[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/p/ - Photography

[Advertise on 4chan]

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 59 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


[Advertise on 4chan]


Astro Thread, I’ll start

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1920
Image Height1182
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3958352
bruh, those stars aren't blue.
>>
>>3958352
How do I find infinity with focus-by-wire?

I tried cranking it all the way and naturally only got blobs.
>>
>>3958448
Because if you crank it all the way you can go past infinity on any lens, focus by wire or not. In fact, infinity focus is almost never at infinity mark.

You need to get 5x magnification window, go back from "all the way" a little bit and find point where stars are smallest.
>>
File: Oct 30 2021 06.jpg (297 KB, 2000x1333)
297 KB
297 KB JPG
>>3958462
I'll give that a try. I need a tripod first, now I just plonked down the camera screen down on a garden table. I had no expectation of a usable picture at this point, just messing around learning the camera settings.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX-T3
Camera SoftwareCapture One 21 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time30 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating3200
Lens Aperturef/4.0
Brightness-15.7 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length16.00 mm
Image Width2000
Image Height1333
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3958448
look up Bahtinov masks, but yeah, if you can zoom in on a bright star, you should be able to get a pretty sharp focus, wire or not. It's just about getting the star as small as possible.
>>
File: ngc 6992 sho edit 2 50%.jpg (3.25 MB, 3000x2134)
3.25 MB
3.25 MB JPG
>>3958352
My version of the eastern veil nebula in SHO. Shot with a Skywatcher 72mm doublet refractor, ZWO ASI1600mm-cool camera and Baader narrowband filters.
Just over 4 hours of exposure time and thus I wasn't able to stretch the data too much while controlling noise so the image is not as bright as I would like.
Ha 28x180s
Oiii 27x180s
Sii 28x180s

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 23.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution100 dpi
Vertical Resolution100 dpi
Image Created2021:11:06 13:36:21
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width3000
Image Height2134
>>
Any tips for someone who's completely new to photography getting into astrophotography?
>>
>>3961036
dont unless you have somewhere reliably dark to go and have a lot of money to burn
>>
>>3961036
I have a camera and a tripod I managed to get for free along with a lens, I imagine I can still atleast take some nice looking photos if I know my way around the correct settings and good editing skills, though I know I won't be able to take great photos without better equipment
>>
>>3961038
>>3961042
Sorry, meant to reply to you, not my original comment
>>
>>3961038
>lot off money to burn

It's not really any worse than normal photography gear. $250-400 star tracker and a $150 Chinese manual focus / wide angle / fast lens are all you need to capture some basic landscape astrophotography of the milky way and such.

Now, deep sky photography, yeah that can get expensive. But a basic setup of a like AstroMaster 130EQ and the t-ring and remote automatic shutter thingy would probably run you like $600 which is like a nice Sigma lens
>>
>>3961045
Also, a dslr in the winter will work more comparably to a dedicated astronomy camera. Lower temperature helps noise a lot.
>>
>>3958352
looks kinda blurry for quality 93
is JPEG really that bad?

anyway nice pic, keep em coming
>>
File: Untitled.webm (2.24 MB, 1280x720)
2.24 MB
2.24 MB WEBM
>>
>>3962427
sick!
>>
god damn astro makes my little pp turn into the B I G P E E P E E
>>
File: DSC_0223.jpg (2.7 MB, 2250x1500)
2.7 MB
2.7 MB JPG
First real attempt at it. Still need to work on my photoshop understanding.
>>
File: DSC_0228.jpg (247 KB, 1800x1200)
247 KB
247 KB JPG
just pointed my cheapo nikon at the back of my spotting scope for shits and giggles yesterday lel
Can't wait to have an actual telescope and setup

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D3500
Camera SoftwareVer.1.00
Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.7
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern15358
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)78 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:11:14 00:32:23
Exposure Time1/60 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramShutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating1250
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length52.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width6000
Image Height4000
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
small composite of 3 stacked images, recorded by filming the moon at 4k with an iphone 11, through a 5 inch dobsonian
>>
>>3963136
Very nice. It's cool that you can just grab video with a phone and stack it. Did you mount it to the dob in any way?

>>3963101
Do you have a telephoto lens at all? Or even just a shorter fast lens? You can get some pretty cool images with a tripod, even untracked.
>>
>>3963164
yeah, I used a phone adapter where clamps attach to the eyepiece, the phone is mounted on top
>>
>>3963164
Only have the basic lens it comes with so far, I'm gonna get a 35mm 1.8G for other stuff soon-ish but I wanna get a telescope for actual observation anyway
>>
I've got an M50, a tripod and a kit lens. However, I live in thr middle of nowhere where it gets pretty dark (bortle 2).

