Observational astronomy might experience a resurgence

On Tuesday, 21 August 2018 00:26:15 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 21:12:44 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Saturday, 18 August 2018 08:42:06 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 00:05:45 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

No, I don't see any resurgence in visual astronomy. As the skies
continue to get brighter for most people, and as imaging becomes
easier and cheaper, that's likely to be the direction most amateurs
are interested in pursuing.

Maybe they're just more dedicated and prolific, but the best images I see (even of planets) are not done on cheap equipment.

Just like the best nature photography tends to be done with more
expensive equipment. Not because you can't take great pictures with
just a phone, but because serious photographers (that is, like you
say, dedicated and prolific) tend to use high end equipment.

Most people aren't trying to be the best. They're quite satisfied with
simply being good. And in astroimaging, that no longer requires
particularly expensive kit.

It's very hard to replicate good images with a phone with its lens limitations and tiny sensors. I'd hate to be a wildlife photog stuck with a phone.
Astronomical images are concerned with technical quality. In fact, astronomy shooters put-up with artifacting (as a consequence of seeking detail/resolution) in shots that no terrestrial photographer would tolerate. It's an interesting subject.

It is not at all hard to take superb pictures with a phone. I take
landscape and wildlife images that way all the time, and people don't
believe it was just a phone. And you can take superb astroimages with
$1000 setup. Again, it's not about being best, it's about being good.

Where, in the zoo? Phones don't have long lenses so how do you take wildlife shots? Also, landscape images at low ISO in daylight are probably ok, given some phones have over 10mp to play with, but the actual quality of the shots isn't likely to rival even a basic camera with a decent-sized sensor.

On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 14:16:14 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Tuesday, 21 August 2018 00:26:15 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 21:12:44 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Saturday, 18 August 2018 08:42:06 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 00:05:45 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

No, I don't see any resurgence in visual astronomy. As the skies
continue to get brighter for most people, and as imaging becomes
easier and cheaper, that's likely to be the direction most amateurs
are interested in pursuing.

Maybe they're just more dedicated and prolific, but the best images I see (even of planets) are not done on cheap equipment.

Just like the best nature photography tends to be done with more
expensive equipment. Not because you can't take great pictures with
just a phone, but because serious photographers (that is, like you
say, dedicated and prolific) tend to use high end equipment.

Most people aren't trying to be the best. They're quite satisfied with
simply being good. And in astroimaging, that no longer requires
particularly expensive kit.

It's very hard to replicate good images with a phone with its lens limitations and tiny sensors. I'd hate to be a wildlife photog stuck with a phone.
Astronomical images are concerned with technical quality. In fact, astronomy shooters put-up with artifacting (as a consequence of seeking detail/resolution) in shots that no terrestrial photographer would tolerate. It's an interesting subject.

It is not at all hard to take superb pictures with a phone. I take
landscape and wildlife images that way all the time, and people don't
believe it was just a phone. And you can take superb astroimages with
$1000 setup. Again, it's not about being best, it's about being good.

Where, in the zoo? Phones don't have long lenses so how do you take wildlife shots? Also, landscape images at low ISO in daylight are probably ok, given some phones have over 10mp to play with, but the actual quality of the shots isn't likely to rival even a basic camera with a decent-sized sensor.

You just have to be pretty close. That's possible with wildlife, if
you're around it enough. Also, I have a snap-on telephoto for my phone
which does a remarkably good job.

Is this an idea setup for wildlife photography? Hardly. But it's
possible to achieve very good results. And, of course, a $250
point-and-shoot with a long optical zoom can perform nearly as well as
a high end DSLR with expensive glass. Certainly enough to produce
shots that one can be very proud of.

On Sunday, 26 August 2018 19:17:09 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 14:16:14 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Tuesday, 21 August 2018 00:26:15 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 21:12:44 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Saturday, 18 August 2018 08:42:06 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 00:05:45 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

No, I don't see any resurgence in visual astronomy. As the skies
continue to get brighter for most people, and as imaging becomes
easier and cheaper, that's likely to be the direction most amateurs
are interested in pursuing.

Maybe they're just more dedicated and prolific, but the best images I see (even of planets) are not done on cheap equipment.

Just like the best nature photography tends to be done with more
expensive equipment. Not because you can't take great pictures with
just a phone, but because serious photographers (that is, like you
say, dedicated and prolific) tend to use high end equipment.

Most people aren't trying to be the best. They're quite satisfied with
simply being good. And in astroimaging, that no longer requires
particularly expensive kit.

It's very hard to replicate good images with a phone with its lens limitations and tiny sensors. I'd hate to be a wildlife photog stuck with a phone.
Astronomical images are concerned with technical quality. In fact, astronomy shooters put-up with artifacting (as a consequence of seeking detail/resolution) in shots that no terrestrial photographer would tolerate. It's an interesting subject.

It is not at all hard to take superb pictures with a phone. I take
landscape and wildlife images that way all the time, and people don't
believe it was just a phone. And you can take superb astroimages with
$1000 setup. Again, it's not about being best, it's about being good.

Where, in the zoo? Phones don't have long lenses so how do you take wildlife shots? Also, landscape images at low ISO in daylight are probably ok, given some phones have over 10mp to play with, but the actual quality of the shots isn't likely to rival even a basic camera with a decent-sized sensor.

You just have to be pretty close. That's possible with wildlife, if
you're around it enough. Also, I have a snap-on telephoto for my phone
which does a remarkably good job.

Is this an idea setup for wildlife photography? Hardly. But it's
possible to achieve very good results. And, of course, a $250
point-and-shoot with a long optical zoom can perform nearly as well as
a high end DSLR with expensive glass. Certainly enough to produce
shots that one can be very proud of.

That last part is debatable. Most cheap P&S's (you can spend over $1000 for some of the new ones, like Nikon's ridiculous 3000mm equivalent) have major issues with image quality either due to the sensor or lens or both. But it you don't crop much and keep prints reasonable (8x10 or so) you can produce reasonable images.