I tried a full spectrum camera with an FLD filter for interesting results! For astrophotography, Infrared (without other lighting) is good because it can see through haze. For UV, there are details that can be seen but it's primarily not for wide field, but isn't as efficient for seeing through haze as Infrared and visible.
@FractalBuilder - do you own the camera or just tried it?? I’m trying to figure out WHERE TO START and cannot seem to find the answer. It’s as if it’s a huge secret!! 😂 I saw your comment and the word “ASTROPHOTOGRAPHY” and knew I had to at least try to reach out (because THAT is the specific reason I’m interested in either “full spectrum” OR “infrared”) To be honest, I haven’t even found a video that explains the practical differences (especially when it comes to shooting the sky at night)… I’d be willing to PURCHASE a camera that’s ready to go, but they don’t seem very easy to find either… I began to rip apart an old “Sony Cybershot” point & shoot camera to remove the filter but have not yet reassembled it…. I’m afraid that it’s obvious I’ve wasted my time with that tho, because even if I’m successful, can I really expect it to give me a proper view of the night sky?? I’m also copying and pasting this to the channel to see if he can offer some guidance, but ANYTHING you can share to help a beginner find the foundation he needs to move forward would be GREATLY APPRECIATED!! Cheers!
@@flojotube There are a number of "ready to shoot" cameras for Astro, such as the Canon EOS Ra, a modern mirrorless camera with an internal h-alpha filter. You can also add an H-alpha filter to a camera. You can buy dedicated telescope cameras that mount to a telescope. A full spectrum camera gives you a wide variety of options, but I haven't done enough astro to know if it's the best option. I would recommend this website and youtube channel for additional research. astrobackyard.com
@@flojotube I've owned the camera for some time, but haven't delved into deep sky astro yet- primarily basic, wide angle, photos. An alternative option is to get a monochrome camera dedicated to astrophotography, which might be much of an improvement over a regular camera. For deep sky images, such as those of distant galaxies and nebula, you might need to get a refractor, because a telephoto lens with enough focal length is relatively expensive compared to a telescope. The Prime Focus method of astrophotography is most effective, which can be done by using the telescope as the camera lens by mounting an interchangeable lens camera directly using an adapter specific to the camera's brand. The camera that I used for full spectrum was a Sony RX100 II which isn't ideal for this type of job, but can make decent wide angle imagery. I've been wanting to add a light pollution filter also. I still got the camera.
@@robshea The FLD filter isn't mine, as I got it from someone else for using for a few minutes. I might get a hold of an FLD filter again, so I can send you some examples!
I know this was from a while back, but in response to one person's question about autofocus and removing the hot mirror. I removed the filter from a fuji X-E1 and the autofocus did stop working correctly. I fitted the replacement clear glass and the autofocus now works fine. I just did it as a test as I was going to fit the clear filter regardless, who are these people that want a bare exposed sensor? Anyway, don't know if that applies to all cameras, I suspect more modern sophisticated but reliable autofocus methods might still be ok, but I thought I'd mention it.
They are barbarians! 😄 Clearly, (see what I did there) the refraction through the sensor filter plays a part in the overall optical path. Seriously, with as much dust as I need to clear from the sensor filter, I can't imagine risking damage to the senor just trying to clean the dust off regularly.
A glass cover on the sensor certainly does protect the sensor but it’s also because most modern lenses are designed to deliver optimum performance with one in place. If you take the cover off it will soften the image a bit. The same is true with film lenses but in reverse. Having a glass cover in front of the imaging plane will soften the image because those lenses were not designed to have one there. Admittedly the performance hit varies from lens to lens and generally isn’t world ending.
![Learn Photography [Full Course] by Australian Geographic Photographer Chris Bray](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LxO-6rlihSg/mqdefault.jpg)
Absolutely love the back right photo behind you!