Would this shitty manual prime Chinese lens (ttartisan 17mm f1.4) let me get milky way shots?
>>
Hey guys what's your preferred method/software for stacking?
Pic related: I want my moons to look like those rather than the softy ones I currently get from single exposures I then tweak a bit in LR.
>>
>>3963241
It'll be better than kit lens, that's for sure. But you'll still need to stop down to get something decent.
>>
>>3963241
At f1.8 or 1.4, you're gonna outperform your kit lens with ease.
>>
>>3963285
Keep in mind that atmospheric turbulence is a factor in sharpness.
>>
>>3958352
That thumbnail reminds me of this…

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution144 dpi
Vertical Resolution144 dpi
Image Width2387
Image Height1661
>>
>>3963241
Dont but this lens for astro. It is not enough to have fast lens, it also needs to be good opticaly. Basicaly you are looking for a lens that has low coma and low vigneting at fast apetures. Shooting night sky is actually one of most demanding task your lens can take. Your best bet would be Sigma 40mm f1.4 Art. However even I cannot justify buying this expensive glass just to snap sky pictuers every now and then.

You might want to look up Samyang lensese. Depending on your system you might want to shoot 24 f1.4 12 f2 or 16 f2. Also you dont have to shoot night sky with wide lense. You might use long ones too! Look up stacking.
>>
>>3963241
One thing you'll find with cheap Chinese lenses is (in general) horrible coma that makes them totally unsuitable for astro.

One of the best (and cheapest) lenses for the EOS-M series cameras is the Canon 22mm f/2.0. It's all-around excellent, and only 1 stop slower than f/1.4. At ~$180 used, it is *the* lens that justifies even owning an EF-M camera for me.

I haven't tried using it for astro (I have a lot of better EF glass and bodies) but I bet it would do well.
>>
>>3963504
I was going to get a sigma 30mm f1.4 for regular photography, think that'd be a good choice for stacking?
>>
>>3963527
That'd probably be fine, not sure what you'd shoot at that focal length. FF or apcs?
>>
>>3963285
Siril and APP.
>>
>>3961036
https://clarkvision.com/articles/ethics-in-night-photography/ Read it all.
Don't buy spendy shit like he did; you don't even need a tracker.
Stack tripod shots in Siril and just take a fuckload of them. A couple basedjaks have done trackerless videos on YouTube, which are incredibly accessible for retards.
>>
File: Geminids2020_WangJin_2322.jpg (2.86 MB, 2322x3000)
2.86 MB
2.86 MB JPG
How?
>>
>>3964119
Long exposures during a meteor shower in the freezing north where you can actually see the northern lights.
>>
>>3964119
also these images are always composites. you do what you need to do to shoot the sky (long exposures, tracking mounts, stacking, etc) and then you shoot the landscape and splice them together in post.
>>
File: _IMG7730-2.jpg (830 KB, 798x1200)
830 KB
830 KB JPG
I posted this before but this was my attempt at a composite. There was simply no way to capture the sky and the foreground with a single exposure, did one with a closed aperture and long exposure for the subject to blur most of the people in front, also to have some starburst of the lights, then I did a wide open aperture slightly less long exposure for the sky. It didn't help I had to tilt up for the sky shot to eliminate most of the flares coming from the lights.
I would like to post the full size, you can zoom in on the leaves on the trees. Hard to believe it was made by a cheap kit lens (DA 16-45/4)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera ModelPENTAX K-3
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.12 (Windows)
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2017:08:21 20:33:32
Exposure Time20 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/5.6
Exposure Bias-0.7 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length16.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeDistant View
>>
File: _IMG7699_2.jpg (1.99 MB, 2500x1662)
1.99 MB
1.99 MB JPG
>>3964245
Not astro, but here is the side shot of the old forge/smeltery

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera ModelPENTAX K-3
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.9 (Windows)
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2017:06:26 03:18:35
Exposure Time30 sec
F-Numberf/8.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/8.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length16.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeDistant View
>>
Is anyone going to set up for the eclipse tonight?
>>
>>3964470
I only got a couple meh shots before some thick clouds rolled in.
>>
File: 1637313109167.jpg (1.38 MB, 3024x4032)
1.38 MB
1.38 MB JPG
>>3964470
Yeah bro here you go

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3024
Image Height4032
>>
>>3964470
Get some shots and it was fairly clear out
>>
>>3964472
it just cleared out for me, hopefully they turned out nice. now time for bed
>>
File: IMG_2126-1.jpg (1.5 MB, 3089x2061)
1.5 MB
1.5 MB JPG
Gottem

