Anybody using MFT bodies for astrophotography?

Astrotripper wrote:

Legacy lenses are not a good idea for astro. I've got a bunch of them, I even did some astro with them, but a cheap Olympus 45/1.8 completely demolishes any legacy glass I ever used for those purposes. Astrophotography really requires high class optics, and legacy lenses are very rarely it.

Here's my astro album on flickr . Look at descriptions for details on how the photo was taken.

Very nice shots.

You basically have few options for astrophotography:

Wide angle astro landscapes

This is where all you need is a camera, a lens (and a tripod) and some nice scenery under dark sky. And this is where a smaller sensor of Micro 4/3 puts you at a significant disadvantage to a 35mm format DSLR. There's nothing in MFT that could rival something like a Nikon D810 with a Sigma 20/1.4. There are however lenses that close some of that sensor gap, like Panasonic 1.4/12. But that costs a lot. If you choose to shoot with fish-eyes, MFT pretty much matches FF, since there's Olympus 1.8/8. But judging from what you wrote, this is not what you want to pursue.

Luckily im not too interested in wider stuff, but if i change my mind some day i can always re-evaluate my gear.

Deep space wide field astrophotography

"Wide" in this context means something like this . You use focal lengths ranging from standard to telephoto (lets say 25mm to 150 mm). But to really get anywhere with those, you need a tracking mount. And here's where smaller Micro 4/3 cameras have an advantage. You can freely use any of the mobile star trackers and you should be able to get long enough exposures to do some serious imaging. And you don't need a sherpa or a 4x4 to get your equipment to a dark spot, you can just walk there with a backpack. There are enough good and affordable lenses to make this work. Go to Lenstip and check out their reviews, especially the section on coma.

This is basically a mobile version of "serious" astrophotography. So of course, we are talking image stacking here, a number one tool in any astrophotographer's toolbox.

The moon

You can shoot the Moon with any telephoto lens, the longer it is, the better. Here's what 300mm gets you (I'm pretty sure this one is a 1:1 crop). Here's what a cheap 1300mm MAK telescope gets you. And here's what a lot of post-processing can get you (750 newtonian with a 2x Barlow lens and a lot of time spent stacking and stitching). An affordable telescope on a cheap tracking mount will be enough to take amazing photos of the Moon (and Sun , with a proper filter). You can even manage without tracking, but that's inconvenient.

So here is the part im most interested in, although i include the below section of deep space telescope work. I do have a couple questions first (and by the way ty for much info in your post). For either of your telescope shots did you use a field flattener? One of the things i was told in the AP thread was i will NEED one.

Does that depend on the telescope, or the type (reflector vs refractor), is it only the cheapest scopes that need it? Is it only the fastest? Considering i haven't really done any AP before i didn't want to spend handfulls of cash up front, i wanted to tip toe in and see if i like it, if i do then i go further. So i was looking at some cheaper scopes ie sub $200 models, as far down as $60.

Are there no such thing as a decent cheap scope? I can say for sure that your first link of the 300mm lens would not satisfy me. The 2nd of the 1300 mak was ok but i would like sharper. The 3rd was great, would love results like that. My plan is to minimize any vibrations with E shutter and use multiple shots and stacking, maybe eventually getting a tracker if my interest peaks. I also have a shutter remote already for my GX7.

So i guess the only unknown is the optics of the scopes. I know reflectors are CA free essentially but your 3rd shot was with an achromat if im not mistaken and i saw no CA at all. Maybe you PP'd that out? I have two main concerns with reflectors. One, i don't like the idea of having to colimate. Im sure i could do it but i prefer less maintenance.

The 2nd thing is the upside down or reversed thing. If i attach my camera to a reflector, will the image be flipped? I know a refractor works just like a normal lens which i like. TBH i like the idea of a reflector more but these two unknowns are holding me back.

But i really like the idea of reflectors. They have no CA, they are lighter, you get more aperture for your buck and they have longer FL options. It's just those couple issues i am wondering about.

Deep space astrophotography with a telescope

A dedicated astrograph and an advanced tracking mount are very, very expensive. But you can manage with something much cheaper. Some telescopes are better than others. APO refractors are popular for AP, but usually limited in focal length (and can get pricey). Newtonian telescopes are a cheap way to get pretty large apertures (and focal lengths). But probably the bulk of the cost will be a tracking mount.