Is Astrophotography Without Tracking Possible? (2022)(astroimagery.com) |
Is Astrophotography Without Tracking Possible? (2022)(astroimagery.com) |
Totally viable untracked. The classic 14mm prime has gone from f2.8 to f1.8 to f1.4, and sensors have become really good at high sensitivity for a 15 second exposure. Quite often, that's enough.
The hairy part is when it's not quite enough, and exposures have to be stacked. I have a crop sensor camera (canon 1.6x, so 40% area) with an f/2 lens that I like to step down further, and a good Starscape this way will take 10-40 exposures. I can stack those no problem, but it's trees on the horizon that are problematic. The ground stack and the sky stack have to clash, and a complex shaped border will always look photoshopped, because it is.
Old school Deep Sky is losing its appeal due to a) pictures being available online, meaning that you've already seen the better version of the same photo, and b) the images being sterile and without context, with no relation to the photographer's story. Milky Way in a national park says "I've been there!" in a way that a shot of the Whirlpool Galaxy just can't.
I love the wide angle astro stuff, but I'm more into timelapse. But I do love "trying" shooting DSO as well, but tracking is obviously required.
I find deep sky astrophotography compelling because there's still a huge difference between _my_ image of a galaxy and the many "better" ones already available. The difference is that I went through the experience of taking it so it feels more like it's really there. It's the closest I can get to actually experiencing seeing the galaxy with my naked eyes. The ideal would be visual astronomy of DSOs but that'll never be possible.
Also, it helps significantly to be in Antarctica, where the relative movement is much slower than it is at lower latitudes — and to have multiple telescopes - and low noise CCDs, in a cold, dry environment.
Sadly, most of us don’t have those luxuries.
https://siril.readthedocs.io/en/stable/processing/deconvolut...
1. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAstrophotography/comments/1b7fz3...
The new technique for astrophotography isnt long exposures. Its about fast exposures in an attempt to maximize good atmospheric wobble.
The altaz mount, not lack of tracking, is what makes it difficult for conventional astrophotography because the image rotates as you track the star. That prevents using a single long exposure. Equatorial mounts keep the image stationary.
1. Long exposures require tracking.
2. Dobbies can't track because they have altaz mounts [0].
3. But short exposures don't require tracking. Therefore a Dobbie might work for short exposures iff you can lock down the altaz axes and sufficiently reduce vibration.
[0] It is possible -- and fairly common -- to track with altaz mounts. Both axes require coordinated, computer-controlled stepper motors. In addition you need a third motor to rotate the tube. This was not possible before digitally-controlled motors. So some Dobbies do track but that kind of defeats the purpose of a Dobbie as a cheap light bucket anybody can afford.
In contrast tracking with an equatorial mount only needs a single motor and that motor doesn't need to be digitally-controlled.
Do you mean that it would be conceptually possible to image planets or even deep-sky objects during the day with incredibly efficient denoising software? (I am a noob in astronomy)