When did amateur AP become accessible to the masses? - Forums

I'm giving a presentation on astrophotography to my local astronomical club (Macarthur Astronomical Society) next month. I've only been doing AP for about three years, so I don't know the answer to the following question, which I want to include in my talk: when did the current accessibility of astrophotography to the general public begin? I know amateurs have been doing AP for probably decades (and details on this would be welcome too) but when, and why, did it become affordable (!) and feasible to produce the high quality images that we routinely see today?

When amateur astronomers/astrophotographers realized that they can use their DSLR's, while free/open source software was readily available for data reduction and integration. Mass-produced digital sensors (aka DSLRs) and specialized software made the difference. Plus the raise in availability of an internet connection, I suppose. Optics/mounts didn't contribute to the revolution IMHO

Well, I started in the mid 70's with film soaked in hydrogen and cameras cooled with dry ice. The big revolution is one word "digital". The cameras, mounts and software we have today have all have made it a lot more accessible. These days it's pretty easy to put together a rig that you can run from your cell phone that can produce images that would have floored the professionals back in the day. The only negative I see is while it's easy to thrown money at the hobby to get kitted up fast, real experience takes time. That's something that never changes.

Oh, that's a tough one to answer. I took astrophotos in 1987 by pointing a camera into the eyepiece og a 60mm refractor (my profile pic is me with my Bushnell frac around 1984.) I got decent moon pics that way.

A telescope of that size was much more expensive than today, but it was certainly within reach for the masses.

I think there was a big revolution when digital dslr's arrived around the year 2000, like EOS300D. At the same time, you got cheap webcams and PC's that could do image processing. Not to mention the internet….

So I would say around the year 2000.

yeah i agree, probably 2000. i was trying to figure out when the SBIG ST-10 camera appeared but failed. the closest info i could find is an announcement in 2003 regarding the sensor that's in the ST-10. maybe there was an SBIG camera before the ST-10? i can't remember.

My personal milestone is in the first 2000s, when I started to use the venerable webcam Philips Vesta (who remember that?) to take picture of the planets.
I then modified it to take long exposure pictures, then buyed another venerable camera, the Sbig ST8, and so on…
But the webcam was my point of no return…
Ciao
Lorenzo

yeah i agree, probably 2000. i was trying to figure out when the SBIG ST-10 camera appeared but failed. the closest info i could find is an announcement in 2003 regarding the sensor that's in the ST-10. maybe there was an SBIG camera before the ST-10? i can't remember.

I', not sure any early SBIG camera would have been priced for the masses. I seem to remember early CCD's as being horribly expensive. But yeah, the early DSLR's and converted webcams ushered in the modern era of imaging.

I suppose it depends on the definition of the “masses”. I started out in mid 1980 with a Minolta SLR and an 8” Meade Newtonian using Kodak film, and that worked reasonably well for the moon and the larger planets. I also remember trying to take long exposures of M42 with manually corrected tracking and mediocre results. It definitely got a lot easier after 2000 and the availab8lity of DSLRs, but it was already accessible to the masses in 1980 in that sense.
/Ralf

….it's funny how back in the day when everyone was using film and manually guiding, the focus was on RA accuracy. Large, expensive, beautify machined RA worm and wheel sets where the norm. Dec. adjustment was usually just a tangent arm with a screw or if you were really lucky, a motor. I makes me wonder why today we guide all over the sky, furiously chasing RA and DEC every few sec. Especially in an era when getting a precise polar alignment has never been quicker and easier.

maybe there was an SBIG camera before the ST-10?

Lots of them. First was the ST4, really a guider but would work as a camera. The "real" SBIG camera at the time was the ST6. Then:

ST4X, ST5, ST7 (the first self guide camera), ST8, ST9, ST10, STL 11000 and several more beyond that like the STT 8300 etc.

I had the ST4, ST5, ST7 (serial number 12), ST8 (prototype for testing), ST10, STL 11000 (another prototype) and finally the STT 8300.

I took some nice (for the day) images with those, including a couple of Sky and Telescope covers with the ST8 and STL 11000 back in the early 2000s.

SBIG is now owned by someone else and has pretty much lost it's way. I no longer own any of their products save an old seeing monitor that keeps soldiering on.

@Frank Alvaro ~ I'm not sure that the sum total of our community worldwide could be construed as "the masses" ... but I get your point. In the 1970's, I connected my Minolta SLR to the nose of my 8" reflector on a Cave Astrola mount. Guiding - not that I was that patient - was keeping an out-of-focus star centered in a cross-haired eyepiece. I even have in my hand (as I write) my University Optics T-Mount to 1-1/4" nose piece used to image the Sun, Moon and planets. I was fortunate back then, but in no way would I compare that equipment to what we have available to us today.

