[Dr_who]

How much field coverage do you get before coma becomes objectionable? I'm just curious as I suspect the field of good definition on a f/3.9 system would be pretty tight.

Sorry Pixelsaurus, I didn't see your post till just now. It is fair tight as you say, it is pretty minor for a bit and the obviously at the corners its pretty extreme. I Have the Baader Coma corrector on back order and I've been told the new one has been made avail over seas, just waiting on it's availability in Canada.

Just as a added note, I printed off my M31 picture in a couple sizes from 4x6, to 8x12, and it looks pretty good actually. 4x6 isn't noticable, and if you look closly at the 8x12 you can notice it elongating at the corners. unless you know what your looking for you wouldn't notice any arrow head stars unless you specifically were looking for it. I imagine any bigger, especially near poster size it would be in your face.

---

Last edited by Dr_who; 10-25-2012 at 08:12 AM.

[GWARmachine]

I'm so happy to see more activity here now!!! It's been a while peeps. Of course, winter is always the best time for our hobby. I hope to be posting some new photos soon. Great pics to everyone that has posted!

[smigol]

Dunno about you but winter is the rainy season for me. Time to process data gathered over the summer and curse at clear full moon nights.

[VisualDarkness]

I did my first real try for a moonshot but the weather was hazy and cloudy. Was 1/200 enough or should I have up'ed the ISO from 80 instead? I used a decent tripod, cable release and 12s shutter. The focus looks of in the pics but I can assure you that I adjusted it very carefully when taking the shots and I think it's the clouds. Full moon is boring but this is the first time I've had any kind of decent conditions in a long long while, either the moon was up during the day or a dense cloud at night.

One big problem was how the PP it and most of all sharpen it, I didn't get any satisfying result in Lightroom 3 nor Topaz. I guess the native RAW is too blurry for good results but I think you guys would do it better.

Sigma 150-500 + Kenko 1.5x (Maybe the TC isn't helping?)

[pixelsaurus]

I did my first real try for a moonshot but the weather was hazy and cloudy. Was 1/200 enough or should I have up'ed the ISO from 80 instead? I used a decent tripod, cable release and 12s shutter. The focus looks of in the pics but I can assure you that I adjusted it very carefully when taking the shots and I think it's the clouds. Full moon is boring but this is the first time I've had any kind of decent conditions in a long long while, either the moon was up during the day or a dense cloud at night.

One big problem was how the PP it and most of all sharpen it, I didn't get any satisfying result in Lightroom 3 nor Topaz. I guess the native RAW is too blurry for good results but I think you guys would do it better.

Sigma 150-500 + Kenko 1.5x (Maybe the TC isn't helping?)

Don't be disparaging of your ability to focus. Atmospheric turbulance will undo the efforts of all. You may need to take dozens, or even hundreds of shots to get the one with killer focus. Turbulence is the reason why avid planetary imagers use video for capture these days. They will sort through thousands of images to cull the best and then stack them for maximum detail.

[VisualDarkness]

Don't be disparaging of your ability to focus. Atmospheric turbulance will undo the efforts of all. You may need to take dozens, or even hundreds of shots to get the one with killer focus. Turbulence is the reason why avid planetary imagers use video for capture these days. They will sort through thousands of images to cull the best and then stack them for maximum detail.

I took about 30 pics but the thinker clouds moved in front of the boon so I gave up. I guess that the at the moment quite warmer ground (no ice on there despit minus degrees Celsius) in relation to the cold air increases the turbulence. You can feel the the air moving even though the "apparent lack" of wind.
Should I try stacking next time? I've never done it.

[pixelsaurus]

I have never stacked lunar or planetary images but I guess it wouldn't hurt. Registax is the choice of some, it is freeware.
RegiStax- Free image processing software

[Dr_who]

Looks pretty good moon shot to me

[VisualDarkness]

I have never stacked lunar or planetary images but I guess it wouldn't hurt. Registax is the choice of some, it is freeware.
RegiStax- Free image processing software

I'll look into it.

Looks pretty good moon shot to me

Thank you! Maybe I got too big expectations?

[pixelsaurus]

Looks pretty good moon shot to me

Agreed. Nearly full moon always lack detail as it is lit from overhead (lunar noon). As always: practice,practice,practice.

[VisualDarkness]

Agreed. Nearly full moon always lack detail as it is lit from overhead (lunar noon). As always: practice,practice,practice.

I guess you're right as it "appears" sharper and more around the borders where the light doesn't hit it head on. Yeah, I wanted to practice this month before winter fully arrives only to see a chart of the moon's position the later half of this month and it wasn't a good fit.

[pixelsaurus]

Still a useful shot. You could always incorpoate it in the vid you can make showing lunar libration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration

[krp]

Here's a couple I just reprocessed from last summer. They were both taken with a Takumar f2.5 lens, stacks of 4 second exposures with a K-x on a regular tripod.







Kevin

[gs2c]

Moon for pentax K5

[Ex Finn.]

Very nice.