit a Canon EOS 90D? I am trying to find a quality but cheaper lens for deep sky! I have a tracker already
awesome
I use a Canon EF 500mm f/4.0 l IS USM, and I corrected the T-bajonet ring, because is was not centred. Now I have with an APS-C sensor, only minor star deformation in the bottom left corner.
And now it is way better than your rented 200-300mm Canon. Of course mine is a prime lens with 17 elements.
I also altered the filterholder with a 2 inch thread, so I can use any 2 inch filter.
I use the underestimated Viltrox 0,67x reducer (with vignetting) and it becomes a 335mm F/2.7.
With my Canon extender 1.4x, it's a 700mm F/5.6.
In short,....it's PERFECT 😁
Hi Nico, this really interests myself as I have the SA GTi for wide field Milky Way shots. My daytime job is press photography and have a canon 500mm f4 lens, would a 34mm sky watcher dovetail plate be enough to attach the additional scope and camera? Also, do you have any setup guides for that scope and camera as deep sky images are completely new to myself
If you have an observatory nearby, they may have a club that you can join and maybe borrow some gear or join a meeting and talk with owners of rigs on how they work. I am sure you'll learn more, without spending nearly as much money, than if you are to take any advice from the internet and buy something that you have to wrestle with on your own.
EDIT:
Yes, any vixen-style dovetail plate will be strong enough for your 500 f/4 and accessoires. As for a first indication of which mount/tracker you might want, (again, first, find people who own stuff and ask if you can learn from them), an iOptron SkyGuider with iGuider should have sufficient payload capacity and guiding capability. But if you want to dip your toes, try an Omegon LX3 with a shorter lens. Do you have any shorter lenses with lower f-ratios (i.e., 50 mm f/1.8, 200 mm f/2.8 maybe)? They'd fit the omegon and require less tracking/guiding. The more you zoom, the more finicky the tracking/guiding becomes. Don't go in expecting 500 mm to be a breeze!
Good luck, have fun and clear skies!
@@zbnmth hi, I already own a Sky Watcher GTi tracker and used it with my 70-200 f2.8, I also have a 100-400 but not tried that or the 500mm yet on my tracker.
It was the guiding scope setup that I’ve never used, and wondered how this is done
The closest I have to a setup guide for adding an autoguider to a vixen dovetail is this video: ua-cam.com/video/Q8YFwx_RNGM/v-deo.html The cheese plates may not be necessary and I don't suggest the ZWO mini guide scope these days, as the William Optics Uniguide 32mm I show in this video is much better. The William Optics guide scope has multiple holes on the base for connecting to the universal vixen dovetail. I'm not sure what the 34mm refers to. I'd suggest at least 200mm in length for the dovetail if adding the guidescope up front as I showed in this video: tinyurl.com/greenDovetail
@@NebulaPhotos very much appreciated, thank you
You can 3D print a clip in filter holder for 1.25” filters that will work OK for APS-C size DSLR’s.
I need to investigate these. I'm guessing you need to snap up the mirror and then fit in the holder - I can see how there would be enough room in that case. How badly does the 1.25" filter vignette?
This video answered a lot of questions. Thank you.
I'm behind in the latest developments for tracking devices for long exposures. If you already answered the following in other videos I'll need to hunt up the links etc.
When life allowed and I could get out I found that (sometimes) up to half my exposures were tossed because of satellites and aircraft.
That caused a lot of 3 minute exposures to be tossed and might make longer exposures be more of a loss of open shutter time.
Is there a software device that recognizes satellite / aircraft trails and interrupts the exposure until that trail is our of the frame and begins the exposure once again after the trail is gone? That might save a lot of camera time, camera heating etc issues if that software is possible?
Thanks again.
To answer your question: No there is not yet. But watch this and see why 3 minute exposures are probably not the optimal length: ua-cam.com/video/3RH93UvP358/v-deo.html
Yes, the software used for stacking astrophotos have rejection algorithms (sigma clipping) that reject the satellite and airplane trails from the final stack while allowing you to keep those pictures. So as long as you can take about 10 or more photos, no need to delete the photos with planes and sats.
@@NebulaPhotosThank you very much.
Damn, the TTArtisian lens is insane for the price
Guided vs unguided photo would be great
Thanks for the effort. I was wondering if you used an EF lens like the 400mm/5.6L, would it be a good match with the Ra?
I've never used that lens, but have heard it's pretty great for astrophotography. I think it would be a good match.
It would have been interesting to see the Canon at F5.6 to see how it handled the corners. I find that my Canon 500mm F4 IS USM is sharp at F4, but at 5.6 the lens is pinpoint.
great video, ive got a question though, i have a ttartistan 500mm and i want to buy a star tracker, what are some budget options?
Самый нормальный из самых дешевых и компактных, это sky watcher gti. Если вы готовы потратить больше денег, то zwo am3
Sony's better long lenses all use several flourite elements. Great video...
RBB samples - the Canon seemed to have less fringing and tighter stars and show more subtle nebula detail. At least to my eyes. But hey, it should given it's much more expensive than the other 2 options.
i literally googled about an hour ago about this topic. thank you for that great video
My experience with canon lenses is similar, although I wouldn’t recommend them unless it’s what you have and you just want to give it a try. I have all top of the line lenses, and none of them are really good for astrophotography unless you don’t care about the star shapes. I’m amazed that it doesn’t show up in terrestrial photos, but it doesn’t. The stars in each one are funky in numerous ways.