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 7D Mark II
Camera SoftwareRawTherapee 5.8
PhotographerYves Longpres
Lens Size70.00 - 200.00 mm
Firmware VersionFirmware Version 1.1.3
Lens NameEF70-200mm f/2.8L USM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3089
Image Height2061
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2021:11:19 05:13:54
Exposure Time0.3 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length200.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Exposure ModeManual
Focus TypeAuto
Metering ModeEvaluative
SharpnessUnknown
SaturationUnknown
ContrastHigh
Shooting ModeManual
Image SizeLarge
Focus ModeManual
Drive ModeTimed
Flash ModeOff
Compression SettingUnknown
Self-Timer Length2 sec
Macro ModeNormal
White BalanceAuto
Exposure Compensation3
Sensor ISO Speed192
Color Matrix134
>>
>>3964470
Got a few pics at the beginning with an old 400mm two element lens, but missed the beginning and clouds have started coming over
messing around with a frankenstein setup while I wait with fingers crossed (400mm reflex into a nikon > pk convertor into a tamron 2x into my K3iii)
>>
File: Eclipse.jpg (2.09 MB, 5140x3417)
2.09 MB
2.09 MB JPG
>>3964490
Very nice anon

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D7000
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 22.5 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.7
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern902
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)450 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width5140
Image Height3417
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUnknown
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2021:11:20 07:30:07
Exposure Time1 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/5.6
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length300.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width5140
Image Height3417
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3964657
thanks, got really luck too, it was cloudy the whole night but we got a few minutes where it peered out.

I like the glow on yours, however I think you crushed the blacks too much. Are you on the southern hemisphere? trying to figure out how come the light is on the other side for you.

I'm on the Canadian east coast.
>>
File: Blacked.jpg (3.27 MB, 5140x3417)
3.27 MB
3.27 MB JPG
>>3964662
Yea I'm in New Zealand. I think the glow came from clouds that were being super annoying.

How is this for uncrushed blacks?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D7000
Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 4.2 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.7
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern772
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)450 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:11:20 08:38:10
Exposure Time1 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/5.6
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length300.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3964667
>New Zealand.
ah that's great, I thought you guys didn't get it. or maybe it was just Australia.

>How is this for uncrushed blacks?
it's a little less saturated which reduces the color noise a bit. maybe your skies are just very very dark? or was your shot underexposed to begin with? I'm just not a big fan of how pitch black your sky is. but it's a nit pick honestly. your moon is nice and sharp.
>>
File: IMG_9530-min.jpg (1.21 MB, 3024x4032)
1.21 MB
1.21 MB JPG
>>3964672
>ah that's great, I thought you guys didn't get it. or maybe it was just Australia.
Only barely. It was super low on the sky and the first half was below the horizon. Picrel is the first part of my imaging session.
>>
File: GOM_5272-Pano-min.jpg (1.66 MB, 5140x3417)
1.66 MB
1.66 MB JPG
>>3964672
Do you live in a city? I was pointing away from the light pollution of Auckland. I would be surprised to get grey skies.
>>
>>3964674
Yeah straight up in the city center, bortle 7 - 8 skies lmao.
>>
File: Polluted.jpg (760 KB, 4928x3264)
760 KB
760 KB JPG
>>3964676
Unlucky. I was class 4 but I am now class 5.

How do you image in a city? Head to your nearest gang-infested park with expensive photography equipment in the dead of night?

Picrel is the skies on the other side of my house. Horrible. But I can still get dark skies when I look north.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D7000
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 22.5 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.4
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern902
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)105 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width4928
Image Height3264
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUnknown
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2021:11:20 09:04:11
Exposure Time30 sec
F-Numberf/4.5
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating160
Lens Aperturef/4.5
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length70.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width4928
Image Height3264
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3964677
I just shot it from my balcony. the moon is a very easy target. if anything, the sky glow helps even out the shot.

I'm on the third floor and get a pretty clear view of the western sky. luckily the moon was pretty high so it didn't get obscured by buildings or trees.
>>
>>3964677
I bought a shitbox truck and bring folding chairs and my equipment, drive the state highway about 30 minutes outside of the city, pull over on a random farm road and set up shop in the bed of the truck

Truck only cost $1000 so it's not the most expensive thing I've bought for photography lol
>>
>>3964689
I'll add, being right inside the light dome has kind of an interesting effect where the light pollution seems less worse than it is.

Basically, you only have to shoot through 1 thick layer. where if you're let's say, shooting towards a city, from the outside, you have to go through the whole bubble. That's what really fucks your photos. At least that's my observation from shooting in darker areas towards a city. You don't get as much of an ugly gradient if you're already in the light polluted area. Granted, you won't see as much objects, but at least you'll have a uniform looking sky.
>>
>>3964692
comfy.
>>
>>3964674
>>3964667
>>3964657
>>3964490
Would you look at all these unique and creative shots that in no way look the same!
>>
>>3964696
Driving shitbox trucks on country roads at night is comfy regardless of why you're doing it
>>
>>3964713
It's the same shot, the color has just been changed slightly.
>>
>>3964186
>>3964210
Yeah, but how come there's so many geminides in same pic, while stars are completely still. No motion blur on them or anything?
>>
>>3964721
As long as the meteors are brighter than the stars, you just have to put that layer to "brighten only" and slap it on top of the stacked star exposures
>>
>>3964692
That's quite comfy

>>3964689
That's also quite comfy.

