|
I had a look at the CGEM-DX at Astrofest here in the UK back in February, the only other thing I noticed about it was the longer, heavier counterweight bar. Though I have been happy enough with my CGEM I've never managed to convince myself that I would not have been just as happy with an EQ6. However if you are looking for that additional capacity then maybe you want to be holding out for the EQ7/8 (names are a bit confused at the moment), which I'm sure Atlas will have a version of soon. I think it is due out sometime this year.  This picture is apparently the EQ8, and there will be an EQ7 soon as well which is apparently going to be more of an upgraded EQ6. Certainly tempted by one of these for the shed, if only I didn't really need a better camera first.
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2011 08:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:36 |
|
|
Oh my. I'm trying to keep the mount cost under $2000, and even that's pushing it. $1500 is more like it. I can't imagine those 7s and 8s are going to be under $4000?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2011 23:40
|
|
|
Wolf on Air posted:5 inches of aperture is the least I would ever want to use, and then preferably in a Cassegrain configuration for portability; the whole point of Newtonians is big mirrors for cheap. Try looking for the Synta-made Dobsonians, Sky-watcher and Orion (USA) should have them, with or without goto. Also consider that short wide Newtonians (low f-ratio, say below 8, I'm not a Newton expert) are asking for a coma corrector pretty badly. I've been saving my pennies too and the Orion 130EQ is on my short list. The rest of the list is the Orion 130ST. Here are the differences: The ST ("short tube") is a 24" tube, f/5.0, parabolic mirror, $300 The EQ is a 32.5" tube, f/6.9, spherical mirror, $250 All other things being equal (130mm aperture, etc), which would you all rather have?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2011 16:41
|
|
|
Wombot posted:Oh my. Orrrr maybe I'll just grab a Losmandy G-11. The more I think about it, the more I'm OK with spending twice the price of an Atlas for a mount that will carry more, and sounds like will be higher-quality. Paying more now for a mount that's going to last a long drat time is perfectly fine by me. Where that line of reasoning gets dangerous is when I start looking at the Mach1GTO. Down boy, down!
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 23:06
|
|
|
So moving on from mounts, a telescope question: I have a plethora of Canon DSLRs available to me, so I would be using that for AP instead of a dedicated imager. I've been looking at both the AT65EDQ (65mm refractor) and the AT6RC (6" reflector) (Both backordered  ) as cheap and easy, yet still verrry capable, scopes to begin AP. Is the AT6RC, being a wider aperature/bigger light bucket the better choice? Or will the refractor produce better images? I've never owned a refractor before, so they're still a bit black magic to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2011 07:20
|
|
|
Field of view is a more interesting question when considering those two telescopes. They have such different aperture / focal lengths that they are not really comparable to each other. FOV calculated with CCDcalc, you can run through various targets to get an idea of what you can expect to capture. AT65EDQ - Refractor 65mm f/6.5 Field of view with Canon 40d/400d/1000d - 120 x 180 arcmin This will be a great scope for wide field imaging, think andromeda galaxy, cygnus loop. Great for the summer nebula season. My camera has been moved to my 66mm scope for the next few months. Not good for planets or most galaxies. Very forgiving of tracking errors with that fov and can image unguided very easily with good alignment and a decent mount. AT6RC Ritchey-Chrétien astrograph 6" F9 Field of view with Canon 40d/400d/1000d - 60 x 90 arcmin Nice scope, half the FOV with the same camera. This will be a solid scope for a larger range of targets, planets are possible with a 4/5x barlow and galaxies like M51 / M101 will go well. A solid general use scope with probably a larger range of targets. However it is going to need guiding, so extra complexity and a steeper learning curve is going to be the result. In a perfect world you would have both piggy backed and give yourself a nice range of targets and the refractor would make a solid guidescope. However if I was starting out and had to choose just one, I'd go with the wide field refractor, it will give far fewer headaches and get you results quicker. Though as you will be mostly after nebula modifying your camera would be a help in the long term.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2011 11:06
|
|
|
Thanks Jekub, that's exactly what I was looking for! I may have just ordered both. Of course, it's up in the air as to if/when they will ever materialize. I've been meaning to pick up the AT65EDQ for a while, and for $300, the 6RC is a gamble I'll take.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2011 21:24
|
|
|
One other thing, you'll want a field flattener for the refractor, I've heard good things about the skywatcher model and they are very well priced.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2011 09:12
|
|
|
Looks like the AT65EDQ actually has a FF built in (hence the "quadruplet" moniker).