Thanks! Here it is: instagram.com/p/CBgY7CSnKd-/
@@robshea checking now buddy .. I’m gothic same as this one
Love your channel just subbed. I’m just getting into ir waiting for my full spectrum camera from Spencer camera
I tried a full spectrum camera with an FLD filter for interesting results! For astrophotography, Infrared (without other lighting) is good because it can see through haze. For UV, there are details that can be seen but it's primarily not for wide field, but isn't as efficient for seeing through haze as Infrared and visible.
Interesting, would love to see some examples!
@FractalBuilder - do you own the camera or just tried it?? I’m trying to figure out WHERE TO START and cannot seem to find the answer. It’s as if it’s a huge secret!! 😂 I saw your comment and the word “ASTROPHOTOGRAPHY” and knew I had to at least try to reach out (because THAT is the specific reason I’m interested in either “full spectrum” OR “infrared”)
To be honest, I haven’t even found a video that explains the practical differences (especially when it comes to shooting the sky at night)…
I’d be willing to PURCHASE a camera that’s ready to go, but they don’t seem very easy to find either…
I began to rip apart an old “Sony Cybershot” point & shoot camera to remove the filter but have not yet reassembled it…. I’m afraid that it’s obvious I’ve wasted my time with that tho, because even if I’m successful, can I really expect it to give me a proper view of the night sky??
I’m also copying and pasting this to the channel to see if he can offer some guidance, but ANYTHING you can share to help a beginner find the foundation he needs to move forward would be GREATLY APPRECIATED!!
Cheers!
@@flojotube There are a number of "ready to shoot" cameras for Astro, such as the Canon EOS Ra, a modern mirrorless camera with an internal h-alpha filter. You can also add an H-alpha filter to a camera. You can buy dedicated telescope cameras that mount to a telescope. A full spectrum camera gives you a wide variety of options, but I haven't done enough astro to know if it's the best option. I would recommend this website and youtube channel for additional research. astrobackyard.com
@@flojotube I've owned the camera for some time, but haven't delved into deep sky astro yet- primarily basic, wide angle, photos. An alternative option is to get a monochrome camera dedicated to astrophotography, which might be much of an improvement over a regular camera. For deep sky images, such as those of distant galaxies and nebula, you might need to get a refractor, because a telephoto lens with enough focal length is relatively expensive compared to a telescope. The Prime Focus method of astrophotography is most effective, which can be done by using the telescope as the camera lens by mounting an interchangeable lens camera directly using an adapter specific to the camera's brand. The camera that I used for full spectrum was a Sony RX100 II which isn't ideal for this type of job, but can make decent wide angle imagery. I've been wanting to add a light pollution filter also. I still got the camera.
@@robshea The FLD filter isn't mine, as I got it from someone else for using for a few minutes. I might get a hold of an FLD filter again, so I can send you some examples!
Great job, Rob, sorry I missed the live event.
I know this was from a while back, but in response to one person's question about autofocus and removing the hot mirror. I removed the filter from a fuji X-E1 and the autofocus did stop working correctly. I fitted the replacement clear glass and the autofocus now works fine. I just did it as a test as I was going to fit the clear filter regardless, who are these people that want a bare exposed sensor? Anyway, don't know if that applies to all cameras, I suspect more modern sophisticated but reliable autofocus methods might still be ok, but I thought I'd mention it.
They are barbarians! 😄 Clearly, (see what I did there) the refraction through the sensor filter plays a part in the overall optical path. Seriously, with as much dust as I need to clear from the sensor filter, I can't imagine risking damage to the senor just trying to clean the dust off regularly.
A glass cover on the sensor certainly does protect the sensor but it’s also because most modern lenses are designed to deliver optimum performance with one in place. If you take the cover off it will soften the image a bit. The same is true with film lenses but in reverse. Having a glass cover in front of the imaging plane will soften the image because those lenses were not designed to have one there. Admittedly the performance hit varies from lens to lens and generally isn’t world ending.
of course i missed it
he should pay you for the education. let him lol . he is a nice guy