Capt. Rob wrote:

My camera gear bought in the last 24 months cost more than
Sloco's poor dated tub of a boat.

Have you managed to do any astrophotography
yet? ...... or have you given up?

Regards

Donal
--
www.astroimaging.org.uk

On Sep 2, 1:03 pm, Donal wrote:
Capt. Rob wrote:
My camera gear bought in the last 24 months cost more than
Sloco's poor dated tub of a boat.

Have you managed to do any astrophotography
yet? ...... or have you given up?

Regards

Donal
-- www.astroimaging.org.uk



Donal, I now own a Celestron CPC-800 GPS. It's quite a machine and
I've messed around with some wide field stuff using my Nikon gear.

This is M31 over my house...single short exposure using a Nikon D300.

http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p677285558-5.jpg

Now that I own a D700 I plan to really have some fun in the fall.
Other than that I've doing mostly visual work with the scope. The GPS
is amazing, allowing me to see many more objects in a session than
ever before. This is my scope...

http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p883681020-5.jpg

I'm still planning to build an observatory for a 14 inch system soon,
but I have to do some landscaping for it 1st.

Cheers,


The Good Captain
35s5
NY

On Sep 2, 7:37 am, OzOne wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 04:03:05 -0700 (PDT), "Capt. Rob"

wrote:

Ozzy, the SST is a ton of fun and a better daily driver than the GSR
since it has a taller final gear for highway cruising. It's truly an
amazing system better than any other. Which color did you pick??!!!

R.

I've opted for the rally red.
We get very few of these types here so waiting for 'your' car may take
months.
MR will suit me better as I still do a little racing on weekends so
the better springs, dampers and two piece disks will suit.
There is talk that the leather trim will be std on the MR when
released here so they've made a note that I'll take it if
available..if not the cloth will have to do.




The MR gets leather for certain, but I don't know if you'll get the US
or European leather package. The GSR suspension is a bit better than
the MR stock, but the MR brakes saves a bit of weight. MR's appeared
to have a tiny advantage on the track, but that's slowly changing now.
I found the MR noticeably softer, but a good trade off for daily
driving. And you can always tune a suspension. A GSR will always be
faster off the line of course, but it takes a LOT of skill to shift
the GSR as well as the SST does for you on twisty roads.
I just got back from my dealer and we're buying the Evo and a new
Outlander as well. I'm still torn between the Rally Red and the
Graphite Gray. BTW, the Rockford Fosgate audio system may be the best
stock stereo I ever heard and the Navigation and music server system
works great as well.




R.

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 09:25:34 -0600, "Redbeard"
wrote:


OzOne wrote in message ...
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 20:03:19 -0700 (PDT), "Capt. Rob"
wrote:


Hey, Ozzy! How ya been?

Great.....except for a couple of broken ribs about 6 weeks ago from a
skiing fall.


You seem to be prone to skiing accidents. A few lessons may be in order. Do
you wear a helmet?


Not really prone...I do a lot of skiing and ski quite hard so I fall
now and then...usually hard.
Yep I wear a helmet.




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Capt. Rob wrote:

On Sep 2, 1:03 pm, Donal wrote:
Capt. Rob wrote:
My camera gear bought in the last 24 months cost more than
Sloco's poor dated tub of a boat.

Have you managed to do any astrophotography
yet? ...... or have you given up?

Regards

Donal
-- www.astroimaging.org.uk



Donal, I now own a Celestron CPC-800 GPS. It's quite a machine and
I've messed around with some wide field stuff using my Nikon gear.

This is M31 over my house...single short exposure using a Nikon D300.

http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p677285558-5.jpg


Very nice. I'm astonished at how little light pollution
you have. I thought that you lived near NY????

Here is a photo of the same object that I took recently.
http://www.astroimaging.org.uk/tener.../donal/M31.htm

It isn't great, but it is only 36m exposure. I'll try to get
more on it if the sky ever clears.


Now that I own a D700 I plan to really have some fun in the fall.
Other than that I've doing mostly visual work with the scope. The GPS
is amazing, allowing me to see many more objects in a session than
ever before. This is my scope...

http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p883681020-5.jpg

I'm still planning to build an observatory for a 14 inch system soon,
but I have to do some landscaping for it 1st.

If you are planning to do astrophotography, then you should
not buy an expensive scope until you *really* know what you
want. Most people give up because they started with
the wrong scope(Long focal length and high F ratio).
I'm on my third scope, second mount, and third camera -
and all in only three years.


