Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like a nerd. OK, maybe I did.

I surrender, astro. I already admitted my naïveté, so I'll just say thanks for the lesson.

NikoDoby said:
... I don't think anyone can hand-hold that thing anyway!

Oh wait, it's weightless in space so I guess you could hand-hold it. Wow, my bad.

Or you need a really, really good tripod. Is there Bogen you'd recommend?

;-)

OH NO! Nerd fight! Nerd fight! Just kidding guys :^) Hey it doesn't really matter since I don't think anyone can hand-hold that thing anyway!

Oh wait, it's weightless in space so I guess you could hand-hold it. Wow, my bad.

Below is a diagram of the light path. Remember this is a Ritchey-Chrétien not a Newtonian. The secondary combined with the hyperbolic prinary (it's not parabolic) provides a coma free image. A hyperbolic primary will not produce a corrected image. The last major Newtonian was the Palomar Hale telescope. That can image at prime focus as 660 inch fl. f3.3.

Another amazing telescope will be the upcoming LSST. It's an eight meter f1.2 with a FOV of 3.5 degrees.

astrophotographer said:
If I may nitpick, the Keck's primary mirror has a 1.7 meter focal length but I don't think it can image with it. Combined with the secondary it's a f/15 Ritchey Chrétien with a focal length of ~150,000mm (150 meters).

How could that be possible, astro? My naive first thought is that given f=-R/2 (I know it's parabolic and not spherical), it would be a technical tour de force to build a mirror with a diameter of 10 meters and a focal length of 1.7 meters. Eyeballing it, I don't think the radius of curvature in the image below is anywhere near 3.4 m. Besides, I think the secondary would need to be closer than the focal length to the back of the mirror, which I don't think is true if it were at 1.7 m:

I'd never pretend to know more than you about astronomy, astro, but this time I can't see how you could be right.

jonnyapple said:
A more reachable goal is to become an astronomer, and the cameras are sweet. Take the Keck observatory in Hawai'i: two 17000mm f/1.8 lenses (that's not a typo: 17600mm focal length and 10000mm aperture, so f/1.76, but who's counting?), and one of the interchangeable sensors is the NIRC, which is sensitive enough to see 1 candle's light at a distance from the earth to the moon.
I'm friends with quite a few astronomers and I can tell you that most of them wouldn't care about going out in their pajamas and love to take pictures of planets. But honestly, I'd never do observational astronomy because the hours are usually bad.

If I may nitpick, the Keck's primary mirror has a 1.7 meter focal length but I don't think it can image with it. Combined with the secondary it's a f/15 Ritchey Chrétien with a focal length of ~150,000mm (150 meters).

Amateur astronomy is a strange hobby when you consider it is usually sitting in the middle a cold dark field late at night. For the pros today it's a little easier, They send the observation plan to the computer and pick up the data the next day. Then spend 6 months crunching the numbers.

best use of the Nikon cameras yet... lol

AaronFoto said:
Maybe I should have become an astronaut so I can play with awesome cameras in my pajamas all day and take pictures of things, such as planets.

A more reachable goal is to become an astronomer, and the cameras are sweet. Take the Keck observatory in Hawai'i: two 17000mm f/1.8 lenses (that's not a typo: 17600mm focal length and 10000mm aperture, so f/1.76, but who's counting?), and one of the interchangeable sensors is the NIRC, which is sensitive enough to see 1 candle's light at a distance from the earth to the moon.
I'm friends with quite a few astronomers and I can tell you that most of them wouldn't care about going out in their pajamas and love to take pictures of planets. But honestly, I'd never do observational astronomy because the hours are usually bad.

NikoDoby said:
Why should there be? You're literally floating above everyone else and are with the stars. There's no one higher than you to impress. Well maybe just one person but he doesn't care what your wearing :^)

Yes... just one.... and the other few billion with access to the internet. Maybe I should have become an astronaut so I can play with awesome cameras in my pajamas all day and take pictures of things, such as planets.

AaronFoto said:
I guess there's no business casual dress code in space.

Why should there be? You're literally floating above everyone else and are with the stars. There's no one higher than you to impress. Well maybe just one person but he doesn't care what your wearing :^)

I want a D2x (I'm guessing due to unobservation) with a nikon 400mm that I can levitate and afford to throw around like that.

I guess there's no business casual dress code in space.

Some more pictures of Nikons in space

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35243810/ns/technology_and_science-picture_stories/displaymode/1247/?beginSlide=1

bmxdad said:
Mine is just collecting dust, what is this film/polaroid thing going on with you lately Niko. Have these young film lads on NR made you want to be young and anti digital again

Pete

Bring On The Whippersnappers! Me and my Kodak brownie and pinhole cameras can take 'em all down!

I've always been a film guy. I never stopped using it. I just don't like going through the trouble of developing or paying for processing. I don't have the time and hate wasting money on processing. I want instant gratification so I use digital like everyone else almost 90% of the time. The other 10% I "experiment" with film.

My most recent Polaroid craze is due to me getting a Polaroid camera for Christmas. I'm enjoying the best of both worlds. It's unpredictable like film and it gives you instant gratification like digital. I just really hate how expensive Polaroid film has become!!!

New Polaroid film will be "relaunching" very soon so I hope that helps bring prices down a bit, but I doubt it.
http://www.the-impossible-project.com/2009

It occurs to me that he should have opened the shutter while it was spinning to get the first camera toss image with a D3s, 400 2.8 and TC20.
edit: I guess that might be a D2x.

bmxdad said:
young and anti digital again

Isn't that a strange thing? It seems true, and I don't get it.

Mine is just collecting dust, what is this film/polaroid thing going on with you lately Niko. Have these young film lads on NR made you want to be young and anti digital again

Pete

NikoDoby said:
I want Nikon to make all of their telephotos this easy to carry! Awesome stuff!

Easy enough, Niko. Just do all your shooting in low earth orbit. ;-)
edit: BTW, the cost to get the lens there will be more than the price of the lens.

I like that guy.

Currently I'm loading up a...*GASP* canon AE-1 with a 50mm f1.4 lens!

Now Niko, which camera is he using

Pete

Looks like it yeah. I believe the tripod collars are modified. The foot seems shorter than normal.

So is the other lens a 600mm with 2.0TC on it

Pete

an older modified 400mm f2.8 with a 2.0TC attached. That's why he calls it an 800mm lens.