Stacking vs single exposure shots - I'll take one long frame any day

Everyone at the local club is obsessed with stacking 200 short frames for deep sky objects, but I got a sharper M42 last winter with one 8-minute exposure on my old EQ6 mount. The processing time alone makes stacking feel like a chore for diminishing returns. Anyone else prefer a single long exposure over stacking for bright nebulae?

3 comments

3 Comments

david_walker9717d agoMost Upvoted

The 200 frames from a cooled mono camera stack better than your single 8 minute shot, but try stacking 200 frames from a DSLR and noise just compounds itself because of all the pattern variations. That single exposure advantage really shows up when your camera struggles with calibration frames or inconsistent sensor noise between subs. Stacking works great for folks with the right gear, but for us cheap DSLR guys that single long frame can be the better path if you guide well enough.

william_craig717d ago

Same issue here with my old T3i. Switched to taking fewer but longer subs, like 5 or 6 minute frames, and stacking maybe 30-40 of those instead of hundreds. Cut way down on that pattern noise and the calibration frames actually worked better. Single long exposures are great for bright targets but for faint stuff I still need at least a small stack.

grantc8017d ago

Agree with @david_walker97 the DSLR struggle is real, single long frames just work better for bright stuff.