File: IMG_8614L.jpg (345 KB, 2500x1667)

345 KB JPG

>>3797201

That's my post there on DPreview - although I don't think anyone was all that interested in what I put up. Probably because the Ra has only been out for a short while and not everyone needs it. I bought the EOS Ra thinking I could use it for both Astro and Terrestrial photography but the editing process was tedious and unreliable... so I ended up buying the EOS R6 for terrestrial work. This also enables me to use the same RF 85mm f/1.2L lens on each camera as needed. Glad you liked the images. I wasn't sure if these were good or not although that 10 second JPEG from the Ra is similar to 7.5 hours of integrated images by other photographers of the same region/subject using unmodified cameras.

I seem to remember an article by Roger Clarke that showed you could get almost identical results with both modified and unmodified camera sensors. But I'm getting some surprising results from the EOS Ra at the moment. Both of those Orion images were slightly edited for color (saturation) and contrast (levels).

If you want other samples from the Ra I can post them. But I still haven't used anything more than a Manfrotto tripod so no stacking or really long exposures yet. Some tiny 200g counterweights arrived from AMAZON today so I think I ought to be able to get a new Celestron EQ Mount up and running next time out. It should give me much longer exposure times with lower ISOs and smaller apertures.

* It was members here who encouraged me to pursue Astro gear in a post almost a year ago. I still don't own a telescope.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS M6
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2020:06:14 23:49:20
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Exposure Bias	-1/3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	32.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2500
Image Height	1667
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3797201
>ISO200 vs ISO5000
What did he mean by this comparison?

>>3797201
It depends what you're photographing though

>>3797201
>25x the ISO
>full spectrum vs. normal
That's not what gearfags are talking about most of the time.
Everyone knows ISO 200 and 10 seconds is a little low for astro, even at f/1.2
And astrophotographers should know that full spectrum is more sensitive than visible spectrum.
I don't think anyone would argue against cranking up the ISO and using a full spectrum body for astro...

>gear doesn’t matter
>uses a bunch of gear to take photos

>>3797201
Yes, it really shows the rural gear has less light pollution than suburban gear.
>>3797260
Looks like he had two 10s shots of Orion with same lens with different cameras, settings and conditions. So it shows the difference.

>>3797277
This

>>3797328
How many great directors and photographers talk about gear in their interviews?
Anyone who is not retarded would easily learn most of the tool usage within first 3 three months. You could have all the right high end tools for your plumbing work but if you don't understand theory and lack the tool usage experience you will just shit yourself on the work place. Same goes for photography as a hobby. In plumbing you have a blue print for your work but if you want to make "original" art work then you have to create your own whole new blueprint.

>>3797201
>ISO 200; 10sec; f/1.2; suburbs
vs
>ISO 5000; 10sec; f/1.2; rural

This doesn't seems like a good basis for comparison.

>>3797201
>>3797237
>Spend about 5k on gear
>Camera takes photos
>Gets results not so easily replicated by setups costing one twentieth of the price
>Someone else gets gear faggy

Like I'm glad you have a hobby and can afford this stuff but why does this thread exist ?
Yeah you can take better photos easier if you throw money at the problem but you could get the same results with a consumer dslr a fast 50 lens a cheap tripod and a bit of paintence. I get astro photography I really do but gear fagging is awful.

>>3797201
I don't see what that proves. Suburbs vs rural and 200 vs 5000 probably made a bigger difference than the camera model.

>>3797346
>How many great directors and photographers talk about gear in their interviews?
Most of them I'd argue. Even more so if instead of directors you go for cinematographers.

File: comparison.jpg (1.36 MB, 2000x1293)

1.36 MB JPG

>>3797359

Absolutely. The problem with the Suburban sky is that the light pollution overwhelms the scene with light. If shot with the same ISO settings the image would have been washed out completely. This was the only way to expose for the subject.

>Like I'm glad you have a hobby and can afford this stuff but why does this thread exist ?

I just responded to the thread when I saw the image. I was surprised to see a photograph I'd only taken a day prior posted here on /p/. Personally, I'm not sure it was a sensible decision for me to buy the camera, lens or the EQ Mount. But I've held off buying a telescope for well over a decade so this is technically a compromise (using camera lenses instead of a telescope).

