>>2572260>Wide for astro is artsy fartsyYou're an idiot.
>same as saying diamonds are great because of pretty jewelryNo, aestheticism has little to do with the perceived value of diamonds, it's faux-scarcity that causes that. You're still an idiot.
>Taking a picture of the night sky for being "pretty" and "glittery" is the lowest form of photography.Wide-field astrophotography is a subset of landscape photography. Do you know anything about astro at all? I find it weird that someone talking about Newtonians doesn't know about milky way landscapes and thinks people are talking about "pretty and glittery" skies- something that's actually more a part of deep-field ironically.
>OP, stay away from nightscape photos, get a good Newtonian and take real pictures of our universe.What you are suggesting is that OP not be interested in taking unique photos, but in taking his own versions of deep-field objects that one can google at a moment's notice. No one gives a shit about your terribly executed photo of Messier 42. You're not exploring the universe, you're engaging in a technical exercise to calm your autist nerves.
>A decent beginner setup with tracker mount will cost the same as a fast ultra-wide lens.False. You clearly don't even own a tracking mount despite talking about them. The cheapest options you're going to get (short of building a barn-door, which is free) is something like a Vixen Polarie, which is $300-$400. A 12mm f/2, 8mm f/2.8, or 14mm f/2.8 can all be had for this price or less- and we haven't even purchased our telescope.
Fuck outta here with your posturing.
