[UncleVanya]

I've been reading a bit of stuff on astrophotography and while m43 isn't as suitable as some it isn't that bad either. I have a trip planned to dark sky country and would like to potentially dip my toes in the water so to speak. I own a nice 12-35 f2.8 Panasonic but I'm reading that this probably won't cut it. Lenses I'm considering need to be useful as landscape lenses as well since my dark sky opportunities in my area are not great.

Lenses I'm thinking about:

Laowa 7.5 f2 - Rectilinear (very wide), moderately priced at $500

Laowa 17mm f1.8 - Rectilinear (not as wide as what I have already but optically faster, cheap $140

Seven Artisans 7.5mm f2.8 - Fisheye, good reputation but must de-fish. I enjoy fisheye perspective, this is much lighter than adapting from K mount and much faster and clearer than the Olympus 9mm body cap fisheye; same cost as the Laowa 17mm.

Have any thoughts or tips?

PS - I also have a Sony A7rIII and a KP so if compelling reasons present that suggests I must not do this on m43 I will consider it. Other factors (wildlife, landscape, travel photos) seem to lend themselves to m43 well enough.

[ProfessorBuzz]

You can do a ton of good astrophotography with a nifty 50 equivalent; constellations are well suited to that size of field, and the star trails aren't bad. When you get into nebular regions, telephoto is necessary.
Wide angle stuff is really good for capturing the Milky Way.

[photoptimist]

Your best bet is to google each lens with the word "astrophotography" as an added search term in hopes of finding reviews or examples of these lenses. If you can't find astro-specific reviews of the lens, then other reviews might help especially if you look for the following three key features:

1) No field curvature: Some lenses have field curvature: they don't focus to the same distance across the entire frame. For example, the center might be focused at infinity but the edges or corners might be focused at 100 ft. For most types of photography, this isn't a major problem. But for astro (wiht the lens wide open) it can mean sharp stars in the center and fuzzy ones in the corners.

2) Low aberrations: Coma, astigmatism, and chromatic aberrations can be astro image killers. Geometric aberrations make the bright stars in the corners turn into fans, sea gulls, sombreros, etc. Chromatic aberrations create color halos in the center and colored smears in the corner.

3) good flare resistance: This is only needed if the moon is in or near the frame. Taking a shot at night with the moon in the frame is like taking a day-time shot with the sun in the frame. The moon is in full sun, it's actually incredibly bright compared to the night sky (about 20 stops brighter than the Milky Way). Typically, a hard-core astrophotographer avoids the moon but it's not always possible given one's travel schedule and when key astronomical events (meteor showers, comets, auroras, etc.) occur.

The good news is that any lens that works well for astro will be nice for landscapes -- both genres of photography benefit from corner-to-corner sharpness of a good lens that has a flat field and low aberrations.

Note: Even if you don't live in a good dark sky area, you can test your lenses and practice your astro techniques anywhere. Shooting a suburban sky might not get you a great photo but you'll be able to see what your Panasonic lens does to the stars in the corners. You can also familiarize yourself with working the camera at night (e.g., getting ∞ focus, setting modes, etc.) At home, with the lens cap on, you can test your camera's limits -- what's the longest shutter time at say ISO 800 or 1600 (with and without noise reduction turned on) that you can use? The idea is that you'll be ready for action when you get to the dark sky site rather than befuddled when something (e.g., interval mode or Bulb mode) doesn't work like you thought it would.

Have fun!

[ProfessorBuzz]

BTW bigger pixels are better - more light gathering and dynamic range from the image, especially when you go to longer focal lengths.

[blues_hawk]

I've done a fair amount of this with my k5 and k5, but for your case and unless weight is an issue, I think that Sony A7's full frame sensor has a huge leg up in sensitivity over any of the others. The Oly's tiny half frame m43 setup is superior for hiking and I've been using mine exclusively this year, but I don't use it for night photography due to its narrow 2x fov crop and somewhat noisy and small sensor. The 7artisans fisheye has nearly been added to my bag several times recently. It's a little slow for fixed mount AP/MW though. If I had the money to spend on it that Laowa 7.5 f2 sounds like a winner, both for ap at f2 and for landscape with the crop making it the fov of a 14mm, wider than my 14mm on the k50 I used for that recent sunrise shot somebody liked.

How did milkyway season sneak up so fast?

[blues_hawk]

Just looking at the sensors, this is how I'd make the case for hauling the big A7 out there. The low light numbers at dxomark are a pretty good indicator of night shooting performance. The em1ii numbers are close to the imx071 sensors in our pentax aps-c cameras(k5/50 etc.) at 1350. My em5ii only rates 896 on the same charts. --it may matter which one you have. I didn't realize the later Em1 got a new sensor finally. But at 3533 the A7 really shines at night, even eclipsing our own venerable K1 (3280).
Of course there is more to it than just numbers, such as lens selection. I'm just backing up my opinion.