Something interesting from Canon about the EOS Ra: The low amounts of noise showing up with high ISO from various user's cameras was unexpected. Their opinion is that the noise is somehow averaged out over the denser numbers of pixels (compared to previous cameras).

I've not used modded cameras before, but the results I'm getting are encouraging. I don't have access to crystal clear skies ion Chilean mountaintops but the comparisons are interesting.

>>3797391
>Most of them I'd argue.
Yes and that is less than 5% of their total discourse about art.

>>3797391
Are you... challenged in some way?
The only cinematographers who even mention what gear they use are the low budget movie ones, where they're making do with that they can get their hands on, whether it's a DSLR, consumer camcorder or even an iPhone.

For the longest period, the industry standard in TV and film was using a Panavision camera with Kodak or Fujifilm film. And while digital cameras has opened up the competition to people like Red, Arri, Sony and what not, Panavision is still around, and no one hecking mentions what camera they use in big budget movies, because it's just an industry standard.

File: b8.jpg (74 KB, 1280x1267)

74 KB JPG

>>3797201

>>3797429
That's atmospheric haze vs clear conditions. Astro depends on light pollution AND atmospheric conditions for clean shots.

Really neat. Good luck, Ra fag. Post more astro here please, especially as we move into Summer and the really juicy part of the milk way rotates into view.

File: that image.jpg (64 KB, 600x480)

64 KB JPG

>>3797386
that's the joke

>>3797201
>Proof that gear does matter
you could get an almost identical pic from a full spectrum modded rebel though.

File: 439c7f19558b4b80bfcd6fbd0(...).jpg (171 KB, 776x1600)

171 KB JPG

>>3797201
The Ra is a piece of shit that has internal flaring because canon somehow fucked up the sensor stack by removing the IR filter.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS R
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	-1/3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual

>>3797847
oh noes my astro camera is not as good for terrestial photos oh noe

>>3797848
it does the same thing on bright stars

>>3797201
suburbs vs rural
/thread

>>3797847
>buy a dedicated astrophotography camera
>use it to take photos of your iphone

>>3797853
I call bullshit. Even the brightest stars are orders of magnitude dimmer than the flashlight in your stupid photo.

File: MARSRa.jpg (228 KB, 1330x1025)

228 KB JPG

>>3797847
>The Ra is a piece of shit that has internal flaring because canon somehow fucked up the sensor stack by removing the IR filter.

Yet nobody noticed a problem with their own Ra shots for a year until someone discovered it in one of their own. Have you seen the magnitude of artifacts in million-dollar telescopes? I'll post a example in a moment.

But first: Here's a shot of Mars I took that was easily resolved by reducing the aperture. The cause of the flaring appears to be a refracting occurrence in the thin layer directly on top of the sensor surface. Some say it occurs with very bright stars or lights but I've only had to correct for this very occasionally.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: ESO circular features in (...).jpg (443 KB, 1280x1011)

443 KB JPG

Here's how bad internal reflections (at the sensor surface layer) can get with multi-million dollar professional telescopes. The EOS uses a 32x CCD camera sensor array to capture images. It's a very powerful deep space observation instrument.

ESO "...circular features in the image around bright stars are not real, they are due to reflections within the optics of the telescope and camera"

Subject Captured: The Cat’s Paw and Lobster Nebulae.

I think these aberrations are horrendous and (in my own opinion) un-correctable.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2017:01:27 12:28:58

File: Untitled.png (1.08 MB, 745x982)

1.08 MB PNG

>>3797869
>>3797870
You can call bullshit and cope all you want the fact is canon released a dedicated astrophotography camera that fails as an astrophotography camera because because it has issues not found on other astro cameras or normal cameras doing astro.

Canon fucked something up and didn't test it thoroughly just like they did with the IS on the $13000 EF 600mm MkII which causes blur with low shutter speeds on certain cameras.

I don't understand how someone into astrophotography can be memed into buying an "astro" dslr/mirrorless and slapping a fuck-off element count fast lens instead of a cheap dedicated monochrome sensor like something from ZWO and a takahashi refractor on an equatorial.