>>3964694
Yea but that's probably only true for going up.
>>
>>3964657
They put me in the newspaper bros.
>>
>>3964746
hell yeah brother!
>>
>>3964713
you're missing the point anon.
>>
File: Schwägalp_Sterne.jpg (683 KB, 1600x1200)
683 KB
683 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D750
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.2 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern822
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution600 dpi
Vertical Resolution600 dpi
Image Created2021:09:18 21:29:27
Exposure Time4 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating1000
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeSpot
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length24.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3964757
Actually it is you who is missing the point.
>>
Is the P900 good for Astrophotography? I'd like to get a good camera for my birthday soon, and I've seen some details of it and it looks pretty good in terms of how much detail you can get from the moon I just want to know if there are better ones around the same price range, or more recent since that model came out a few years ago.
>>
>>3964980
The most important thing in astrophotography is getting in as much light as possible.

The P900 has a lot of zoom, but a very narrow aperture. Having a big zoom isn't useful if you need to bump the iso to insane amounts to get an image.

I think you'd be better off buying an older pro model camera, which can be had for pretty cheap second hand. and either building or buying a Newtonian reflector telescope.

Keep in mind tho, astrophotography is not a cheap hobby. specially if you take into account you'll eventually want to get a sky tracker if you're serious about it.
>>
>>3964983

Cheers for the advice and will look into it. It's been a tough choice between the Canon M50 or the Nikkon P900, I can get some pretty good shots where I live when it gets dark but clouds can be a bit of a problem otherwise it shouldn't be too much of an issue.
>>
>>3964980
the camera should be your last thought in astrophotography anon
>>
>>3964989
clouds are always an issue. you kind learn to just accept it.
>>
File: K5_astro.jpg (700 KB, 1280x853)
700 KB
700 KB JPG
>>3964992

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePENTAX
Camera ModelPENTAX K200D
Camera SoftwareK200D Ver 1.00
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)67 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2012:11:26 23:28:20
Exposure Time1/160 sec
F-Numberf/7.1
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
FlashFlash, Compulsory
Focal Length45.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1280
Image Height853
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastHard
SaturationNormal
SharpnessHard
Subject Distance RangeClose View
>>
>>3965007
>those dust flecks are all dandruff
>>
>>3964992
Fuckoff gearfag
>>
File: IMGP6305.jpg (95 KB, 1000x671)
95 KB
95 KB JPG
Took this pic of the big dipper a few years ago. Lens was SMC PENTAX-DA 18-55 AL II
>>
>>3965176
Sadly I lost all EXIF data. It's a SOOC JPEG photo, a tripod was used.
>>
>>3965176
Longer exposure and higher ISO
>>
>>3965296
yeah nah, it looks perfectly fine as it is. Why ruin that with ISO noise?
>>
>>3965132
You have to be a gearfag for astrophotography, moron
>>
>>3965306
I can barely make out the stars
>>
>>3965314

I did >>3964657 with a D7000 I got for $300 on Ebay and a used tripod.
>>
>>3965341
seems like you have a shit screen
t. EIZO enjoyer
>>
>>3965358
Seems like you’re shit at astro
>>
>>3965359
it's okay that you're poor, you can't help it
>>
>>3965367
Lel I’m on vacation in Paris right now.
>>
File: DSC_0308.jpg (1.21 MB, 4164x2776)
1.21 MB
1.21 MB JPG
Took this one this summer.
>>
>>3965371
the night sky isn't blue.
>>
>>3965371

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3965342
You can take images of the moon and milky way shots, sure

but as soon you want to move on to the interesting bits, you need gear
>>
>>3965358
I literally have a ProDisplay XDR. Cope harder.
>>
>>3965385

I've been thinking of getting a star tracker to go with my D7000. Any pointers for shopping for one?
>>
>>3965402
after a lot of research a settled on this one.
https://www.skywatcherusa.com/products/star-adventurer-pro-pack

I shoot with a 7DMKII and a 70-200mm f2.8

not disappointed with it. Only issue is that once you start tracking the sky you get pattern noise from very slight tracking errors that accumulate over time during imaging. So you'll need to find some kind of device that will slightly move the camera every shot to compensate for that
An issue you don't get with tracking manually because you're never exactly where you were when you re-center your shots.
>>
>>3965404
>after a lot of research a settled on this one.
Hmm. What made you decided on that one over the iOptron ones.