Regards

Donal
--

Donal wrote:



I'm astonished at how little light pollution
you have. I thought that you lived near NY????

Here is a photo of the same object that I took recently.
http://www.astroimaging.org.uk/tener.../donal/M31.htm

It isn't great, but it is only 36m exposure. I'll try to get
more on it if the sky ever clears.


Very impressive. I never get a sky like that near Boston. However,
here's a picture of the same object I took from a higher perspective.

http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/MEDIUM/8000105.jpg

OK, I was not the lead scientist, but almost all of the data processing
software, from decoding the telemetry to putting the picture on the
display was written by me, and I was at the keyboard when the NASA
photographer took this picture of the screen. In '78 color displays
were so uncommon that we didn't pass around picture files, we
photographed the screen, usually with Polaroids, but 35mm for
publication. Each little red dot is actually one x-ray photon, focused
by a "grazing incidence mirror system." Magic! This picture was one of
the first we got of a nearby galaxy showing individual x-ray sources,
so it caused quite a stir.

More on the pic:
http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/abstracts.php?p=1560

and instrument:
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ei...ao2_about.html

"jeff" wrote in message
. ..
Donal wrote:



I'm astonished at how little light pollution
you have. I thought that you lived near NY????

Here is a photo of the same object that I took recently.
http://www.astroimaging.org.uk/tener.../donal/M31.htm

It isn't great, but it is only 36m exposure. I'll try to get
more on it if the sky ever clears.


Very impressive. I never get a sky like that near Boston. However,
here's a picture of the same object I took from a higher perspective.

http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/MEDIUM/8000105.jpg

OK, I was not the lead scientist, but almost all of the data processing
software, from decoding the telemetry to putting the picture on the
display was written by me, and I was at the keyboard when the NASA
photographer took this picture of the screen. In '78 color displays were
so uncommon that we didn't pass around picture files, we photographed the
screen, usually with Polaroids, but 35mm for publication. Each little red
dot is actually one x-ray photon, focused by a "grazing incidence mirror
system." Magic! This picture was one of the first we got of a nearby
galaxy showing individual x-ray sources, so it caused quite a stir.

More on the pic:
http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/abstracts.php?p=1560

and instrument:
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ei...ao2_about.html



I just don't get it. Why would anybody waste their time and money futzing
around with tiny little amateur lenses taking tiny little amateur deep space
photographs when there are millions of REAL large and detailed photos
available from Hubble alone? You could look at them your entire life and
not see them all.

Seems to me this amateur snapshot-taking becomes more and more of a waste of
time as time passes and anything but the very large and very large array
telescopes taking photographs is a joke.

But, even worse is when people start bragging about how great their inferior
little lenses are. There's nothing great about them. They're tiny and
they're a joke. The photos taken by them are tiny, inferior and a joke as
well.

What you are doing is using technology that is on par with two tin cans and
a string for a telephone. You shoot BB guns and eschew the howitzers. And
you're proud of it? And you're happy with it. I just don't get it. Perhaps
there's something I'm missing. Perhaps somebody could answer the question:
"Where's the beef?"

Wilbur Hubbard

On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 13:42:42 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:


"jeff" wrote in message
...
Donal wrote:



I'm astonished at how little light pollution
you have. I thought that you lived near NY????

Here is a photo of the same object that I took recently.
http://www.astroimaging.org.uk/tener.../donal/M31.htm

It isn't great, but it is only 36m exposure. I'll try to get
more on it if the sky ever clears.


Very impressive. I never get a sky like that near Boston. However,
here's a picture of the same object I took from a higher perspective.

http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/MEDIUM/8000105.jpg

OK, I was not the lead scientist, but almost all of the data processing
software, from decoding the telemetry to putting the picture on the
display was written by me, and I was at the keyboard when the NASA
photographer took this picture of the screen. In '78 color displays were
so uncommon that we didn't pass around picture files, we photographed the
screen, usually with Polaroids, but 35mm for publication. Each little red
dot is actually one x-ray photon, focused by a "grazing incidence mirror
system." Magic! This picture was one of the first we got of a nearby
galaxy showing individual x-ray sources, so it caused quite a stir.

More on the pic:
http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/abstracts.php?p=1560

and instrument:
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ei...ao2_about.html



I just don't get it. Why would anybody waste their time and money futzing
around with tiny little amateur lenses taking tiny little amateur deep space
photographs when there are millions of REAL large and detailed photos
available from Hubble alone? You could look at them your entire life and
not see them all.

