[HoutHans]

actually, that is a good point...but come to think of it, ive had instances where I took my glasses from a warm place to a cold (canadian winters), and my glasses instantly steam up.
I wonder if that would also apply to camera lenses. As in, if its a drastic change in the temperature, or atmosphere (ie, former is humid, latter is dry), will that also result in condensation?

i wonder if it would be better, then to keep your camera outside of the bag, but the batteries close to your body, and when ready, pop in the batteries, and have at it?

humm...

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but you will only get condensation on an object that is colder than the ambient temperature; i.e. your cold camera and lenses inside the warm (and probably more humid) room. I'd keep the camera and lenses in the bag when entering the warm room and wait for it to warm up as a whole, with the moisture condensating on the outside of the bag.

[SelrahCharleS]

I don't think anyone's mentioned it yet, but wear/get some gloves you can comfortably operate your camera with while wearing them. The less you have to expose your bare skin to below freezing temps the happier you'll be. Also bring some some heavier mittens you can wear over them or some hand warmers.

As other have mentioned the camera and lens should work fine in those temps. Bring extra batteries and make sure they are fully charged. Also bring a good tripod because the Aurora isn't usually that bright.

[HoutHans]

Aha, yep, gloves/mittens would be nice.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Is that wide enough on the KP or would I want something wider?

It really depends on the day and how you are shooting the NL
The last few times I was out photographing the NL I was shooting 10mm and even then this was not wide enough for that day. If they are high in the sky even using the 10mm and in portrait orientation I wound up clipping much of the NL in the FOV

[hadi]

It really depends on the day and how you are shooting the NL
The last few times I was out photographing the NL I was shooting 10mm and even then this was not wide enough for that day. If they are high in the sky even using the 10mm and in portrait orientation I wound up clipping much of the NL in the FOV

then, perhaps, instead of shooting the ENTIRE sky, why not compose it to have something in the foreground, midground, and background? focus on a distant tree, with the sky in it, and some foreground?
just a thought

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

then, perhaps, instead of shooting the ENTIRE sky, why not compose it to have something in the foreground, midground, and background? focus on a distant tree, with the sky in it, and some foreground?
just a thought

For the last few times I was out shooting the NL how much of the sky was lite up I really wanted to show how much of the NL there was





[IMG][/IMG]

So much of the sky was un fire with the green light I really would have liked to have something in the 8mm for my FF camera

[hadi]

For the last few times I was out shooting the NL how much of the sky was lite up I really wanted to show how much of the NL there was





[/url][/IMG]

So much of the sky was un fire with the green light I really would have liked to have something in the 8mm for my FF camera

for what its, i think those look spectacular. Though I also understand that concept all too well about 'pictures dont do it justice'. thats understandable.

Though it wont be factual (unless its seen by you eyes, its never going to be factual...really), have you, perhaps, considered stretching the image a bit post process? as in, keep the trees as is, but stretch/skew/distort the sky above while maintaining the same aspect ratio (or manipulate it further)? it would make it look like its a significantly wider shot.


something to consider.