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2011 02:05
|
|
|
I just made my first amateur observing purchase on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Celestron-SkyMaster-Binoculars-Tripod-Adapter/dp/B00008Y0VN/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1310135513&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Vista-Explorer-Lightweight-Tripod-Bag/dp/B000V7AF8E/ref=pd_bxgy_p_img_b Got a deal on the bundle. $78.93 with free shipping. I was going to buy an Orion XT series telescope but I decided to heed the advice of all the amateur astronomy sites and get a solid pair of binoculars first. I'm so excited 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 15:35
|
|
|
Ehud posted:I just made my first amateur observing purchase on Amazon: I have the 20x80 Skymasters. Best single purchase for astronomy I ever made. I use them more than my CGEM800. I suppose that will change once I get an observatory built and the weather stops being a cock sucking douche bag here in Ohio. Every time I have the opportunity to get some imaging in, the sky says, "I like clouds and rain". You will get a lot of good use out of those!
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 17:30
|
|
|
This is the last week to see a space shuttle in orbit 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 17:33
|
|
|
Just FYI, astronomy binoculars really need a tall sturdy tripod because you need them above your head while standing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 17:39
|
|
|
Choicecut posted:You will get a lot of good use out of those! That's what I was hoping to hear. I can't wait! INTJ Mastermind posted:Just FYI, astronomy binoculars really need a tall sturdy tripod because you need them above your head while standing. I'm pretty short, so hopefully that tripod will be adequate 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 20:07
|
|
|
Ehud posted:I'm pretty short, so hopefully that tripod will be adequate Unless you're a 4 ft midget, a 60" (5 ft) tripod won't be enough for you when you want to get underneath the binoculars to look overhead. Look for something at least 7ft tall. I personally don't understand why people recommend binoculars as a first astronomy purchase. Small terrestial binoculars aren't all that useful for astronomy (very small magnification and aperture) and large ones cost the same as a telescope and require expensive setups to use properly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2011 03:02
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:Unless you're a 4 ft midget, a 60" (5 ft) tripod won't be enough for you when you want to get underneath the binoculars to look overhead. Look for something at least 7ft tall. Thanks for the advice. If the tripod ends up being useless, I can always return it 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2011 03:52
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:I personally don't understand why people recommend binoculars as a first astronomy purchase. Small terrestial binoculars aren't all that useful for astronomy (very small magnification and aperture) and large ones cost the same as a telescope and require expensive setups to use properly. I probably wouldn't have gone straight from nothing to telescope, and at least in my situation (poor as hell) it gave me enough of a preview to decide to invest a little money in something better. That said, if anyone has newbie suggestions, I'd be glad to add them to the OP.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2011 04:28
|
|
|
I've been looking at a new camera and I'm poking around what's supported for the CHDK software. I don't really see any support for the DSLRs though but some of the possibilities for it seem pretty nice for astro shots. I'm particularly interested in the scripts that allow you to basically do unlimited long-exposure shots in RAW and combining it with a barn door mount or a decent tracking mount for some easy mode stuff. Has anyone else used this software much or been able to wrangle it into working with the more recent Canon DSLRs?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 20:56
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:Unless you're a 4 ft midget, a 60" (5 ft) tripod won't be enough for you when you want to get underneath the binoculars to look overhead. Look for something at least 7ft tall. They are recommended because you can see a lot of stuff and learn the sky without spending a lot of money. I can see 4 moons of Jupiter and slight coloration, good views of the moon, Andromeda, etc. with the 20x80's and they only cost me 100 bucks. I use a cheap 10 dollar tripod and a 5 dollar plastic wal-mart chair, works great. It is a way to make sure you really enjoy the hobby before dropping a shitload of money. I have over 3k in my big rig, but still take the 20x80's out just for fun and portability.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 13:36