Thank you very much! Very very useful video!
Does moving the guide scope closer to the center of rotation of the mount effect the tracking? What if it's on the axis or on the opposite side of the axis? Does the distance between the axis of the mount and the centerline of the scope effect the accuracy/resolution of the guiding? I've always wondered about this.
I’ve never tested this. I am not positive the different options here would result in a big enough difference to show up in testing. The first thing autoguiding software does is ‘calibrate’ your guiding system by sending a series of corrections in each direction to the mount to understand its position and orientation.
Any recommendations on getting either a Canon EOS D80 or the EOS Rebel SL3? I have the opportunity to get either or relatively cheap ($300) via marketplace locally. Mainly interested in getting shots of the Milky Way. But would use it for hunting and fishing shots too.
Noise levels are very similar, so I'd just go for the one that looks in better condition.
@@NebulaPhotos thank you!!! Love your work, you got me super intrigued and wanting to get into it. One last question, any lense recommendations? Under $400 preferably
@@swimjigjake3567I haven't had the best of luck with finding good copies, but the Rokinon/Samyang 14mm f/2.8 is a classic cheap milky way lens. The Rokinon/Samyang 24mm f/1.4 is also good for the money, a bit of chromatic abberation, but it can be fixed in post.
Surely someone else has already said it… washers. Will increase the holding power of your aftermarket screws and save your vixen plate from damage. Thanks for the review Nico us new guys need as much guidance as possible
Oh, an astrophoto test of the RF 100-300 with the Ra.... TY for this comparison. Now, I need this lens... Did you use an Astronomik L2 filter on top of the Ra ? :)
Yes, I always keep the clip-in L2 filter inside my Ra to control the red halo on bright stars problem it has. Forgot to mention it.
@@NebulaPhotos my l2 filter isn't quite parallel to my sensor most of the time (non symetrical rear side), maybe it is one of the factor with the rf100-300 ?
@@julese7790 it’s the clip-in type? With mine it doesn’t seem like there is any gap once I add a lens and the filter thickness is consistent. How are you seeing that the filter isn’t sitting parallel with the sensor? I’m having trouble imagining what you mean. Gerd Neumann would likely replace if it’s a manufacturing fault.
Can you use a mirrorless camera, like the Sony a7s3, with the "SPACECAT 61 WIFD"? I'm interested in time lapse videos as well.
Yes, you can. You just need the correct T-adapter to connect the camera. In the case of the Sony, it would be this one: bit.ly/3Tz5TGD
Time lapse is usually done with wider lenses, but technically you could make a time lapse with that setup. If you explain more what you are thinking, I'd be happy to give my thoughts
Thank you so much for the reply! I'm thinking dirty shots of the moon, the nebula, and other galactic objects: Like a mountain or tree branches in the foreground but the main focus on the galactic objects. I currently do wide lenses time lapses but I think it would be cool timelapse this way too! any thoughts? @@NebulaPhotos
@@zhokkaThe issue is at this kind of focal length, you probably want to track to get more detail on the stars/deep sky objects through longer exposures, but then the foreground objects would be blurred. It could work well for the moon setting/rising behind a mountain top. In that case, you wouldn't use tracking just a solid tripod.
Nikon also makes Fluorite lenses. I own the 600mm f/4. And it is light enough for a Celestron avx EQ mount
Would there be an alternative to the William optics cat 61, that is less expensive. I am starting from scratch and you know all of the equipment is expensive.
Look at the Astro-tech or Apertura lines of telescopes. These are budget friendly refractors that work well. The Astro-tech AT60ED + 1x field flattener is around $500 and is similar in specs to the Cat 61, a bit slower and the stars will be a little more bloated, but still a good scope for the price.
With pix insight fixing chromatic aberration by separating the colors and then re-aligning them and Blur-exterminator fixing most coma…..even the cheapest lens is good enough.
I have Sony A7mk2 and don't plan to modify it (I am doing also different types of photography). Could you please show a possibilities of non modified cameras (or some comparison?).
Modification only matters for emission nebulae. On all other types of deep sky objects (galaxies, stars, star clusters, reflection nebulae, dark nebulae) it offers no advantage. You can see how a stock camera performs compared to a modified camera on an emission nebula in this video I made: ua-cam.com/video/KL45mPSU9dU/v-deo.html
@@NebulaPhotos Thanks a lot, this is exactly what I was looking for
How good would the TT Artisan lens be for the upcoming eclipse? Filtered of course.
It would be a great choice IMO
Thanks!
Wow, a whole 3% off, I'll jump right on that deal. 😂
Bang for buck - that TTA is pretty surprising.
Noob here. I think I'm missing something obvious here. I just bought a Sony camera with an E-mount. What cameras can these lenses be mounted to? Are they all only for Canon cameras? Are there adapters?
Nico, for a moment I thought you were a multiple billionaire to buy that equipment just for this video!!
Are telescopes equipped with autofocus and stabilization as the Canon (photo) lens?
Nope, and it’s part of why telescopes can be sharp but with fewer lens elements, they only have to focus at infinity and only with manual focus and no IS. You can buy after-market focusers that work with software on a tethered computer to autofocus on the stars. Those are typically easier to install on a telescope than a lens. They don’t work like regular autofocus in that you already have to be very close to focus for them to work at all and they are slow (can take 30 seconds or more), but they are accurate and handy once you get them tuned.
Space cat 😸😸
You had me at cat