2.62
#...
·
 |
|---|
|
Ideally, I'd like to image the 2024 total solar eclipse using my NP101. But one thing I haven't accounted for is if we're packing for four people, taking my mount and the NP101 might not be possible. So a thought had occurred to me--take my small mount (SW Star Adventurer GTI) and my AT60ED, since I have a white-light solar filter for both OTAs. My concern is focal length. I'll only have 288mm with the 0.8X reducer and 360mm natively. Ideally, if I could match the 540mm of my NP101, that would be great, and 720mm from a standard 2X barlow wouldn't suck, either. ...? And then, it occurred to me--what about field curvature? If I try to barlow my way to more focal length with the AT60ED, can a standard 1.5X barlow reduce field curvature enough to keep both the sun and outer corona streamers sharp with an APS-C sensor? That would be 1.7° x 2.5° by my math. Or should I just call it good with a flat 288mm and just crop if needed? Clear Skies, Phil |
6.05
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Phil, I am asking the same question with my rig(S). Lucky for us we have time to practice and figure it out... I think our biggest challenge will be a spot with clear skies on April, 8th... CS - Tim |
3.81
#...
·
|
|---|
|
I just picked up a quark a few weeks ago and have barely had a few clear days, so my knowledge is limited. I've been using it with my FRA400 and an asi585mc. Is your plan to use the APS-c camera in limited resolution to increase the FPS? (I think the asi2600mc can get up to around 40-50 in limited resolutions if i recall) Are you just doing the white light filter or planning on a quark or the box-type one? (can't recall the name right now). with the quark's internal barlow, my effective focal length was almost 1700, which felt like plenty (and I never think that usually) Personally though, I would make someone leave some extra clothes and take the NP101is. Priorities! :-) |
|
6.05
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Of course this can all change as I play more with this config. I plan to use a SW100ED with a W.L. filter and a 1600mmPro to capture short video's every couple of minutes for the entire duration of the eclipse in hope to produce a complete time lapse video of the Eclipse. A second rig will have the GT81 / 2600mmPro at full frame to capture corona during totality. I have a quark on a SW72ED with a 174mm camera. I might use the quart on a Sharpstar 61 for a larger FOV. I want a wide field with the Quark for a similar video produced with the 100/1600... I might also setup a tripod with a Canon 6D for the classic Complete eclipse in one shot photo... I am not very good at solar photography. I am stepping back from Astophotography to focus on Eclipse photography while I finially start construction of the Observatory this spring and summer... My trip is with 2 other people. We are taking a small RV camper trailer which will carry all the people stuff (food, water, clothes) and the telescope gear will be in the vehicle... I am happy I still have 11 months to figure it out.... CS - Tim |
7.90
#...
·
|
|---|
Phil Creed: Get yourself an MTO and be done with it. Or borrow something of that sort. |
|
2.62
#...
·
|
|---|
|
What's an MTO? Clear Skies, Phil |
2.71
#...
·
|
|---|
Phil Creed: Presumably a Maksutov-Cassegrain: https://mrmarc.com/mto-1000am-10-51100mm/ |
|
2.71
#...
·
|
|---|
| Miloslav Druckmuller has used them for some eclipses: http://www.zam.fme.vutbr.cz/~druck/Eclipse/index.htm |
|
7.90
#...
·
|
|---|
Presumably a Maksutov-Cassegrain: https://mrmarc.com/mto-1000am-10-51100mm/ Without "presumably". |
|
2.62
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Thanks for the info on Mak-Cassegrain lenses. This got me looking at a variety of lenses out there. I'm a bit leery of using a full 1,000mm for the eclipse, since I also want to get some coronal streamers in there. Something in the 500 - 700mm range is more my liking for this. A 2x barlow on the AT60 gets me there. Not worried about disc sharpness, but am concerned about field curvature affecting details in outer coronal streamers. Does a barlow reduce a refractor's native field curvature? Would something like a 500mm f/8 Tamron mirror lens work? Those are dirt cheap. Not sure about image quality. Clear Skies, Phil |
|
7.90
#...