|
|
|
For beginning to learn the Stars, on a budget, what's better, something like the Celestron 15x70/20x80 Binoculars or something like this? http://www.telescope.com/Telescopes.../333/p/9794.uts Just out of curiosity does anyone know someone who is an Astronomer for their day(night) job? Just curious what the job entails, and their other opinions on the matter. I am definitely interested in a job working with the up an coming private space industry or related research, I am pretty good with theory and love science, but math is not my strong point. Not to derail the thread I will take any replies too off topic in a PM.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 18:09
|
|
|
Xenpo posted:For beginning to learn the Stars, on a budget, what's better, something like the Celestron 15x70/20x80 Binoculars or something like this? I would say the Skymasters over that scope, but that's just my opinion. The nocs will give you stereo view, but you can swap eye pieces on the little refractor. Each have their place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 20:44
|
|
|
Well, I pulled the trigger on a G11 with Gemini 2. I got it Monday this week, and think I have everything configured (but not figured out). Now all I need is clear skies... I went from a CG-5 non-goto to this thing, and it's almost comical seeing them sit next to each other. The leg tubes are about 2" wider diameter, and the head is almost 2x the size. I threw my 8" newtonian (1200mm FL) on the G11, and it is rock solid. One of the reasons I went with the G11, even though the Gemini 2 firmware is still in development, is because it has very robust connectivity. Serial, USB, direct Ethernet, and networked Ethernet connections are all options. It's pretty sweet being able to just plug a Cat5 cable into the mount and go to http://gemini from any computer on my network and control the mount from a webpage, or jack the Cat5 between my laptop and the mount and connect right up with ASCOM and StellariumScope.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 22:11
|
|
|
Does anyone know where to get replacement lenses for a Galileoscope? I seem to have lost my Barlows.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 13:12
|
|
|
I finally got a clear night I could use! The Cocoon Nebula (IC5146) and Barnard 168 Dark Nebula by tmarkuk, on Flickr 44 x 5 minute exposures. I picked up a new Opticstar PL-131C camera for guiding / lunar / planetary work which I used for this image. It's not as sensitive as my modified webcam with it's sony CCD chip but it is a lot less mucking about to get it working. I'm happy enough with it so far.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 13:37
|
|
|
Is this a good beginner telescope?: Skywatcher EXPLORER-130 reflector. £150 is a nice price and is about what I'm willing to pay right now. I could stretch it to £200 possibly if there was something in that price range that was recommended at the 'ABSOLUTELY BUY THIS' kind of level. Edit: There's also the 130p at just £35 more which is supposed to be better (source). quote:EXPLORER-130P 130mm (5.1") f/650 Parabolic Newtonian Reflector Telescope Thinking of going with the 130p currently. There's also the 150p with the EQ3-2 mount which is about £270 which I could maaaaaaaaaybe stretch to if the difference is really worth it. Edit: and there's also the 150PL which is just £10 more and f/8 rather than f/5 for easier collimation and tolerance for cheaper eyepieces  Edit again: Argh gently caress. Okay. After research and posting to myself in this thread I think I've narrowed it down to between the 150P and the 150PL. Do I go for the PL with it's increased length and difficulty with storage, narrower FOV, and longer cool down time (though I might have to keep it in the garage so that could be a moot point) but with less coma, easier collimation and more forgivingness with cheaper eyepieces? The 150P also comes with a '1.25/2-inch Crayford focuser' which the 150PL does not. I've read that the longer focal length is better for solar system viewing whilst the shorter one is a bit better at DSOs and more of an all-rounder - is this the case? Tufty fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Aug 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2011 23:45
|
|
|
Tufty posted:Do I go for the PL with it's increased length and difficulty with storage, narrower FOV, and longer cool down time (though I might have to keep it in the garage so that could be a moot point) but with less coma, easier collimation and more forgivingness with cheaper eyepieces? The 150P also comes with a '1.25/2-inch Crayford focuser' which the 150PL does not. I've read that the longer focal length is better for solar system viewing whilst the shorter one is a bit better at DSOs and more of an all-rounder - is this the case? Either one will be a decent starter scope. I'd probably go with the 150P just because I value portability and FOV.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2011 02:18
