Telescopes ROCK! - here is why...

Oct 3, 2017 12:54 PM

natemandoo

Views

93978

Likes

944

Dislikes

32

Posted part 1 here yesterday, using the deep view 47X magnification eyepiece: https://imgur.com/gallery/lskML All these picture were taken at the lowest possible magnification that this telescope offers.

Now on to the maximum: 165X

With this telescope, with its minimum magnification, you can tell what kind of tree is on that lonely island

For those curious enough Its a Maple tree.

A rock at the end of the lake half sticking out of the water. At maximum magnification, I can see a dragonfly sitting on that rock clearly. Sorry I couldn't take a picture of that - they aren't exactly slow moving.

Moon 25 SEPT 2017

This also is what you can see with said telescope. Shall we zoom in some more?

Lunar Surface 29 SEPT 207

Closer?

CLOSER:
https://imgur.com/G6cP3Ra

More images:
https://imgur.com/TtHWk01 (polaris)
https://imgur.com/W7Bq6m3 (Pleiades)

My personal Favorite:
https://imgur.com/b1IFZop
the double cluster in Perseus. This thing will truly take your breath away when you see it through a telescope. Want to know the best part? I have taken these images WITH A CELL PHONE!!!! An LG V10. So imagine how much nicer it looks through your own eye, or better even with a real DSLR camera??

Clear skies my friends!

8 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 1

i was expecting the rick and morty smudge

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

A smudge on the lens? A SMUDGE ON THE LENS!? I think I'd know the difference between a man threatening me and a smudge on the goddamn lens.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Find any of them cities they have on the moon yet?

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

#1 Don't lie to me, that's an anti-air laser cannon.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Can you please let it a pic of Jupiter? Saturn?

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Finally a telescope powerful enough to my fuck to give. For I have lost it many moons ago.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Please please give me Orion’s Nebula...

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Zoom and Enhance cliche!

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

But can you see why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

https://media.giphy.com/media/D3OdaKTGlpTBC/giphy.gif

8 years ago | Likes 24 Dislikes 0

Excellent movie.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

my special eclipse picture taken with this telescope... just for you https://imgur.com/jc2EUJV

8 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

Outstanding resolution! Thanks!

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

@op I work here https://www.mercator.iac.es/

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I am a very, VERY jealous person :)

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

There are lots of telescopes in La Palma, did you ever went there ?

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

What do I need to see the remains of the manned moon mission? Just asking in case I need proof

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

A telescope with an aperture of about a mile if I am correct.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I've been a photographer long enough to know that my eyes hurt with the chromatic aberration.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I am 100% positive its from the camera lens.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

If it's from a lens, it's a terrible lens. However, chromatic aberration is a problem that lies within almost any lens that utilizes glass.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Newtonian reflectors are free from it though, as it reflects

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I want pictures of galaxies damn it.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Best I have taken so far: https://imgur.com/VXvifeI Doubly cluster. With the same cell phone

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Astrophotography is not easy. Pretty much all of the really cool stuff is a bunch of edited images composited together.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Editing allows more details to be pulled out of what's already there. Stacking (combining) the images improves signal to noice ratio. Prt 1

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

With a better signal(actual light(what ever you're photographing) to noice (heat from camera) makes the image sharper

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

ENHANCE!

8 years ago | Likes 60 Dislikes 0

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

*tap tap tap tap* Enhance!

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

Classic! So excited for the next movie

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I have an 8" Orion XT8 and I adore it. That said...the scope pictured here costs as much as a car. They can be crazy expensive. Worth it.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Can someone hisplain FP edits.... so I can add the rest of the pictures that got cut-off =/

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Once you have shared a post to gallery you can no longer add more photos. Make a follow up one :)

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

That sucks =/

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I might want to have a closer look.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I still have to order a barlow lens to get the true max magnification, but ask and ye shall receive.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Can someone please explain to me why they can't point a much larger telescope at the sight of the moon landings to shut up all moon hoaxers?

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

If I remember correctly, you would need an aperture of about a mile

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

B/c the highest resolution 'scope we have near Earth is HST and at the distance of the moon this has ~100m resolution.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

But: the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter took images of the landing sites, incl. rover tracks. But of course these would be doctored, too...

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

ugh, why can you edit imgur comments. *site

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

well, they kinda put one almost there. Hubble :)

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

We could, but it would have to be about 2.5 times as big as the largest telescope in the world.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

This spacecraft orbiting the moon took pictures of the moon landing sites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Damn, Nate your telescope size is intimidating, but I like the way you use it

8 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 1

Its at this exact moment I realized you are not a dude.

8 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

You didn't see my neato space links on my profile? Pfft not much of an explorer...:b

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

ha... nope, but I will spend the better part of the day checking them out :)

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Yeah, Nate check out my sweet, sweet links

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

your sweet.... sweet what? OH... links. yes! watching some now - on youtube, not with my telescope :P

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Closer you slut.

8 years ago | Likes 232 Dislikes 3

8 years ago | Likes 74 Dislikes 0

Damn the atmosphere ruining cool telescope pics

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The struggle is real my friends

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

@OP 16in dob? I have a 10in f3.9 on a goto equatorial mount

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I want to build an GEM mount for this. I have a CNC, so why not right?

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I understood some of these words...

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

that goto must have cost you a fortune. pics, or it didnt happen.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

/a/dtOi7

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

you can probably do some amazing astrophotography with that

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yeah, it's getting better. The lack of a autoguider and the fact my camera doesn't have live view is taxing

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

*concave

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Imgur downvotes facts. That both amuses & worries me

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

dont let them get to you. So what needed the concave correction? the mirror obviously right?

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yes. A concave mirror concentrates the light to one point. A convex mirror would not work at all.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Perhaps that a bit more in depth than people cared for?

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Try it this way: it's like telling people to step in the brake to go faster. It is ass-backwards.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This is technically correct, which is the best kind of correct

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

See if anyone notices the 2nd amendment attachments?

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

I noticed the $1500 I wish I had.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

What size rifle does your sniperscope go on?

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

red dot reflex site, and green laser pointer

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

You don't have a guide scope?! I really recommend getting one. It makes things so much easier

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Guide scope? I have a red dot reflex site, green laser site, AND a spotting scope =)

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

On the other side in #1 ?

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I've been thinking about getting a telescope, too bad I'm broke as fuck.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

They don't cost much...depends on how bit you want. U can get a 5" for just over 100

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I'm looking at one thats only $133, but can't afford it right now. For now I just have to just stare at the moon.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Look up celestron 127eq on Amazon. Your welcome

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That's the one I've been looking at, but I can't afford it at the moment. Not between rent and car payments.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

ahh. understandable. the $40 tracking motor is pretty easy to install on it as well.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Well done @OP. Yeah its better create new post. Let me ask, how long compared to a photo lens? What brightness? What camera is mounted on?

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Here some of my POOR results compared to real astro lol

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

that ain't bad at all. doesnt look too diff then mine. Nice. post it in r/astrophotography

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

your is more detailed haha

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Compared to my first photos, you doing great :)

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

thx :)

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

camera?? HA! its a cell cam that took those :)

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

uh.. amazing.. you should get an used DSLR one, shooting RAW you could do even better. But again, how long is that orion, like 1600/2000 mm?

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

it is my plan to get a DSLR, but you can't really take long exposures with it since it doesnt track. 1 or 2 seconds max I would guess

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Without tracking is a mess coz the moon already at 800 goes outta viewfinder in seconds, you have always to move. Guess external tracker is

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

A deal but not an expert, idk how it works. Using camera for normal shoots, seldom astro

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0