Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hmm.. I still have the 100 raw files I used to make the star trails picture I posted, I never tried to stack them to create a single image for the purpose of noise reduction/cleanness.
I'll try that tonight
Yours is a pretty good shot above. But, did you mean 30s instead of 1/30s? Because, if latter, you'd have a lot of room to reduce ISO down from 3200 and get cleaner image without stacking.
Its getting tempting for me to try shooting the night sky. I have never taken that up seriously. Unfortunately though, I would have to drive at 2-3 hours in any direction to get far enough from light pollution.
Yours is a pretty good shot above. But, did you mean 30s instead of 1/30s? Because, if latter, you'd have a lot of room to reduce ISO down from 3200 and get cleaner image without stacking.
Oh duh, yeah 30 seconds. I was fortunate to get those pics near Mauna Kea, Hawaii though, my testing in Colorado won't be quite as good. The sky was so dark there I saw someone get an "ok" Milky way shot with a point and shoot and no tripod.
Location: A Very Naughtytown In Northwestern Montanifornia U.S.A.
1,088 posts, read 1,947,805 times
Reputation: 1986
I have no telescope for astronomy but -
I did get this odd photo with my Nikon D5100 with the 200 mm Nikor lens.
I zoomed the lens to max and got this odd moon shot.
The photo was dark so in post processing on the computer I added a lot of fill light and ended up with this odd image.
There is a lot of "noise" and under the moon is what I think is a lens anomaly. I saw no clouds in the sky when I took this pic.
I plan on getting a Celestron 8" reflector or larger if I can afford. They have a 40,000 celestial object database and will auto zoom to any on command.
I took this with my d5100 and tamron 28-75 2.8. Set at Iso 1600, 22s, f/4.
I think the lens you have now is a good choice and the only one that might be better is the tokina 11-16. . The pictures you want yours to look like were taken in places so dark that its hard to imagine to city folk. They also have the best of the best cameras which can achieve ridiculously high iso, have great dynamic range, and extremely expensive, fast primes.
I took this with my d5100 and tamron 28-75 2.8. Set at Iso 1600, 22s, f/4.
I think the lens you have now is a good choice and the only one that might be better is the tokina 11-16. . The pictures you want yours to look like were taken in places so dark that its hard to imagine to city folk. They also have the best of the best cameras which can achieve ridiculously high iso, have great dynamic range, and extremely expensive, fast primes.
I decided to purchase the Tokina 11-16 and I'm happy with it so far. Those pictures I linked were on Mauna Kea, Hawaii, so very dark. I live in Denver and take trips out in the mountains too where there is no light pollution, so I should get some good use out of it.
I can sell my Sigma 10-20 for a decent amount too vs what I paid for it, so no biggie
If you want to try something else fast and kinda wide, the 28 f/2.8 AI goes for about $200 or less (I got one for free, also look for the E lens). Not as wide as your Tokina, but just as fast. Theres also the 35/1.8, but it might not be wide enough for you. If you really wanted to, you could probably pick them up and have change left over from your Sigma sale
Yeah having taken the milky way shots I did above it seems like you need really wide to capture the whole thing. 10-15 I would say. I have the 35 f1.8 and it would be good but that's way too narrow
I don't know how friendly Nikon bodies are to all manual lenses, but Samyang 14mm f/2.8 should get a consideration for those looking for a fast ultra-wide (and in this case, a prime lens). And I believe it is a FF lens (and about $400). There's also a 10mm f/2.8 ultra-wide that may be available soon if not now and that one is designed for APS-C (and may be even cheaper, smaller and lighter than the FF 14mm f/2.8).
Good so far, I've only had the chance to shoot some christmas lights
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have no telescope for astronomy but -