|
|
|
Loztblaz posted:f/5 is a pretty fast scope, but I've never noticed issues with collimating or using cheapo eyepieces with an f/5, so I don't think those will be big concerns. Losing the 2" focuser isn't great, but many eyepieces that are 2" only (many eyepieces that can work with a 2" focuser also have a 1.25" adapter) will also cost more than either telescope, so I wouldn't worry about that yet. Thanks a lozt, Loztblaz (sorry). I think I'm gonna go ahead with the 150P. It's a bit over the budget, and it's a joint birthday present from my parents and granddad so I'm going to put some money towards it so I've got a scope that'll last me longer and serve me better. I've got a couple of other people asking me what I want, and I've got a few ideas for accessories. I already have Turn Left at Orion, but I was thinking of getting a Cheshire Collimating Eyepiece, a Rigel Quikfinder which I've heard is basically a compact telrad, and I'll also be needing a red torch. Are these all good buys for a beginner? The viewfinder is based on recommendations I found on some astronomy forums saying the 6x30 finderscope the 150p comes with is useless, and the cheshire collimator was highly regarded too. I figure I'd rather get it now than find I can't use my new scope when I open it because it needs collimating, or face the same problem a month down the line on a beautiful night. If someone thinks it's not necessary then I've got an open mind 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
Tufty posted:Thanks a lozt, Loztblaz (sorry). I think I'm gonna go ahead with the 150P. It's a bit over the budget, and it's a joint birthday present from my parents and granddad so I'm going to put some money towards it so I've got a scope that'll last me longer and serve me better. I've got a couple of other people asking me what I want, and I've got a few ideas for accessories. I don't have any experience with the Cheshire, but I've only heard good things, so I don't think you'd regret it. That said, it's probably not necessary yet. The cheap plastic collimation eyepieces that come with Newtonians are decent enough to get you observing, but they are a hassle to use. I only had to tweak the collimation on my 8" dob twice in the 18 months that I used it as a primary scope. It's your call if easier (and slightly better) collimation is worth the money. Both Telrads and Rigels are great, and the Rigel is probably a better choice for a smaller scope. You're right that the viewfinder on that scope (and most budget scopes, for that matter) is junk, and if I could buy one thing for a new telescope kit, it would be a better viewfinder. Absolutely get it. The red flashlight is pretty much required if you plan on consulting charts while observing or moving around without standing in an anthill (this happened to me). It's worth a small investment to not ruin your night vision for 15-30 minutes every time you need some light.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2011 09:39
|
|
|
Tufty posted:I was thinking of getting a Cheshire Collimating Eyepiece I've linked her site before but Astrobaby has the best guide I have seen to collimating a reflector, along with plenty of well written articles to help you get started on setting up your mount and getting started with observing. And the other thing that goes for anyone getting started, find your local society and go along, there are few better ways to learn and get involved.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2011 11:33
|
|
|
Loztblaz posted:I don't have any experience with the Cheshire, but I've only heard good things, so I don't think you'd regret it. That said, it's probably not necessary yet. The cheap plastic collimation eyepieces that come with Newtonians are decent enough to get you observing, but they are a hassle to use. I only had to tweak the collimation on my 8" dob twice in the 18 months that I used it as a primary scope. It's your call if easier (and slightly better) collimation is worth the money. Thanks again for the quick reply. I didn't know that I'd get a collimating tool with the scope, so I'm holding off on the Cheshire, at least for now. I've got the Rigel on it's way as a gift from my brother and I bought myself the red flashlight as a present too. I really appreciate the advice. My next post will be asking why I can't see anything and what I'm doing wrong Also, you might want to put something about the 'Illustrated Guide to Astronomical Wonders' in the OP. On the UK astronomy forums I've been browsing it's very highly recommended