3 ms·
I saw the title and thought it was Markarian's Chain (not to be confused with Markov's Chain) but it's not. I thought I'd share this picture I took of 19 galax
by dheera 3y ago
I saw the title and thought it was Markarian's Chain (not to be confused with Markov's Chain) but it's not.
I thought I'd share this picture I took of 19 galaxies rising over Mt. Lassen with a 500mm lens. It is stacked and tracked (separately for ground and sky) but the composition is unaltered. Many of these galaxies are 1/4 to 1/2 the size of a full moon, just too dim to see with the naked eye.
https://dheera.net/photos/calnight/#&gid=1&pid=15 https://dheera.net/photos/calnight/#&gid=1&pid=15
- heads 3y agoThat is brilliant, thank you so much for sharing. The galaxies’ enormous size is truly jaw dropping. I had absolutely no idea they were this large, in the night sky. Have you ever seen them live, though an image intensifier / night vision system? I feel there would be something profound about seeing a galaxy with my own (albeit enhanced) eyes.
- dheera 3y agoI don't have a night vision system so haven't tried that on Markarian's chain. What is much easier for naked eye vision is the Andromeda galaxy, which is much closer. It is actually about 6 times the visual size of a full moon in the sky, though with naked eye in a dark enough place you can barely see the fuzzy blob of a core with off-center vision. You can see the core more clearly with binoculars. However it will look small because you are only looking at the core. The magnificant spiral arms are what extend around that core 6 times the size of a moon. You can easily see the spiral structure with a consumer full frame camera. A star tracker will produce a crystal clear image of it, but without a tracker, a short exposure and high ISO can still show its existence. Even a 50mm or 100mm lens is enough to make it out. At 500mm it will fill the whole frame almost corner-to-corner. It's huge. Keep in mind galaxies are extremely low density on average. So even though Andromeda has about 1 trillion stars, it's still mostly vacuum with lightyears of distance between adjacent stars inside it. So it appears much, much, much dimmer than the individual stars in the sky from our own galaxy.
- dylan604 3y agoThe only time I've seen things is from using one of Sony's mirrorless cameras with ultra high ISO while attached directly to a telescope. Things that would normally take long exposures were visible in realtime. I haven't tried using that with a wide angle lens. Would be interesting thing to try
- RHSman2 3y agoI am lucky enough to live in a place that I can see the night sky as it should be. It takes time to be able ‘see’ the Milky Way. And what made it easy to understand was seeing andromeda through binoculars. Realising that if I was in andromeda looking back at the Milky Way it would look the same. I could then understand that I wasn’t looking at the Milky Way, but part of it and looking out. Really grounded me.
- jjbinx007 3y agoWow, that's superb. It really helps me try to visualise the size they appear in the sky. Obviously I still can't truly wrap my head around the scale of everything, but it's a start. For anyone who hasn't seen it yet, this video by Epic Spaceman is a treat if you want to try to visualise just how big our own galaxy is: https://youtu.be/VsRmyY3Db1Y?si=I7y5bL_9qV_lazPQ https://youtu.be/VsRmyY3Db1Y?si=I7y5bL_9qV_lazPQ
- greeneggs 3y agoThis is a nice composite (not mine) showing the relative sizes of various deep sky objects: https://www.reddit.com/r/astrophotography/comments/19do9iu/chart_apparent_size_comparison_deep_sky_objects/ https://www.reddit.com/r/astrophotography/comments/19do9iu/c...
- hermitcrab 3y agoVery impressive.
- chrisandchris 3y agoVery impressive. Thanks for sharing! I just found a couple of new desktop backgrounds.