I've been looking at this one https://astronz.nz/collections/astrophotography-mounts/products/ioptron-skytracker-pro-mount

> pattern noise
Can't this be corrected with dark frames?
>>
>>3965435
>Hmm. What made you decided on that one over the iOptron ones.
it's a lot sturdier and comes with all the counter weights. the rail system is nice and iirc it can hold more gear ( max weight wise)

>Can't this be corrected with dark frames?
what I'm talking about it called dithering. it's unrelated to your cameras pattern noise. missuses of word.
>>
>>3965358
>>3965401
utterly BTFO
>>
>>3965474
Does the movement need to be each shot or can you just come in every few minutes and adjust your shot?
>>
>>3965503
every few minutes is fine. it's just, pretty finicky to move the camera once it's all setup on the tracker. and you risk bumping the tripod out of alignment and fucking up the tracking.
>>
>>3964746
how;d you manage that?
>>
>>3965550
I submitted it to them
>>
File: Autosave-Edit.jpg (320 KB, 1904x1428)
320 KB
320 KB JPG
I'm surprised I got results like this with the moon out and with pretty nasty light pollution. First time processing using flats/darks/bias frames, kind of just testing the waters. I'm excited to go out again under darker skies and with a tracker.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 11.0.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:11:23 02:08:28
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3964246
>>3964245
damn thats so cool
>>
File: uSYTomxPjhvp9Ab7zssjzh.jpg (1.6 MB, 2048x2048)
1.6 MB
1.6 MB JPG
this bad boy is going to be launching in about a month, are we going to get some next level photos or is it mostly a sciency thing
>>
>>3965372
not even during twilight?
>>
>>3965374
It's true, I changed the white balance to get a blueish result. It makes the noise less obvious and gave a better contrast. I took other pictures with natural color but they didn't shot as much detail.
>>
>>3966485
what object is this?
>>
>>3966513
That's the dumbest looking render I've seen in a long time. If it was exposed for the stars and nebula, the sun-facing portion of the telescope would be completely blown out, and the imaging part would be black. Also not sure if the perspective of the telescope makes sense given the field of view of the background.
>>
>>3966536
Orion Nebula
>>
File: 20211124221646_IMG_5548.jpg (426 KB, 2400x1600)
426 KB
426 KB JPG
Tried to get some shots for my first time tonight. I've got some pretty weak gear right now, but I got a couple shots I like

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2400
Image Height1600
>>
File: 20211124195441_IMG_5507.jpg (527 KB, 2400x1600)
527 KB
527 KB JPG
>>3966917
Weird. Guess the exif data doesn't carry over when I transfer with the EOS app

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2400
Image Height1600
>>
File: 20211124220914_IMG_5533.jpg (416 KB, 2400x1600)
416 KB
416 KB JPG
>>3966917
I've got a ton more, but I probably need to run them through software to color correct. Left auto white balance on like an idiot

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2400
Image Height1600
>>
>>3966919
Don't use the EOS app
Use Lightroom, Darktable or Capture One (AfterShot Pro, Rawtherapee etc...)
>>
>>3959894
>monochrome camera
>color image
>>
>>3964119
thats a sky replacement

>>3964746
>i didnt get paid so someone else could

>>3965401
>i have a laptop
>but it has pro in the name so i must be a pro
>>
>>3967334
imagine being this new
>>
>>3964819
I love this
>>
>>3967340
It's usually recognized to be a good display. Maybe go ask your local Apple store and they will let you have a look.

Otherwise cope and seethe
>>
>>3967334
All cameras are monochrome.
>>
>>3967323
I know, anon. But I was staying with my sister at the park she's a ranger at. No internet, or pc, just my phone. I'll be taking these into a RT when I get home
>>
File: dag 1 annotated.jpg (697 KB, 1992x1398)
697 KB
697 KB JPG
Got this of Comet Leonard, hopefully its gonna be a naked eye comet
>>
>>3965372
My photos are coming out blue, what am I doing wrong
>>
File: example.png (4.01 MB, 1949x1072)
4.01 MB
4.01 MB PNG
>>3967794
Try and balance the channels better, like this
>>
>>3967813
The color is not correct by any means, im just trying to show what its like when all channels are balanced
>>
>>3967794
start by using daylight white balance. that's already going to get you pretty close to true color.
>>
File: P1050298-1.jpg (1.37 MB, 4592x3448)
1.37 MB
1.37 MB JPG
took this today, first successful star picture. glad to see that the 130 dollar tripod at least works great in zero wind condition.

