Yet another astronomy shot - wide field Milky Way

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

07/14/2005 12:26:32 PM · #1

Banging my drum again, here's another piggyback milky way shot from the other night:

Just for fun, compare the above digital image to this one, shot six years ago (to the day) with film. An eight minute film exposure vs a 3 minute digital. Astrophotography has come a long way baby.

Message edited by author 2005-07-14 12:46:26.

bod

07/14/2005 12:48:04 PM · #2

My god, it's full of stars!

: )

Awesome. Keep banging.

sacredspirit

Canon EOS-600D/T3i Rebel

07/14/2005 12:55:00 PM · #3

WoW, owe my! Hopefully that fully conveys how I feel about that. Very cool. I gotta get one of those telescopes. LMAO

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/14/2005 12:55:41 PM · #4

You can almost make out Hurricane Emily approaching the North America Nebula. ;-)

Left a comment on the image.

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

07/14/2005 01:51:51 PM · #5

Excellent shot John.

theSaj

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

07/14/2005 03:12:03 PM · #6

Could you give some details on settings.

I tried my first shots of the sky and either had tons of stars or noise not sure which as I used the ground for a um...tripod...and it was to bright to aim at the Big Dipper or Cassieopia or other recognizable object.

Even though I only did like a 30-60 second shot the objects seem blurred. Could the stars have moved that much.... ???

Discraft

Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC for Canon

07/14/2005 03:17:24 PM · #7

great shot once again...
Could you explain better how you take shots of this...
Or can you show as some images of what you are using. thanks in advance

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/14/2005 03:26:20 PM · #8

Originally posted by Discraft:

great shot once again...
Could you explain better how you take shots of this...
Or can you show as some images of what you are using. thanks in advance

Sure, the camera is not attached to the telescope in the normal manner (where the camera looks through the scope), but it is stacked on top of it, "piggyback" fashion:

Pictured above is a medium format Rolo riding in such a manner on my telescope. The camera uses its normal lens and is just pointed at the sky, using the telescope for a mount. The beauty of this setup is that the telescope is tracking, that is, moving as the earth rotates, to prevent stars from trailing.

Hope this explains sufficiently. A google search turns up 1000's of links to sites featuring piggyback astrophotos and methods.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

07/14/2005 03:41:12 PM · #9

Originally posted by theSaj:

Could the stars have moved that much.... ???

Yes. Unless your camera is on a mount that tracks the stars, they'll start to appear fuzzy in only a few seconds.

07/14/2005 03:53:39 PM · #10

Originally posted by theSaj:

Saj, here is a 30 second tripod based shot to show how much stars will trail even in that brief amount of time. 50mm lens, shot cropped just a bit to exaggerate the effect:

My settings for the other shots were as follows: piggyback on a tracking scope (most important setting), exposures ranging between 60 and 180 seconds, f3.5, ISO400. That's it. Just need a scope capable of tracking.

Message edited by author 2005-07-14 16:01:22.

Discraft

Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC for Canon

07/14/2005 03:59:44 PM · #11

but the shot seems so near... how can you get a big magnetude of things?
With only a 50mm lens?

07/14/2005 04:03:04 PM · #12

Originally posted by Discraft:

but the shot seems so near... how can you get a big magnetude of things?
With only a 50mm lens?

Not sure exactly what you mean. That's what a patch of sky that size (~ as wide as big dipper) would look like if your eye were able to absorb photons for many minutes. It basically just brightens the stuff that's normally too faint to see with the unaided eye.

Discraft

Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC for Canon

07/14/2005 04:10:48 PM · #13

oh kn now i understand what you mean and see... thanks a lot and this even gives the shot more enthusiasm... thanks again.

joebok

Fujifilm X100F

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED

07/14/2005 04:12:05 PM · #14

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by theSaj:
Could the stars have moved that much.... ???

Yes. Unless your camera is on a mount that tracks the stars, they'll start to appear fuzzy in only a few seconds.

"Star Trail" pictures are also fun - and don't require a fancy mount - just a regular tripod. The Astronomy Picture of the Day has a great one today: APOD

07/14/2005 04:36:50 PM · #15

Originally posted by joebok:

"Star Trail" pictures are also fun - and don't require a fancy mount - just a regular tripod. The Astronomy Picture of the Day has a great one today: APOD

Star trail pictures are wonderful, but annoyingly difficult to pull off with a digital. Digitals just aren't set up for the long exposure times required for good star trails (an hour or more). That's one of the few realms where film still reigns.

SteveJ

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

07/14/2005 04:57:25 PM · #16

I have to agree, strangeghost with your last post. If a digital camera is left on a long exposure you will get hot pixels...ordinary digital cameras have no cooling devices to keep the sensor temperature down during a long exposure.

Which is why, most people who do long astro pics use special CCD cameras that are cooled.

Just love the Milky Way shot!!

Steve