and described as "one step up from TLAO", "does the same thing, but more of it!" and "a far better buy than Turn Left at Orion". I've just ordered a copy from Amazon (couldn't help myself) and since I already have TLAO I'll post my impressions tomorrow and give some goon opinions on how they compare in the eyes of a beginner. Jekub posted:I've linked her site before but Astrobaby has the best guide I have seen to collimating a reflector, along with plenty of well written articles to help you get started on setting up your mount and getting started with observing. Thanks I actually just bookmarked that page 20 minutes ago - it seems really useful. I'll take a look at the rest of the website too. Those other articles you mentioned sound really useful.Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any local societies near me, but Manchester isn't too far away and there are a few there I could get involved with. With a bit of luck I might be getting a job in and moving to Sheffield later this year and there's a large society there and its right next to the peak district which would be fantastic
Tufty fucked around with this message at 11:58 on Aug 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2011 11:50
|
|
|
Tufty posted:Also, you might want to put something about the 'Illustrated Guide to Astronomical Wonders' in the OP. On the UK astronomy forums I've been browsing it's very highly recommended and described as "one step up from TLAO", "does the same thing, but more of it!" and "a far better buy than Turn Left at Orion". I've just ordered a copy from Amazon (couldn't help myself) and since I already have TLAO I'll post my impressions tomorrow and give some goon opinions on how they compare in the eyes of a beginner. That book looks pretty great, I might pick up a cheap used copy just to check it out. I'll include your impressions on the book in the OP once you get a chance to look over it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2011 19:44
|
|
|
Well, it turns out that the altitude/latitude axis on my EQ3-2 mount is broken - I took both of the T-bolts out and removed the mount and put as much force as I felt comfortable doing on it and the thing didn't budge a millimetre. I actually went with First Light Optics as opposed to a local dealer because I'd heard great things about their customer service so I'm hoping that there'll be no issues with getting the mount replaced. Maybe they'll send me the new one and request the broken back in the same box, in which case I won't be raging if we get 4 nights of clear sky while my mount is in the post On a much happier note I showed my new toy to my grampa and he gave me his pair of 15x50 Image Stabilising Binoculars worth about a thousand pounds(!!) because "[I] don't use them anymore" and he wants me to get some use out of them. I'm pretty ecstatic about this because I wanted a pair of binos to help with my astronomy anyway and these are an awesome pair. They're pretty old, and the coating on the lenses looks really speckled - is this okay/normal? Is there anything that can be done about it if not? Even if this is just the coating degrading, what should I use to clean the lens? The whole thing needs a clean but I don't want to put rubbing alcohol on the lenses or something if it'll destroy up the coating.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 16:00
|
|
|
Tufty posted:On a much happier note I showed my new toy to my grampa and he gave me his pair of 15x50 Image Stabilising Binoculars worth about a thousand pounds(!!) because "[I] don't use them anymore" and he wants me to get some use out of them. I'm pretty ecstatic about this because I wanted a pair of binos to help with my astronomy anyway and these are an awesome pair. They're pretty old, and the coating on the lenses looks really speckled - is this okay/normal? Is there anything that can be done about it if not? Even if this is just the coating degrading, what should I use to clean the lens? The whole thing needs a clean but I don't want to put rubbing alcohol on the lenses or something if it'll destroy up the coating. Those kinds of blemishes on optics usually do astonishingly little to the quality of the image. I'd probably leave it alone. But if you are going to clean it, my preference is reagent-grade methanol and lens tissue. Linear swipes, not circular, one pass per tissue, each pass in the same direction, don't touch the parts of the cloth that touch the lens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 03:31