I guess my answer proper would be: when Go-To mounts, CMOS cameras and stacking software became available. But even at that, the exquisite telescopes, mounts and cameras available today are still beyond the financial reach of most of us, not to mention public and private permanent installations. I must admit, though, that the level of equipment available to "the masses" today is beyond even the capabilities I dreamed of as a kid.

I’m not sure it is so available to the masses. We tend to think “everybody is doing it” because we’re so focused into it, inside the online community, but most people I know would not be able to spend 2500 euros on an ASI2600, 200 per filter, the price of a go-to mount, the scopes and all the rest. Not to mention most people don’t even know you can photograph a nebula or a galaxy with an amateur telescope.

This is an expensive hobby and one way or the other I bet most of us have a combination of circumstances that allow us the possibility of affording these high expenses. In my case I am a liberal professional without children so I can spend some of my money on it. Other people may even be rather wealthy. What I can assure you is that the average of the population would not even dream of getting into this money-burning craze of AP.

Nonetheless it is true that, if this is your passion and you really want it, if you have very little money to spend, there are cheaper alternatives to create a decent rig under 1500 EUR and maybe that is what could be considered accessible AP. So I think as everybody is saying, with the advent of digital imaging, late 90’s early 2000s. Most people in my astronomy club started with webcams for planetary (a Phillips Toucam I think??) and early DSLRs. Also GoTo is key in all this.

I worked for a large southeastern astro company in the early 2000s. We made the "thread in to the camera to a 1.25" barrel" adapter for the Phillips Toucam. We sold thousands of those "converted cameras" all over the world in a matter of months. They were primarily for planetary imaging but many started using them in long exposure imaging.

During the great "Mars Opposition of 2003" when Mars was a mere 34.6 million miles away, we sold over a thousand adapter camera combinations in July of that year.

Mike

Thanks everyone, most informative and just what I needed.

Frank

I am going to with the release of the 1600MM. That was a game changer. That was when solid AP became available to the masses. Then Covid hit and everyone and their grandma got into astrophotography. Around this time the 2600MM hit the market and put CCDs six feet under the ground. Now you don't need a five figure camera to make the best pictures around.

Álvaro Méndez:
This is an expensive hobby and one way or the other I bet most of us have a combination of circumstances that allow us the possibility of affording these high expenses.

That certainly depends on what you want to get out of it. A cheap tracker, your existing DSLR, a lens or two, and some basic stacking software can go a long way. Tons of astro landscapes are testament to this. I took the below some years ago with an old umodified DSLR, a camera tripod, tracker, and 400mm lens I had on hand. I have a better IC 434 image than this that I took with much more expensive equipment, but I think the one below stands up to it pretty well, all things considered.

So sure, you can spend $200K of your retirement money setting up a Planewave in Chile. But there is a lot of satisfaction to be had with cheaper equipment, as long as you don't see this as a contest. It is a bit like cars. I can spend $100-$200K on a fancy one, but a used $20K one will get me to work and do my groceries just fine, as long as I am OK with the slower 0-60 time!

I agree, I have been working with some of the cheapest and lowest tier gear imaginable. Upgrading only where there's really no choice. Funny too that the best and most effective upgrade you can make, at least in deep sky imaging is to simply to increase your integration time!

Arun H:
Álvaro Méndez:
This is an expensive hobby and one way or the other I bet most of us have a combination of circumstances that allow us the possibility of affording these high expenses.

That certainly depends on what you want to get out of it. A cheap tracker, your existing DSLR, a lens or two, and some basic stacking software can go a long way. Tons of astro landscapes are testament to this. I took the below some years ago with an old umodified DSLR, a camera tripod, tracker, and 400mm lens I had on hand. I have a better IC 434 image than this that I took with much more expensive equipment, but I think the one below stands up to it pretty well, all things considered.

So sure, you can spend $200K of your retirement money setting up a Planewave in Chile. But there is a lot of satisfaction to be had with cheaper equipment, as long as you don't see this as a contest. It is a bit like cars. I can spend $100-$200K on a fancy one, but a used $20K one will get me to work and do my groceries just fine, as long as I am OK with the slower 0-60 time!

I absolutely agree with you, and I don't either see this as a contest but as a personal satisfaction. But think of every time you need to buy something, even though your gear is DSLR+tracker. Some astro thingy, any thread, separator, additional filter, anything to make your life easier in this hobby... it will be overpriced. That Horsehead is a gorgeous photo and proof that you can do great things with less. But some times you will say 'I want to do that object' and realize 'I cannot do that object with the gear I have, only extended bright ones'. That usually triggers the need to upgrade just a little and any tiny upgrade comes with new things you didn't expect that also cost money: my older thread is not valid and I need a new filter drawer: 200 EUR for a piece of metal. Oh and a set of dew heaters because I can't operate with all this humidity on my mirrors... and so on. Yes, you can contain your expenses but you know what I mean.