10 sec seems a bit too long for exposure but iso 800 looks good enough after some lightroom. the sky here was clouding up, so on an ideal night the stars would be clearer.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePanasonic
Camera ModelDMC-G80
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.14 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:11:28 00:37:15
Exposure Time10 sec
F-Numberf/1.7
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating800
Lens Aperturef/1.7
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length25.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3967334
imagine being this guy
>>
File: comp.jpg (640 KB, 1936x2164)
640 KB
640 KB JPG
>>3962428
might aswell post this, all images here taken with an iphone 11 and a 5 inch dobsonian

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2021:10:30 18:54:44
>>
File: take8.jpg (3.64 MB, 3479x5210)
3.64 MB
3.64 MB JPG
It's a slow thread so I might aswell post my older image. It was captured in rural area (still a bit light pollution t ho) with dogshit chines fisheye, whic turned out to be suprisingly good for a dogshit chines fisheye.

It's rather underwhelming photo, but it's been a long time since we had good weather for astro so might as well post that.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFujifilm
Camera ModelX-T2
Camera SoftwareCapture One 21 Windows
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)12 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1260 sec
F-Numberf/1.0
ISO Speed Rating800
Lens Aperturef/1.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length8.00 mm
Image Width3479
Image Height5210
>>
File: take1_6.jpg (4.29 MB, 5705x3804)
4.29 MB
4.29 MB JPG
>>3968456
And another one. Cant wait until I get another clear skies.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFujifilm
Camera ModelX-T2
Camera SoftwareCapture One 21 Windows
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time195 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
ISO Speed Rating3200
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length50.00 mm
Image Width5705
Image Height3804
>>
File: m42fullmoon.png (2.85 MB, 1976x1169)
2.85 MB
2.85 MB PNG
m42 with a $1000 lens during fullmoon untracked
>>
>>3968465
>$1000 lens
This tells me nothing, gearfag.
Post settings
>>
File: glue.jpg (2.44 MB, 3456x3456)
2.44 MB
2.44 MB JPG
>>3968467
i think this was a 5 minute stack, cant remember

Camera: Canon 77D
Lens: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
2sec exposures (ignore the trailing, i was just testing)
1600 ISO
Bortle 6
stacked in DSS, processed in PS

this thing is an absolute beast

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationRight-Hand, Top
>>
File: DSC7995 (2).jpg (4.3 MB, 4000x6000)
4.3 MB
4.3 MB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-6000
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.2 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:08:09 22:54:44
Exposure Time25 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating4000
Brightness-9.5 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3968472
Less zoom will allow you more exposure and less ISO without trailing. I think the rule for exposure is something like 500/lens zoom (in mm)
>>
File: m27.png (3.11 MB, 1538x1069)
3.11 MB
3.11 MB PNG
>>3968482
I know, im saving up for a star tracker, im probably going to be buying a Star Watcher Star Adventurer

here is a 4 minute stack of M27 with the same setup
>>
>>3968482
>exposure
*shutter time
>>
>>3968482
Why dont all of you start doing stacking without tracker?
>>
>>3968476
Damn do you actually have a F/1.0 lens?
>>
>>3968529
It's Samyang 12mm f/2, a manual lens. That's why it shows as f/1
>>
>>3968425
last one is the binary cluster in Cassiopeia?
>>
File: P1050309-1.jpg (157 KB, 1080x1080)
157 KB
157 KB JPG
>>3968292
here's another one from today, fairly happy with how this turned out thought maybe not the most interesting view of the city

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePanasonic
Camera ModelDMC-G80
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.14 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:11:28 23:17:34
Exposure Time5 sec
F-Numberf/3.2
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/3.2
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length25.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: DSC_5277.jpg (3.17 MB, 4000x6000)
3.17 MB
3.17 MB JPG
Bros, is there anything other than Orion that i can somewhat capture with 50mm lens?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D3300
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern844
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:11:28 23:47:18
Exposure Time5 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating3200
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Exposure Bias2 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceFine Weather
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3968577
try the north america nebula, andromeda, the pleiades
>>
File: DSC_4194.jpg (3.57 MB, 4000x6000)
3.57 MB
3.57 MB JPG
>>3968578
I took some pictures of parts near the north american nebula but never seen any color (or anywhere else in the milkyway). Am i supposed to fix it in post or are some of my settings wrong on the DSLR?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D3300
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern844
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:11:29 20:14:36
Exposure Time10 sec
F-Numberf/3.5
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating3200
Lens Aperturef/3.5
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceFine Weather
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length18.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3968854
you have to stack it. it won't show in a single exposure.
>>
File: leo1.jpg (591 KB, 2508x2332)
591 KB
591 KB JPG
my very below average attempt at capturing comet leonard, but atleast its visible

