From: Bhogi on
M-M wrote:
> In article <1171415094.538760.114870(a)>,
> "Bhogi" <bhogi(a)> wrote:
> > > If you can check it out, let me know if you can see the Cassini division.
> >
> > Thanks for pointing me to it. I found it with no problem.
> > Unfortunately the weather here is a bit cloudy and turbulent. I had to
> > work quickly and this is one of the shots at iso1600 1/50s
> >
> > I'm sure with more time, better visibility and sturdy tripod I would
> > get a much better photo.
> >
> > When observed visualy it was a LOT clearer and much brighter than I
> > expected, with clearly shaped gaps between the planet and the ring,
> > but as for cassini division I can't say I saw it. The tripod I'm using
> > is beyond critique and the image shakes just by observing, so I realy
> > couldn't concentrate on faint details. It's pretty frustrating. A
> > sturdy tripod and equatorial mount is a must.
> Thanks for that. It doesn't appear this Rubinar lens does much more than
> my digiscope. Here is a page of photos of planets I've accumulated
> through the years:

Those are realy nice pictures. Nice gear head you have too, here's
what I was shooting with
If you have a 1000mm scope then it's realy no big improvement, but it
looks like rubinar has much larger aperture so it should have more
resolution. How wide is the objective of your scope?
Planets are realy much too small to make impressive photos with any
camera lens. I was thinking more of making photos of nebulae galxies
etc. that fill the whole frame. For that I'll use much shorter lenses
too plus all else.