These were taken from my back yard in Mesa, AZ. A lot of urban light pollution. These were taken with a Canon 7D on a tripod, with remote shutter release. Solar prominences during the recent eclipse. 800mm, F11, 1/320, ISO 200, taken in Oregon.
I was amazed how easy it was to see the Jupiter moons. And how quickly they orbit. I took some the next day and the moons had visibly moved.
Saturn, however, looked like a blob. I guess that’s the limit of what my camera can do.
This wasn’t the greatest shot of the night, it’s good but there were others with better sky color (we were doing a series of playing with white balance) but the cool thing with it is in the upper left of center I caught a ‘shooting star’.
ETA: Here’s what makes the 50mm f/1.8 so great. (The brand doesn’t matter much as long as it will fit onto your camera.)
The speed of a lens is basically a function of its effective entrance pupil area. An 18mm lens at f/3.5 gives an EPA of just under 22 square millimeters. A 50mm f/1.8, even when stopped down to 2.5, gives an EPA of 314 sqmm, capturing nearly 15x as much light as the 18mm. If you open the 50mm lens it all the way to 1.8 it will capture nearly 30x as much light as the 18mm, but you usually can’t do that unless you want a soft focus effect.
This is another one of mine, showing the region between Casseiopeia and Cepheus, The Milky Way passes through here, accounting for the profusion of background stars. It’s the camera and post-processing that makes all this possible; with my unaided eye I can hardly see these constellations from my back deck, where I took this photo.
I really appreciate your taking the time to explain, Spectre of Pithecanthropus. It helps clarify the things that are still a mystery to me, meaning all these terms that get thrown about. I’ll be conversant one day, but that day is not today.
I mostly photograph landscape nature scenes, close-ups of plants, mushrooms, stuff like that. Things that don’t move much. Living in Oregon means not much is required to capture breathtaking scenic photos. I would also like to try my hand at some of the sky photos such as you have posted. I live in an area with little ambient light, so on clear nights, there are some fine opportunities.
Any thoughts on which of the 2 lenses we’ve been discussing would be better for such work?
Another beautiful star shot, by the way. Love this thread!
I’m in the western part of Eugene myself; it’s very suburban including ridiculously bright street lights every 100 yards or so. Even so there’s enough contrast in my original JPEGs to see that hundreds if stars show up in a single shot.
Definitely the 50mm f/1.8. When I say the 18-55mm is a decent everday lens, I mean more for ordinary terrestrial subjects. I never use it for astrophotography anymore now that I have the other one.
Turn your ISO up to the max (1600 IIRC) and set the exposure to about 3 seconds.
I remember now. You moved here from Southern California a few months ago… I gave you some restaurant recommendations. Hope you’ve settled in ok. The photographs are certainly wonderful!
Some of you may have seen a similar one to this on Facebook about ten months ago. The foreground is the same as the old photo, but I redid the background with a better lens.
From looking up the specs, Aspenglow’s Canon only goes up to ISO-1600, being an older model. I usually use ISO-3200 myself, for astro. Theres no way I can get away with a 13 second exposure on a 50mm lens, especially considering the crop factor which makes it 75mm equivalent.
For starry landscape and Milky Way shots I really don’t have a suitable lens yet–gotta do something about that.
Nice!
I have some nice carnival shots I’ll share one of these days.
Nikon FEs are cheap, because they’re not as ‘professional’ as an FM2n or FM3a. It’d s ‘beginner’s camera’. As a result, they’re cheap; as in, you can find functional ones for $10 or $20. Since I have an FM2n and an FM3a, and since the FEs are so cheap, I bought one in near-mint condition for under $80. One reviewer writes:
It sounds like this would be a good camera for photographing star trails. Since I have ASA 400 film, and assuming I close the lens down to f/22, how long would the exposure be? (I know ambient light is a factor. Unfortunately, I don’t live in a desert.)
I got a 35mm f/1.8 lens a couple of months ago, but because of the late sunsets here this time of year, I haven’t been able to shoot the night sky much.
Still, I managed to get this shot of the region between Orion, Gemini, and Auriga.
f/22 is way to dark at ASA 400. By the time you got enough photons to make an image, the star would have moved, so you are likely to end up with a uniformly fogged image. If you want to try star trails on film, I’d start with no smaller than f/5.6. The longer the exposure, the longer the trail will be. If you aren’t in a dark-sky area, you will start to get background fogging with exposures longer than a few minutes. This is one huge advantage that digital cameras have - you can do photo stacking and subtract the background automatically.
The best way to determine your exposure is to take a night’s worth of test exposures, varying your f-stop and your exposure time, and writing everything down.
You moved here from Southern California a few months ago… I gave you some restaurant recommendations. Hope you’ve settled in ok. The photographs are certainly wonderful!