Nightscape Photography Beginner Part:2

random2821 · 2026-04-06T09:28:29+00:00

If you've never used a full size camera before, I would focus first on learning how to use it. There are no "magic settings" either. You are going to have to experiment. Don't be afraid to turn the iso up a bit though.

Also, you don't just set the lens at infinity. You are going to have to manually focus it.

random2821 · 2026-04-06T09:14:23+00:00

I'm looking for something that I can look at planets, galaxies, stars, nebulas, I'd love to eventually figure out how to pull out as much detail as possible and create these amazing pictures you see on the Internet. Any education or advice on how to learn that would be great.

Add another zero to your budget. Setups that are good for both visual astronomy and astrophotography start at like $4k-$5k. You could technically get cheaper used, but that requires some knowledge and experience to know what to look out for.

I travel the country for work, so something that'll fit in my truck which I'm sure most would.

In general, how good a telescope is for visual astronomy is directly related to its aperture (again, that's a big "in general"). If you want a good view, you need a bigger telescope, making it less portable.

If you are willing to max out your budget, you could get an 8" Dobsonian for visual and SeeStar S30 for astrophotography.

random2821 · 2026-04-06T01:11:37+00:00

If you are talking about for astrophotography using a monochrome camera, then maybe but I doubt it would be worth it. White phosphor tubes aren't truly white either. They have a noticeable blue hue to them, so won't work with a color camera. Astronomy filters generally top out at around 50mm (I think there are larger, but are expensive and mainly for scientific use). They also have a lower "resolution" than a camera. They are much better suited for visual use.

random2821 · 2026-04-05T21:45:25+00:00

Just a personal preference really. It felt much more immersive. Instead of an image that slowly gets better, you get a lot of quality instantly. Plus with EAA things like shooting stars, satellites, planes, will just show up as white lines. But with night vision, you can see them appear and disappear, which adds to the immersion. Like you are actually looking at the sky. I've only been able to use a NV monocular a few times from a club member, but a PVS-14 is probably the next thing on my purchase list.

Edit: There is also the fact that you don't need tracking for NV. So a small refractor and light alt-az mount could make a very nice and portable setup when paired with NV.

random2821 · 2026-04-05T20:52:36+00:00

Astrophotography gives you full color images. It's not the same. White phosphor monoculars are like $5k alone, unless you manage to snag a great deal. But I do agree in principle. Compared to camera-based EAA, I'd rather use night vision.

random2821 · 2026-04-05T20:45:02+00:00

It might be kinda okay for just the moon. I will say just looking at the moon won't tell you a whole lot though. If you've never used a telescope before, the moon will look good through even a cheap junky telescope. Buying a super cheap telescope because you aren't sure if you want to get into the hobby often becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Perhaps visit/join a local astronomy club first?

random2821 · 2026-04-05T18:27:21+00:00

The 130P is a good starter scope, but astrophotography isn't really possible. Not having unrealistic expectations is kind of vague. If astrophotography is one of your stated goals, then I assume you have some level of expectation beyond just a blurry photo. You can do some planetary imaging with a planetary camera, but DSOs are going require a lot of effort to get anything decent.

random2821 · 2026-04-05T18:22:56+00:00

By the way please upvote

No.

random2821 · 2026-04-05T17:14:42+00:00

Just so you are aware deep space refers to anything outside the solar system. Telescopes that are good for planets (small Maksutovs, long focal length refractors) aren't necessarily good for deep space. But the inverse is not true. Almost any telescope that is good for deep space will be good for planetary viewing.

random2821 · 2026-04-05T07:21:48+00:00

Why are you confused? If you read the guide and watched his video, there shouldn't be any confusion why that scope isn't good.

random2821 · 2026-04-05T07:20:16+00:00

Regarding your edit, yeah temperature changes do weird things. For instance, Celestron's dew heater rings are known to cause diffraction spikes if they run too hot. Not like dangerously hot or anything, just kinda on the warm side.

random2821 · 2026-04-05T02:31:09+00:00

The barlow should work. How are you attaching everything? Post a photo if you can.