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2021:11:29 08:18:34
>>
File: apod2009jan3.jpg (1.78 MB, 2000x1334)
1.78 MB
1.78 MB JPG
>>3968564
it's the double cluster in Perseus. Nice to look at even from my light polluted city roof
>>
>>3969019
>it's the double cluster in Perseus.
you're right, I first found it when I was shooting around Cassiopeia tring to get the heart and soul nebula. That's why I associated it with it.
>>
File: Catalina single frame.jpg (349 KB, 1000x665)
349 KB
349 KB JPG
>>3968472
Reminds me of my early setup, Pentax K-3 with a cheap ass manual Sigma 400/5.6 on a shitty plastic cheapo tripod, it was as stable as a bowl of jello.
This is the only usable shot of the series from comet Catalina in 2015?-ish, even the shutter would shake the whole setup enough for visible kidney shaped stars so stacking didn't work. Also the cheapshit lens focusing ring had a very short throw so I had lots of fun getting things in focus in the -10°C cold
Current setup is not much better, tripod is stable now and I have working Astrotracer with O-GPS1, it is not much better than just a tripod with no tracking.
Early fuckups like this are inevitable but as soon as you see that green blob amongst the stars you just have to make your stuff better and it will move you forward.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera ModelPENTAX K-3
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)600 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2015:12:29 13:29:26
Exposure Time40 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating3200
Lens Aperturef/5.6
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length400.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeDistant View
>>
>>3969150
>Exposure time 40s
Something must have messed up the EXIF, I specifically remember going with 1.5s because 2s was giving me too much trail on screen.
>>
>>3969150
wow, doing untracked astro with a 400mm lens sounds hard, nice picture btw
>>
File: Saturn.png (922 KB, 448x448)
922 KB
922 KB PNG
>>3969154
i used a 1600mm lens to capture this, finding the target using that lens is absolutely horrible
>>
>>3969157
>1600mm
Holy fuck anon, how much that thing run you?
>>
File: shit lens.png (308 KB, 1529x883)
308 KB
308 KB PNG
>>3969160
$89 hahah, bought it as a joke really just wanted to see what it could do, but it works for planetary. focus ring is really tight so getting correct focus is really easy, works great for lunar aswell
>>
File: Jupiter2.png (663 KB, 448x448)
663 KB
663 KB PNG
>>3969164
to clarify, im using a 2x teleconverter for it to get to 1600mm, heres another picture. not as much detail as a telescope but its suprising concidering its just a DLSR and a telephoto
>>
>>3969164
Ohhh shit, I was thinking you had a real badass lens lmao. Still thats an impressive result for a cheap lens. It amazes me how much little cheap bits of gear can improve QoL with photography. Makes me want to pull the trigger on something like these just to give em a shot

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAndroid RP1A.200720.012.N986USQS2DUJA
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1080
Image Height2316
Image OrientationUnknown
>>
File: M45 Pleiades s.jpg (633 KB, 900x1200)
633 KB
633 KB JPG
>>3969150
This is what the Astrotracer can do with a good lens and an easy target
No dark frames or anything fancy, just exposures stacked in DSS then the color, contrast and sharpness enhanced in LR.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2018:05:16 14:59:35
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3969167
you should try venus anon, it's really close to earth right now, I'm sure you could get a really good shot.
>>
File: ogdlvssabxvz.png (2.23 MB, 1787x609)
2.23 MB
2.23 MB PNG
>>3969182
Why no dark frames? They take literally a few seconds.
>>
How jewed is this mount? Anyone else here using it?
>>
>>3969386
Being lazy and fed up with the cold/crouching
>>
>>3969388
It's basically a Star Adventurer but costs more and has the same load. Both allow only one axis corrections as well. Mostly sold where Star Adventurer is difficult to get.
>>
>>3969192
Its to low on the horizon for me usually, i live at 54 degrees north
>>
>>3969472
correction: 59 degrees north
>>
>>3969486
Canuck?
>>
>>3969386
Roger N. Clark says you don't need to do dark frames.
>>
>>3969472
welp, you're on the same boat as me then. shame.
>>
File: Andromeda.jpg (661 KB, 1200x800)
661 KB
661 KB JPG
>>3969182
Dug up another astrotracer image, this was made on a Tamron 70-200/2.8, I think the focus is just a bit off. Also somehow messed up the stacking and lost the color information

