10
My $800 star tracker was a total game changer for deep sky shots, but my buddy says it's a waste when you can just stack short exposures.
I dropped about $800 on a solid equatorial mount last year and it completely transformed my astro photos, letting me get those crisp, long exposure shots of nebulae without star trails, but a friend insists modern software can stack hundreds of short, untracked shots to get a similar result for way less cash, so what's the real move here for someone getting serious?
4 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In4 Comments
ninaowens1mo ago
Feel you on this... I had the exact same debate with myself before I caved and bought a used iOptron SkyGuider Pro. @wesleyb20 nailed it though, that "looks great on a phone but falls apart when you zoom in" thing is exactly what happened when I tried that 500 shot stack method one night just to see. The background noise was gross and all the faint nebula detail I was after just wasn't there. For the kind of deep sky stuff I want to actually print and frame, the tracker was the right call for me.
5
wesleyb202mo ago
Read a piece by a guy who tried both methods side by side on the same target. He stacked like 500 untracked shots and compared it to a dozen tracked exposures. The tracked image had way better signal in the faint stuff, less noise, and the stars were sharper points, not little smudges. The untracked stack looked okay on a phone screen but fell apart when you zoomed in. For getting serious, that extra detail is the whole point, so the tracker seems worth it if you can swing it.
4