Seems to me this amateur snapshot-taking becomes more and more of a waste of
time as time passes and anything but the very large and very large array
telescopes taking photographs is a joke.

But, even worse is when people start bragging about how great their inferior
little lenses are. There's nothing great about them. They're tiny and
they're a joke. The photos taken by them are tiny, inferior and a joke as
well.

What you are doing is using technology that is on par with two tin cans and
a string for a telephone. You shoot BB guns and eschew the howitzers. And
you're proud of it? And you're happy with it. I just don't get it. Perhaps
there's something I'm missing. Perhaps somebody could answer the question:
"Where's the beef?"

Wilbur Hubbard


As a kid, my buddies and I used to compete with each other seeing who
could shoot dragonflys out of the air with a sling-shot or BB gun.

Doing it with howitzers would not have made it a better competition.

Why run marathons when you can hail a cab or take a bus? How stupid is
THAT?

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 13:42:42 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:


"jeff" wrote in message
m...
Donal wrote:



I'm astonished at how little light pollution
you have. I thought that you lived near NY????

Here is a photo of the same object that I took recently.
http://www.astroimaging.org.uk/tener.../donal/M31.htm

It isn't great, but it is only 36m exposure. I'll try to get
more on it if the sky ever clears.


Very impressive. I never get a sky like that near Boston. However,
here's a picture of the same object I took from a higher perspective.

http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/MEDIUM/8000105.jpg

OK, I was not the lead scientist, but almost all of the data processing
software, from decoding the telemetry to putting the picture on the
display was written by me, and I was at the keyboard when the NASA
photographer took this picture of the screen. In '78 color displays
were
so uncommon that we didn't pass around picture files, we photographed
the
screen, usually with Polaroids, but 35mm for publication. Each little
red
dot is actually one x-ray photon, focused by a "grazing incidence mirror
system." Magic! This picture was one of the first we got of a nearby
galaxy showing individual x-ray sources, so it caused quite a stir.

More on the pic:
http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/abstracts.php?p=1560

and instrument:
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ei...ao2_about.html



I just don't get it. Why would anybody waste their time and money futzing
around with tiny little amateur lenses taking tiny little amateur deep
space
photographs when there are millions of REAL large and detailed photos
available from Hubble alone? You could look at them your entire life and
not see them all.

Seems to me this amateur snapshot-taking becomes more and more of a waste
of
time as time passes and anything but the very large and very large array
telescopes taking photographs is a joke.

But, even worse is when people start bragging about how great their
inferior
little lenses are. There's nothing great about them. They're tiny and
they're a joke. The photos taken by them are tiny, inferior and a joke as
well.

What you are doing is using technology that is on par with two tin cans
and
a string for a telephone. You shoot BB guns and eschew the howitzers. And
you're proud of it? And you're happy with it. I just don't get it. Perhaps
there's something I'm missing. Perhaps somebody could answer the question:
"Where's the beef?"

Wilbur Hubbard


As a kid, my buddies and I used to compete with each other seeing who
could shoot dragonflys out of the air with a sling-shot or BB gun.

Doing it with howitzers would not have made it a better competition.

Why run marathons when you can hail a cab or take a bus? How stupid is
THAT?


So, you're saying the reward is in the finesse? The ability to finesse
inferior technology and like it? Be satisfied with it? I just don't have
standards that are that low.

And, I agree with you on running marathons - pretty stupid. Any sane athlete
pedals a lightweight, aero, race bicycle. That's where the money is. That's
where true physical fitness and stamina is developed. That's where the
respect and glory is. That's where real men compete.

Wilbur Hubbard

On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 14:14:52 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:



As a kid, my buddies and I used to compete with each other seeing who
could shoot dragonflys out of the air with a sling-shot or BB gun.

Doing it with howitzers would not have made it a better competition.

Why run marathons when you can hail a cab or take a bus? How stupid is
THAT?


So, you're saying the reward is in the finesse? The ability to finesse
inferior technology and like it? Be satisfied with it? I just don't have
standards that are that low.

And, I agree with you on running marathons - pretty stupid. Any sane athlete
pedals a lightweight, aero, race bicycle. That's where the money is. That's
where true physical fitness and stamina is developed. That's where the
respect and glory is. That's where real men compete.

Wilbur Hubbard


So, you stink at archery, too?