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2016:08:02 23:36:00
>>
>>3969518
Norwegian, its pain since stars are pretty much invisible from late april to late august due to the rotation of the earth, and now its way to much snow for me to be outside all night to watch the stars
>>
>>3969599
Do you at least get dark skies?
>>
>>3969604
im in a bortle 5, but the snow is currently causing a lot of reflective light pollution so its a bit hard, currently photographing andromeda since i havent tried that with my new 200mm F2.8 lens
>>
>>3969889
Do post it here when you finish.
>>
File: Screenshot_1.png (2.25 MB, 1873x1248)
2.25 MB
2.25 MB PNG
>>3969899
will do, stacking now

got this cool meteor trail in one of the shots, saw it but didnt expect it to be within the frame
>>
>>3969903
taking the camera from the inside which is 20c to the outside which is -9 caused it to get really out of focus after acclimatizing :(
>>
File: m31-02-dec.png (3.64 MB, 1785x1078)
3.64 MB
3.64 MB PNG
>>3969899
here it is, 15 minute exposure time, i tired using Starnet++ for the first time but im a complete photoshop noob so i couldnt get it to work nicely, but im pretty happy with the result
>>
>>3969928
turned out nice. color is way too blue tho. maybe try fixing that.
>>
>>3969928
Looks nice. Did you edit the raws before stacking?
>>
>>3969457
I got it because I have no pole star due to being down under. Isn't the SA made of plastic and whatnot?
>>
File: 5986865.jpg (749 KB, 1785x1078)
749 KB
749 KB JPG
>>3969928
Plate solved it.
>>
>>3962427
don't jumpscare me like that
>>
File: edit1_final.jpg (1.7 MB, 1947x2952)
1.7 MB
1.7 MB JPG
Cassiopeia wide field.

Canon 80D with a 35mm lens.
Roughly 2.5 hrs of exposure in bortle 7.
>>
>>3964119
jfc this is terrible

Such an incredible amount of noise

Stars are extremely bloated also blown out. Whats with the green shit, is it supposed to look like northern lights?
>>
>>3970042
No, i just removed the ones with motion blur in the m to only stack the good ones.

Here is the stuff i used

Canon 77D
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
ISO 1600
2sec exposures
20 darks
20 flats
20 bias
500 lights or so, cant remember
>>
>>3970206
Wait did you do that without a tracker!
>>
>>3970216
yep, no tracker just manually moveing it after each 99 exposures
>>
>>3970220
You are insane.
>>
>>3970414
when people say this i always imagine the stuff i could capture with a star tracker
>>
>>3970582
It sounds like its past time for you to upgrade.
>>
File: leolens2.jpg (321 KB, 1490x1482)
321 KB
321 KB JPG
got leonard, 100~ images stacked, iphone 11 and a 5 inch dob.

Nothing special, but if it's gone forever I might aswell try

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2021:12:05 10:12:02
>>
>>3969164
>>3969167
I bought that lens a couple years ago just for laughs. Fucking worthless, imo. I got better resolution with 300mm and a 1.4x teleconverter.

>>3969168
The Viltrox extensions aren't bad, honestly. Just don't buy the alphabet soup brands for anything with electrical connections.
>>
>>3971136
Stupid question, but are extensions + a telephoto lens a decent substitute for a dedicated macro lens? I want to experiment with macro photography but don't want to spend $300+ on a lens
>>
>>3971676
No. Get macro extender tubes for a normal lens, they are cheap, basically empty tubes.
>>
>>3971693
That's what I'm talking about lol. I heard you can use a telephoto (which I already have) with tubes for better performance, and that using all 3 tubes with a normal lens generally puts the minimum focal point "behind" the lens
>>
>>3971712
Yeah it works, you will get some CAs and distortion, depending on your specific lens.
Also consider bellows, they are more versatile but you lose the AF (unless you pay like 15x more which is kind of ridiculous considering the only difference is some dumb wires)
>>
>>3971730
>bellows
Just looked them up.
Holy fuck that's a rad looking piece of equipment, but I'd feel pretentious as fuck pulling those out of my bag lmao
>>
>>3971739
Those are for mainly studio shooting where you can spend all the time in the world to dial in the settings and plane of focus
>>
File: P1050335-1.jpg (148 KB, 1080x811)
148 KB
148 KB JPG
today it seems I accidentally photographed some aurora (that I couldn't see myself)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePanasonic
Camera ModelDMC-G80
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.14 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:12:07 02:14:41
Exposure Time10 sec
F-Numberf/5.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating3200
Lens Aperturef/5.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length12.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: _MG_4623.jpg (4.72 MB, 6000x4000)
4.72 MB
4.72 MB JPG
>>3971803
Cool, i photographed some a week ago

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 77D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 11.0 (Windows)
PhotographerMarkus Søreng
Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:11:04 18:48:27
Exposure Time8 sec
F-Numberf/3.5
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating1600
Lens Aperturef/3.5
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length18.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3964657
Wow that's a nice pic. Is that Saturn to the right of the moon, too?
>>
>>3969150
This sounds very un-comfy I’m glad I don’t shoot astro





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.