The sky was quite clear last night after the moon disappeared from view so I decided to take some star shots. Looking forward to trying this someday with the K5 but for now..



The Is some post processing to get this out of the shot but the information is there.

Here is a 30 second f2.8 shot

[fotaki]

I'm impressed with shot #1 but why did you restrict yourself to just ISO 100. I would have thought with the K-7 you could have pushed it a little more - say to 800. Or am I missing something here

[fillerupmac]

Jeff - you'll need to restrict your exposure time on shots like this to 8 seconds or less. Otherwise you'll get the star drift that you see in your photos.

Or use a system to allow your camera to "track", such as a motorized telescope mount.

Al S.

[JeffJS]

I'm impressed with shot #1 but why did you restrict yourself to just ISO 100. I would have thought with the K-7 you could have pushed it a little more - say to 800. Or am I missing something here

No, you aren't missing anything.. I just prefer to stay at the lower ISOs.

Jeff - you'll need to restrict your exposure time on shots like this to 8 seconds or less. Otherwise you'll get the star drift that you see in your photos.

Or use a system to allow your camera to "track", such as a motorized telescope mount.

Al S.

Yes, Thank you Al, I'm very familiar with this and have been hunting a light hobbiest (translation > cheap) solution to a tracking mount.

Thanks both for your comments, always appreciated that someone at least takes the time.

[bdery]

The second one is a bit blurred by the star trails, but the first one looks excellent to me! What was your setup?

I agree with you that as long as you have some means for tracking the stars, low ISO is better, since there isn't much light to work with in the first place.

[JeffJS]

The second one is a bit blurred by the star trails, but the first one looks excellent to me! What was your setup?

I agree with you that as long as you have some means for tracking the stars, low ISO is better, since there isn't much light to work with in the first place.

My tripod is a Manfrotto 358-B with an RC4 ball head. Pretty solid (but expensive). Wired remote, 2 sec MLU. It was actually an accident as I wanted to do about a 10 minute exposure (to get Real star traces) and I failed to get the remote lock on before letting go of the button. Otherwise, exposed exactly as shown in the top bar in the info box. Oh, and about 3am long after the half full moon is out of sight ..

[opiet70]

Yes, Thank you Al, I'm very familiar with this and have been hunting a light hobbiest (translation > cheap) solution to a tracking mount.

As long as you aren't doing more than your camera and lens (i.e. no scope), go for a small, used mount. All telescope mounts have a weight rating on them that you can reference. If you are not extremely experienced in astronomy, go for one that automatically calibrates itself. It'll save you about 10-30 minutes of setup time. Meade made some good ones, but I liked the Celestron mounts best. It all depends on how much you want to spend.

The other thing you can do is simply take about a dozen pictures at 4-6 seconds and stack them. I believe most software is capable of adjusting for the drift of the stars across the frame.

[9thumbs]

No, you aren't missing anything.. I just prefer to stay at the lower ISOs.



Yes, Thank you Al, I'm very familiar with this and have been hunting a light hobbiest (translation > cheap) solution to a tracking mount.

Thanks both for your comments, always appreciated that someone at least takes the time.

You can make your own tracking mount that works quite well. Do a google search for "Barndoor Tracking Mount" It's basically two pieces of wood hinged together with a threaded screw that is turned to compensate for Earth's movement. It will mount easily onto a photo tripod. Although I haven't made one, I've seen them in action. They work great for short wide angle exposures. Can be made for around 10-20 bucks!

[JeffJS]

As long as you aren't doing more than your camera and lens (i.e. no scope), go for a small, used mount. All telescope mounts have a weight rating on them that you can reference. If you are not extremely experienced in astronomy, go for one that automatically calibrates itself. It'll save you about 10-30 minutes of setup time. Meade made some good ones, but I liked the Celestron mounts best. It all depends on how much you want to spend.
.

Part of my problem with this is I don't know what I'm looking at. I know I don't want to spend the $1k+ that I've seen some tracking units listed at. If I'm way off, I'm listening to suggestions.

You can make your own tracking mount that works quite well. Do a google search for "Barndoor Tracking Mount" It's basically two pieces of wood hinged together with a threaded screw that is turned to compensate for Earth's movement. It will mount easily onto a photo tripod. Although I haven't made one, I've seen them in action. They work great for short wide angle exposures. Can be made for around 10-20 bucks!

Actually, I can probably do it for free being a building contractor. I Thought I had seen something like that before, just lost track of it.

Either way, that K28 f2.0 just purchased ought to make some pretty sweet images!