That's why I believe the breakthrough happened with the DSLR (mass-produced = cheap) and the existence of freely available specialized software (Deep Sky Stacker for example, Iris (?)). Even the popularity of Photoshop among photographers helped a bit. Some may say PixInsight LE was revolutionary (it didn't stack but had DBE!) however I wonder who knew its existence way back when.

Funny too that the best and most effective upgrade you can make, at least in deep sky imaging is to simply to increase your integration time!

Access to adequate clear sky time and (for broadband) absence of light pollution, are far greater factors than equipment.

That IC 434 image was 80 minutes or so of integration from a Bortle 2 site. I was never able to improve on it with much longer times and much more expensive equipment from my B6 home. Improving it took going back to a dark sky site with better equipment.

Point being, you need to realize where the limitations lie. I see a lot of people throwing money at the problem when the limitations lie elsewhere.

I do agree with @Die Launische Diva that the breakthrough happened with the DSLR. Look at Wei Hao Wang's images with a Nikon DSLR, from a dark site. They are amazing. You don't need a mono to take great broadband images. Absence of LP and clear sky time are FAR more important. Given a choice, I'd take my unmodded mirrorless and B2 site over a mono and a B6 site, other factors being equal.

*Edit: missed citation. Right post down below. Sorry

yeah i agree, probably 2000. i was trying to figure out when the SBIG ST-10 camera appeared but failed. the closest info i could find is an announcement in 2003 regarding the sensor that's in the ST-10. maybe there was an SBIG camera before the ST-10? i can't remember.

I purchased my first SBIG CCD camera - an ST-7 - back in 1997. At that time SBIG had been producing their ST-4 Star Tracker camera for a while. We would use the ST-4 Star Tracker to guide the mount while our film cameras were exposing their 30 minute exposures. Prior to the Star Tracker people had to sit at the eyepiece of the guide scope for hours with their fingers on the mount's slow motion controls keeping their reference star centered in a crosshair eyepiece.

So, somewhere around 2000 SBIG and a couple of other companies were producing CCD cameras that were fairly easy to use compared to film. That's when I began to see a lot more interest in the photography end of the hobby.

Die Launische Diva:
That's why I believe the breakthrough happened with the DSLR (mass-produced = cheap) and the existence of freely available specialized software (Deep Sky Stacker for example, Iris (?)). Even the popularity of Photoshop among photographers helped a bit. Some may say PixInsight LE was revolutionary (it didn't stack but had DBE!) however I wonder who knew its existence way back when.

*
Well, I know its existence and I do have a copy running on my pc along with the most recent PI!

I'm old enough to remember some piece of software absolutely weird if compared with the ones we are using to use now.
Who does remember QCfocus? Or AviEdit?
The stone age of digital astronomy...
Ciao
Lorenzo

I’m new to the forum, but I would think a significant acceleration of the trend happened with the introduction of the smartphones, wireless and high speed internet. Every developer on the planet has been trying to get smartphones to replace other cameras and types of photography to make their phones more attractive. Now, using a smartphone, “everyone” is a wildlife photographer, portrait photographer, real estate photographer, product photographer, wedding photographer and yes, one of these days an astrophotographer. Simply lay your new iPhone 25 on any table with a view of the night sky, select your DSO, press a button and pick it up the next morning! Wireless also makes it easier. With that and all the software automation now available, stay inside, push a button, take a sip of your hot cocoa and take a nap!

You also have host sites where you buy the equipment, ship it to the site and they build it and set it up complete with high speed Internet so you can log in from across the country and run your rig remotely. With all that said, it’s still the person behind the camera that makes a difference!

Astro-imaging as a hobby among amateur astronomers started back in the days of film. I personally started with Tri-X (ASA 400) with an old Argus-C3 camera attached to an 8” Newtonian telescope that I built back in the mid-1960’s. Even back then, there was a fairly active core of imagers producing very respectable images using “hyper’ed” and cooled film. Stacking was difficult (done in the dark room) so most imagers relied on long exposures to pick up faint DSOs. All of this stuff was available to the “masses” but the number of folks doing it at a high level was pretty small largely due to the fact that you had to commit to processing your own film. Back then AP was hard!

There’s no doubt that participation grew considerably with the advent of DSLRs, widely available digital imaging processing software, and more advanced mounts, which in turn drove more advanced optical designs. The introduction of relatively inexpensive, dedicated astro-cameras (both OSC and monochrome) along with highly specialized processing software (e.g. PixInsight, etc.) has made it even easier and widened the appeal of imaging even further among amateurs. Digital imaging has enabled modern day amateur imagers to produce images that exceed what could be done with large professional telescopes back in the 60’s and 70’s.

The premise of astro-imaging becoming “accessible to the masses” is a bit flawed. It has always been accessible to the masses but the knee in the curve of when more widespread participation rapidly increased happened when digital imaging became possible. That made it cheaper, faster, and considerably easier to quickly see your results and that drove a rapid increase in participation.

John