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:Those kinds of blemishes on optics usually do astonishingly little to the quality of the image. I'd probably leave it alone. But if you are going to clean it, my preference is reagent-grade methanol and lens tissue. Linear swipes, not circular, one pass per tissue, each pass in the same direction, don't touch the parts of the cloth that touch the lens. Thanks for the advice Luckily it seems like they weren't much to worry about. I was cleaning the whole thing using a clean towel and water and had read that water was a very safe way to give the lens a quick polish. The stuff came off extremely easily with just a wet Q-tip gently wiped across the surface and from the brownish-yellow colour of the cotton afterwards I'm wondering if the blemishing was to do with cigarette smoke. They're wonderfully clean and blue now I managed to take my new scope outside during a gap in the clouds. Just waving it around randomly I saw two stars very close to each other that were being split from a single point of light to the naked eye. I've no idea what it was, but I have a rough idea of the location so I might be able to find it again and identify it. I also saw Capella, which was twinkling white, violet, indigo, and red at me which was lovely Much later on I had a quick look at the moon with the binocs and I can't wait to get my scope on it, same with Jupiter. Lovely clear picture of Jupiter and four moons all in a row. I noticed a bright star nearish Jupiter and it was another colourful one: reds, oranges, yellows and white this time. I identified it as Aldebaran, which I noticed was very near to the Pleiades and so I had a look at the 7 sisters. Lovely and blue with lots of stars in view, and just the tiniest hint of gas around them. My first cluster  I've started an astronomy logbook too. Just noting down the time I begin and end observing and what I see, with a few sketches. I'm finding it's helping me memorise the sky. I can see in my head how there's Aldebaran and then off to the right a bit there's 75, 77, 80, 81 Tau in sort of the shape of a man, and above that a scalene triangle of stars and just to the right and way up from there are the Pleiades I'm definitely hooked on astronomy.My Rigel Quikfinder was immensely useful, and I'll post some impressions on that book I mentioned once I've used it in the field. I will say that the section of the book before you get to the lists of objects is fantastic, much better than the same section of Turn Left. Tons of good info there which teach you a little bit and prepare you for using the tables found further on in the book.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 10:31
|
|
|
Tufty posted:Thanks for the advice Great, glad it worked! My method is built of paranoia accumulated in working in an optics lab full of astonishingly expensive mirrors and lenses, but honestly pure water and a clean gentle cloth isn't that bad in most cases.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 21:44
|
|
|
I bought 'Illustrated Guide to Astronomical Wonders' based on the recommendation in this thread, and it just arrived today. It's much bigger than I thought. Excited to go through it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 01:08
|
|
|
I'm looking at getting an Orion 8 inch dob right now. The guy selling this one (http://seattle.craigslist.org/sno/for/2566055050.html) said he could do $240. Does that seem pretty reasonable?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 21:35
|
|
|
upsciLLion posted:I'm looking at getting an Orion 8 inch dob right now. The guy selling this one (http://seattle.craigslist.org/sno/for/2566055050.html) said he could do $240. Does that seem pretty reasonable? That's a pretty good deal, just be aware that it doesn't come with the Intelliscope Object Locator, which is the little computer that handles the Push-To object finding. You can find them used for about 60-80 bucks if you decide you want to use it later on. Even missing this, I'd go for it if I was in the market for a Dob.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2011 02:54
|
|
|
Ohms posted:I bought 'Illustrated Guide to Astronomical Wonders' based on the recommendation in this thread, and it just arrived today. It's much bigger than I thought. Excited to go through it. So I just finished reading through the first portion of this book and I have to say, AMAZING! So much info, presented in an easy to understand way. I learned so much. Highly recommended for beginners and the more experienced.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2011 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:36 |
|
|
I see Jekub is still posting images here (nice job on Coccoon nebula!), so I will try to keep the image thing going. Here is one I got over the weekend. M71 globular with Comet Garradd in the corner. M71 and Comet Garradd by elimisel, on Flickr 16 minutes of 30 second subs through my SV80ED/Nikon D90, all piggy backed on my CGEM800. I am also working on m33 and m81/82 data, hopefully will have them posted up soon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2011 04:50
|
|