·
|
|---|
Phil Creed: The 500/8 of various makers (from Nikon down to obscure Chinese manufacturers) have the same basic design of the Russian MTO/Rubinar (which also come in 500/8 and 500/5.6 configurations) and they work very well for brighter subjects, such as the Sun/Moon. Needless to say they deliver a flat field and, as you remarked, can be had quite cheaply and of good quality if you stick to the major brands. |
11.37
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
This all depends on what features of the eclipse you want to capture and somewhat about the eclipse itself. The 2024 eclipse is a pretty long one which means the Moon is going to hide a lot of the prominences and inner detail for most of the eclipse. It’s also near a solar maximum which should mean more extended streamers. And with the Moon more fully covering the Sun and its bright chromosphere, it should be easier to see the dimmer stuff and Earthshine. So on this one I would be focused on shorter FL, longer exposures to get the most extended corona and make sure it is in the frame. That doesn’t mean you won’t be able to capture prominences, Bailey’s beads and other close in detail in 2024, it’s just going to be a smaller part of this eclipse. I shot last week’s short eclipse (48 seconds for me) with a 400mm telephoto and Sony full frame camera. That 400mm lens versus telescope decision was driven by wanting to travel to Australia very light and not the ideal choice given that I was interested in the inner corona and prominences. My brackets went down only to 1/13th of a second but still I filled most of the frame (on the short side at least) with corona. See here for uncropped at 400mm: https://www.astrobin.com/s12byw/B/ I think my FSQ106 at 530mm would have been ideal here since I think it is sharper than the lens and would have still captured the corona OK. With 2024 I will be shooting longer exposures and I expected to fill the frame completely. I think your NP101 would be a great choice for 2024. At least with full frame. Unless you want to go for the inner stuff and let the extended corona run off the edge. Then something like 700-800mm would be better. 288mm is pretty short. Kevin |
|
2.62
#...
·
|
|---|
Kevin Morefield: The NP101 would be the weapon of choice. It's a question of whether I'll have enough room to transport it and my HEQ5 + tripod + counterweights and 12V power supply along with luggage for my wife and kids on potentially a cross-country trip. I live in the path here in NE Ohio, but I'm not counting on it being clear here. That's precisely why I have a hotel reservation along the path's edge in Arkansas as a contingency measure. One thought I did have was swapping my AT60ED for an AT72EDII and getting the 72's 1.0X flattener for 432mm @ f/6.0. That should easily ride on my Star Adventurer GTI mount if I need to go that route. The GTI can run off AA batteries in a pinch. Of course, another thought had occurred to me--get the AM5 mount. That saves a lot of weight and space vs. the HEQ5 and its tripod. Clear Skies, Phil |
|
11.37
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Phil, I was surprised to learn how (relatively) good the odds are in Cleveland. It’s maybe 3% worse than Little Rock. Kevin https://eclipsophile.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Noam-centre-cloud.png  |
12.64
#...
·
|
|---|
Phil Creed:Kevin Morefield: Phil I went to the 2017 eclipse in Oregon to image it in totality. I plan on going to outside Austin to see and image it next year but Cleveland is my backup plan as my son lives there. If I were you, I would go just outside Cleveland near Lakewood and set up on the local beach. You should get a great view there. If weather is predicted to be bad in Texas, that is where I am heading with my 80mm refractor and sun filters. Bruce |
|
2.62
#...
·
|
|---|
|
I have learned long and hard NEVER to trust NE Ohio's weather for any sky events. I didn't see the past two massive aurorae due to our crappy weather. The graph shows a drop in cloud cover because it's a graph of DAYTIME cloud cover. Lake Erie is mostly a cloud factory but it can suppress convective cloud formation in spring because the lake temperature is much cooler than the ground temperatures. Jay Anderson's site explains the process rather well. The catch is that the same lake breeze that can reduce cloud buildup can also chill you to the bone this time of year. I'm not kidding. I was up in Avon Lake (right on the centerline) and it was 44°F along the shore while it was 60°F just five miles to the south. If it's clear in both Ohio and Arkansas, I'll be in Ohio. But under no circumstances am I pinning all my hopes on Ohio's weather. Clear Skies, Phil |
|
12.64
#...
·
|
|---|
| I understand, I lived in Akon and Columbus for many years. Trust me, the weather is unpredictable everywhere as I have lived all around the US. You'll just have to keep an eye on things and make last minute choices and live with it. |
|
2.62
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Dumb question, maybe, but...what about something like a 200-500mm Nikon zoom or the "Tamzooka", the 150-600mm Tamron? I've given serious thought to doing some general nature photography and might want to tote one of those telebazookas around, anyway. Transport length and weight on both of these lenses is WAY less than my NP101, and I can't imagine the image quality wouldn't blow away a reflex lens. I've been less than impressed with some of the reflex lens pictures I've seen, especially in terms of contrast. If I can put one on my Star Adventurer GTI, I'd need a much smaller tripod (vs the HEQ5), a much shorter+lighter optical train and a mount that, in a pinch, can run off AA batteries, saving the need for a 12V power supply... ...if it'll work. Clear Skies, Phil |
|
7.90
#...
·
|
|---|
Phil Creed: Reflex lens are great if the build quality is good and in fact less aberrated than traditional lens (but also much slower). This said I've tested the Nikon 200-500 zoom and as far as zooms go it is pretty good one. Not perfect but should do the trick even at full aperture (@500mm). Here is the test: https://www.astrobin.com/dqkaw7/?nc=collection&nce=7793 |