>>3797847
>>3797870
>>3797873
Random anon here who dabbles in astro. This is a pretty convincing fuckup by Canon. Someone got memed like >>3797877 says.

>>3797877
I'm into Astro and I don't understand it either.
It's not like the EOS R is a great camera anyway an R5a would have made more sense.

File: 011A0135L4.jpg (1.34 MB, 2500x1800)

1.34 MB JPG

>>3797877
>I don't understand how someone into astrophotography can be memed into buying an "astro" dslr/mirrorless and slapping a fuck-off element count fast lens instead of a cheap dedicated monochrome sensor like something from ZWO and a takahashi refractor on an equatorial.


If you want to do Landscape Astro and you want to be able to travel around to remote locations without lugging a massive computer driven mount... then a Modded mirrorless camera or DSLR + regular lens on a tripod (pic related) is the way to go.

On the other hand, if you want to be tracking deep space objects and planets for hours or even days on end (in order to stack your images), then a ZWO + telescope + EQ Mount + computer is the way to go.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS Ra
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5544
Image Height	3992
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2020:06:05 03:49:40
Exposure Time	15 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1250
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2500
Image Height	1800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3797877
Exactly, the best sensors are mono you simply shoot with spectrum filters then color them based on spectrum and combine.
Or you can get a full color CCD that's not as good as mono for $900 and do one shot color that is still gonna be better than a $2500 dslr/milc.

Not to mention most camera lenses are shit for astro so ideally your going to be adapting a scope to your DSLR/MILC anyway.
The whole concept is just retarded for the same cost as an "astro" DSLR/MILC you can buy a better actual astrophotography setup and a better normal photography camera

>>3797882
>Landscape Astro
I've never seen a landscape astro photo that impressed me. The landscape always detracts from the astro, or is exposed strangely, or is just a silhouette.

>without lugging a massive computer driven mount.
I've never had issues with a simple tripod, fast lens and stacked short exposures <10s, but I'm probably not hip or cool enough.

Actually thinking about your post more, if you aren't taking a tracking mount with you, why would you even bother with the minute advantages an astro-modded camera brings?

>>3797882
There is no reason to buy a modded camera to shoot that you could do it with any dslr made in the last 10 years a skywatcher and a samyang 14mm

>>3797890
Forgot link
https://www.intro2020.co.uk/Site/Reviews?Name=Heavens_above_us_A_Samyang_Story.html?v=1

File: IMG_4888L.jpg (911 KB, 2500x1875)

911 KB JPG

>>3797873
>You can call bullshit and cope all you want the fact is canon released a dedicated astrophotography camera that fails as an astrophotography camera because because it has issues not found on other astro cameras or normal cameras doing astro.

I guess they should pull down the ESO telescope then since it performs worse at many thousands of times the cost. There are established Astrophotographers online explaining how the Ra is the best modified cameras they've ever used. Granted, I didn't see those reviews before I bought mine, but it's far from "flawed". The cheapest solution would be to modify an existing EOS R but during the pandemic all the companies that offered this service were closed (where I am). However, the benefits of the 30x magnification on the Live View on the Ra isn't available with other cameras. It takes me just 4 seconds to achieve focus now.

Here's a shot of Orion on the Live View of the EOS Ra LCD. I can't pick up this sort of data with a non-modded camera and it's encouraged my interest in Astronomy beyond my previous curiosity in Astrophotography. Again, I don't see the "flare" issue as being an issue. What bothers me is the strange aspect of the diffraction spikes on Nico Carver's images .

Astrophotographers spend many hours editing and layering their work using software. Correcting the odd flare from an Ra image is easy enough. And the best telescopes in the world also produce similar internal reflections at the near-sensor level. I don't see it as an issue when the benefits of a modded Full Frame sensor are taken into account. All the previous commercially available options were APS-C (from memory).