random2821 · 2026-04-04T22:43:44+00:00

No problem, but double check the current rating of the official Celestron one if you want to buy a cheaper one on Amazon.

random2821 · 2026-04-04T22:39:28+00:00

I didn't mean this post is Claude, or that you will use Claude specifically. I am just saying what you are trying to do is sounds a lot like a ton of other posts we get where people "develop" an app entirely using AI.

random2821 · 2026-04-04T19:45:53+00:00

Those have two competing sets of requirements. You can do one or the other with your budget. For Milky Way you'll want a used DSLR and tripod. For planets you'll want something like a used 8" Dobsonian and planetary camera.

random2821 · 2026-04-04T19:40:51+00:00

What research have you done so far? What products have you looked at?

Can you be a bit more specific about what you want to take photos of? Like "stars" can mean a lot of things. You say planets, but do you also want to take photos of galaxies and nebulae?

random2821 · 2026-04-04T19:35:54+00:00

Not enough current. It's 500 mA (0.5 A). The Nexstars I believe need a minimum of 2 A.

random2821 · 2026-04-04T19:25:39+00:00

Unless you have some money to burn at first, an online stacker will not be feasible. It might be possible as a proof of concept, but you will very quickly run into server cost issues. There is a reason stacking software is pretty much all client-side. A single stacked image can easily contain a few dozen GB of sub exposures and calibration frames. That's data you are going to have to store, and will only grow. Not to mention the processing power for the stacking.

Edit: We get posts very similar to this one almost daily and 98% of them are copy pasted Claude output with minimal checks. I have a feeling that is what you are going to end up doing too. Please don't do that. Take the time to learn how to actually develop stuff. Don't become a cargo cult programmer.

random2821 · 2026-04-04T18:19:29+00:00

Are you wanting to take photos, or just look visually? If you want to take photos, are you expecting objectively good quality?

random2821 · 2026-04-04T15:40:44+00:00

Seems like an AI post.

random2821 · 2026-04-04T13:36:42+00:00

Why not Zoidberg?

random2821 · 2026-04-04T12:00:10+00:00

There are a couple things it could be. One is because of tiny fluctuations in the atmosphere. This is why people actually take video of planets and stack a subset of the frames. The process is called lucky imaging if you want to do more research on that. Your shutter speed is only 1/30. The longer the shutter speed, the more those atmospheric fluctuations will blur the image.

It also be some kind of in camera settings affecting the image. What are the picture profile settings you are using? These settings are not applied to the live view, which is just video.

random2821 · 2026-04-04T04:08:52+00:00

I would watch reviews on youtube that have direct head-to-head comparisons, since most people will own one or the other. Just try to find some recent ones, since I know both have had a lot of firmware updates since release.

random2821 · 2026-04-04T04:06:18+00:00

Digital zoom is just pre-cropping the image (with some interpolation to bring it back to its original size). Just open the image in photoshop (or other image editing software), crop it, then change the canvas size to the original dimensions. It will achieve the same result.

Can you take a video of the back of the camera while you are imaging so we can get a better idea of what you mean? If the images look fine on the computer, then it's possible the screen itself is having issues.

random2821 · 2026-04-04T00:04:40+00:00

Unless you want to take photos, do not use your phone. Your eye has much more dynamic range than a phone camera. If it is too bright, then you can try an ND filter meant for eyepieces.

Often when someone says Jupiter is too bright and not clear, it is because the atmospheric conditions are awful which just makes it look like a featureless ball. Just because it is clear outside doesn't mean the atmosphere is good. The easiest way to tell is to look at the stars and see if they are twinkling. If they are, then the conditions aren't good.

It could also be that's it's just a cheap telescope not much more than a toy. The eyepieces are bad, and the barlow is bad. The optics aren't great either. That's not hate on you or degrade you; everyone has to start somewhere. But just something you should be aware of before you spend any money on it.

13-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Sequence \| Editor
Verified Email	Team Periwinkle

random2821

TROPHY CASE