Anybody using MFT bodies for astrophotography?

Great photo!!! Would you mind sharing a little technical insight how it was achieved?

Thanks!

MNE wrote:

No success tonight on the "Convergence"

In my area it didn't happen until the planets were about 5 deg above the horizon and some houses were in the way.

I haven't had any success yet taking planetary images using my scope or 135mm lens.

Anyone have success with the convergence?

No success here. I think the majority of the east coast was clouded out.

I will eventually do a video on planetary on my channel though. I do wish I could have done it for this however weather has not been good. I have not had my scope out now in two weeks.

Grimstod wrote:

Not really. the best photos are taken with smaller sensors since they are more efficient.

This is taken with a 8mp 43rd sensor that is over 12 years old now.

Wow, beautiful.

You can do some awesome things with MFT cameras and sensors. One of their largest advantage is that most scopes do not vignette the sensor as they do with larger sensors. I often see many photos that have huge integration time added to them to compensate for the vignetting.

Grimstod wrote:

You can do some awesome things with MFT cameras and sensors. One of their largest advantage is that most scopes do not vignette the sensor as they do with larger sensors. I often see many photos that have huge integration time added to them to compensate for the vignetting.

I have the opposite situation.  My m.43 cameras capture about 1/4 of my 1500mm scope’s image circle. So in effect the scope is a FF lens.

I find the m.43 sensor is great for compact objects like Globular Clusters, and especially planets where the high pixel density delivers more detail.

Peter

I’ve heard some astrophotographers prize super fast telephotos, like the old OM 250mm f/2, but I can imagine the new super zoom would do ‘as well’ on a tracking rig, etc, but that specialized type of narrow angle type of photography, certainly gets much much more demanding, in terms of optics, at which point, I’m not even sure that the sensor is such a factor, relatively.

Once, I (briefly) had a nice Questar mirror lens, I’ll never forgive myself for letting that thing go before testing it on one of my cameras! Ugh, regrets. 😩

Jan,

The “old” 200 f2 worked well because it had a large aperture. You must maximize light-gathering capability. A super zoom is likely to be too slow for any deep sky Astro photography.

Messier Object wrote:

Grimstod wrote:

You can do some awesome things with MFT cameras and sensors. One of their largest advantage is that most scopes do not vignette the sensor as they do with larger sensors. I often see many photos that have huge integration time added to them to compensate for the vignetting.

I have the opposite situation. My m.43 cameras capture about 1/4 of my 1500mm scope’s image circle. So in effect the scope is a FF lens.

I find the m.43 sensor is great for compact objects like Globular Clusters, and especially planets where the high pixel density delivers more detail.

Peter

Majority of scopes though are not that long. And using something that long takes a lot of skill. My longest scope is 1000mm Fl. And I wold never wish on someone starting out to attempt anything with a FL longer then 300mm.

Grimstod wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Grimstod wrote:

You can do some awesome things with MFT cameras and sensors. One of their largest advantage is that most scopes do not vignette the sensor as they do with larger sensors. I often see many photos that have huge integration time added to them to compensate for the vignetting.

I have the opposite situation. My m.43 cameras capture about 1/4 of my 1500mm scope’s image circle. So in effect the scope is a FF lens.

I find the m.43 sensor is great for compact objects like Globular Clusters, and especially planets where the high pixel density delivers more detail.

Peter

Majority of scopes though are not that long. And using something that long takes a lot of skill. My longest scope is 1000mm Fl. And I wold never wish on someone starting out to attempt anything with a FL longer then 300mm.

I would further caution using manufactures claims on image circle size. In my own testing I have yet to find a single scope that has an image circle that is 75% the size as claimed by the manufacturer.

Grimstod wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Grimstod wrote:

You can do some awesome things with MFT cameras and sensors. One of their largest advantage is that most scopes do not vignette the sensor as they do with larger sensors. I often see many photos that have huge integration time added to them to compensate for the vignetting.

I have the opposite situation. My m.43 cameras capture about 1/4 of my 1500mm scope’s image circle. So in effect the scope is a FF lens.

I find the m.43 sensor is great for compact objects like Globular Clusters, and especially planets where the high pixel density delivers more detail.

Peter

Majority of scopes though are not that long.

My scope is what it is

And using something that long takes a lot of skill.

It's my scope and I use it. I made no comment on the degree of difficulty

My longest scope is 1000mm Fl. And I wold never wish on someone starting out to attempt anything with a FL longer then 300mm.

Ok then, but I wasn't recommending anything to anybody

Peter

Grimstod wrote:

Grimstod wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Grimstod wrote:

You can do some awesome things with MFT cameras and sensors. One of their largest advantage is that most scopes do not vignette the sensor as they do with larger sensors. I often see many photos that have huge integration time added to them to compensate for the vignetting.

I have the opposite situation. My m.43 cameras capture about 1/4 of my 1500mm scope’s image circle. So in effect the scope is a FF lens.

I find the m.43 sensor is great for compact objects like Globular Clusters, and especially planets where the high pixel density delivers more detail.

Peter

Majority of scopes though are not that long. And using something that long takes a lot of skill. My longest scope is 1000mm Fl. And I wold never wish on someone starting out to attempt anything with a FL longer then 300mm.

I would further caution using manufactures claims on image circle size. In my own testing I have yet to find a single scope that has an image circle that is 75% the size as claimed by the manufacturer.

I don't need to be cautioned here. I know the size of my telescope's  image circle.
But thanks anyway for your concern.

Peter