I feel that anything beyond a store-bought telescope is a bit of an indulgence unless you're an astronomer. The same applies to anything other than a point-and-shoot camera if you're not a professional photographer. However, it's nice just to have the option to buy & use these things.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 6s
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	29 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4032
Image Height	3024
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2020:09:24 21:08:07
Exposure Time	1/17 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	2000
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	-4.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.15 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2500
Image Height	1875
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3797899
Does the Ra have any special focussing assist for stars? Or do you still need to Bahtinov?

File: 011A0396L.jpg (1.7 MB, 3000x2000)

1.7 MB JPG

>>3797889
>Actually thinking about your post more, if you aren't taking a tracking mount with you, why would you even bother with the minute advantages an astro-modded camera brings?

I'm picking up a lot more of the colors that I wouldn't normally see and more detail too. This is an uncropped image shot in JPEG with the Ra+RF85mmL lens on a fixed tripod and it's a 6 second exposure (to reduce star trails). I have edited the image for saturation/contrast/levels but I didn't have to add anything to it. No NR and no sharpening either. It's not stacked. The only area that required a little bit of effort to lift the color was the blue hue in Rho Ophiuchus.

I've shot this region before with a Canon 6D (an astro favorite by many) and never managed to capture this amount of color or detail before. This area of the Milky Way is hidden from me at the moment but I'd like to try it again mid-year with a longer exposure with a smaller aperture to get a reduction on the stars.

I DID have to make a minor flare correction to the bright orange star (Antares) - although this was shot fairly wide open at f/1.4.

*I should have tried harder to set the white balance in sunlight before taking this image.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS Ra
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.2
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	6720
Image Height	4480
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2020:06:15 13:23:32
Exposure Time	6 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	5000
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	85.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3000
Image Height	2000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3797905
>Does the Ra have any special focussing assist for stars? Or do you still need to Bahtinov?

Aside from the 30x magnification on the Live Preview and the modded sensor, the EOS Ra is the same as the EOS R and has all the same features on that camera. I have some Bahtinov masks and brought them with me when I took the Ra out for the first time, but I've not needed them with the Ra camera just yet... I just zoom in with the 30x magnification (pressing the magnify symbol on the LCD screen) and then shift the focus of the lens back and forth for a moment to settle on the edge of the star. If there's any red or green tinge to the edge of the star, then it may be slightly out of focus but I sometimes check between shots to ensure the stars are sharp. It's astonishingly effective. But if I end up using a telescope with it in future, I'll almost certainly bring a Bahtinov mask with me.

>>3797906
>I'm picking up a lot more of the colors that I wouldn't normally see and more detail too.
But don't you need specific astro filters for that, e.h. H_alpha?

File: jeart2.jpg (21 KB, 526x406)

21 KB JPG

>>3797910
no, filters are used to isolate specific spectrums when shooting with mono CCD's.
To put it simply as possible its a color filter if you shoot with on its own or in combination with other filters that limit the wavelength's captured by the sensor, you can then apply the appropriate color mask to those wavelengths and make a composite color image.
Or something like that my knowledge on the subject is very basic.

Isn't terrestrial work all photography because it's all done on Earth

Is a Takahashi refractor a real thing? Sounds like some shit from Gundam.

File: classifieds-203884-0-6074(...).jpg (304 KB, 1405x739)

304 KB JPG

>>3798008
just magnificent precision japanese optics (ota)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M5
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Color Filter Array Pattern	762
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	40 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Image Created	2018:03:12 15:47:00
Exposure Time	1/50 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Fine Weather
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	20.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1405
Image Height	739
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	Low
Sharpness	Soft

>>3797201
Astro is a very special case, OP, they are fighting physics to get those images.
Biggest factor is always the size of the hole in the telescope, that just resolves smaller things.
Filter stack designed specifically for starlight also helps a lot.
The rest of it is a 5Div sensor.

File: Imagine the letter a wher(...).jpg (490 KB, 1170x821)

490 KB JPG

>>3797918
It would be neat if Canon took the body of the new C70 cinema camera, with its integrated cooling fan and slick ND switching mechanism and made the "EOS a" where those 0, +2, +4 and +6 glass filters were the different Oxygen, Sulfur and Hydrogen band filters that normally get screwed on externally.

>>3797201
Proof that different settings in different conditions make different pictures.