Sony A7R III - DxOMark

[UncleVanya]

Your best bet is to google each lens with the word "astrophotography" as an added search term in hopes of finding reviews or examples of these lenses. If you can't find astro-specific reviews of the lens, then other reviews might help especially if you look for the following three key features:

1) No field curvature: Some lenses have field curvature: they don't focus to the same distance across the entire frame. For example, the center might be focused at infinity but the edges or corners might be focused at 100 ft. For most types of photography, this isn't a major problem

2) Low aberrations: Coma, astigmatism, and chromatic aberrations can be astro image killers. Taking an astro

3) good flare resistance: This is only needed if the moon is in or near the frame. Taking a shot at night with the moon in the frame is like taking a day-time shot with the sun in the frame. The moon is in full sun, it's actually incredibly bright compared to the night sky (about 20 stops brighter than the Milky Way). Typically, a hard-core astrophotographer avoids the moon but it's not always possible given one's travel schedule and when key astronomical events (meteor showers, comets, auroras, etc.) occur.

The good news is that any lens that works well for astro will be nice for landscapes -- both genres of photography benefit from corner-to-corner sharpness of a good lens that has a flat field and low aberrations.

Note: Even if you don't live in a good dark sky area, you can test your lenses and practice your astro techniques anywhere. Shooting a suburban sky might not get you a great photo but you'll be able to see what your Panasonic lens does to the stars in the corners. You can also familiarize yourself with working the camera at night (e.g., getting ∞ focus, setting modes, etc.) At home, with the lens cap on, you can test your camera's limits -- what's the longest shutter time at say ISO 800 or 1600 (with and without noise reduction turned on) that you can use? The idea is that you'll be ready for action when you get to the dark sky site rather than befuddled when something (e.g., interval mode or Bulb mode) doesn't work like you thought it would.

Have fun!

That is a very well thought out response. I am going to keep this in mind and I thank you.

[blues_hawk]

That is a very well thought out response. I am going to keep this in mind and I thank you.

Just to be an even bigger nuisance: Simple primes are better, ed and apo, better still. :>


I'd still take the Sony, unless you're hiking or backpacking... (runs away and hides)

[UncleVanya]

I'd still take the Sony, unless you're hiking or backpacking... (runs away and hides)

Interestingly the photons to photos data suggests the KP has a slight edge over the Sony at low light levels but the Sony has more dynamic range at low iso. Essentially by their data the two are very close but the KP accelerator makes it a very good choice also.

My biggest concern with the Sony isn’t the size/weight of the body, it’s the lenses. The FE 24-105 is a nice lens and while large and heavy compared to the DA 18-135 the image quality is excellent. But… once I stray into telephoto territory I have no lenses and the lenses available are pretty expensive and bulky. The camera I take has to fill multiple roles (Astro, landscape, and wildlife). I also sometimes take telephoto landscape shots, so the Sony just seems out of place for to my lack of gear for telephoto use and the bulk and weight of what is available. I’ve used a 100-400 gm and a 200-600 g briefly and both handled better handheld than expected but they weren’t small.

Even the KP seems bulky compared to my m43 gear… I wonder if I ought to just not worry about the Astro part and focus on landscape and wildlife and take whatever I can get on the m43 Astro side and just be happy.

[blues_hawk]

...whatever I can get on the m43 Astro side and just be happy.

Yep! For all around there is so much more available in daylight than the one or two night shoots that it might not even clear up for that seems like good logic, especially for travel. The em5ii coupled with a 75-300mm telephoto actually has the longest reach of anything I have.
I've thought seriously about buying the 7artisans 7.5mm ultra wide for my em5ii for landscape, which I do a lot of. I think the Laowa is overpriced but would give you a slightly better chance if you do get some stars.

It also helps to check the timing and location of the Milky way to plan your attack. Any planetarium app will do. Set the dates and times you think you might get to set something up to get a fix on where it will be so you can position that flying unicorn in the foreground.

It also helps to test the lens you plan to use will reach stellar infinity. Because the temps and seeing are a big factor they sometimes won't focus unless you move the infinity stop a bit(easy operation on old pk glass), and then you can rock it back and forth in live view and take test shots to get the finest point. Live is sometimes sketchy for focus as it will actually look best/brightest when slightly out. Oly has a night preview composition mode that might help too. --extra diligence needed here. I also recommend stopping any lens down a bit to get tighter stars but depending on the lens this can result in odd looking(not a newtonian cross) points on the brighter ones.

Also Sony has no soul. (they sold it) :P

[UncleVanya]

Yep! For all around there is so much more available in daylight than the one or two night shoots that it might not even clear up for that seems like good logic, especially for travel. The em5ii coupled with a 75-300mm telephoto actually has the longest reach of anything I have.
I've thought seriously about buying the 7artisans 7.5mm ultra wide for my em5ii for landscape, which I do a lot of. I think the Laowa is overpriced but would give you a slightly better chance if you do get some stars.

It also helps to check the timing and location of the Milky way to plan your attack. Any planetarium app will do. Set the dates and times you think you might get to set something up to get a fix on where it will be so you can position that flying unicorn in the foreground.

It also helps to test the lens you plan to use will reach stellar infinity. Because the temps and seeing are a big factor they sometimes won't focus unless you move the infinity stop a bit(easy operation on old pk glass), and then you can rock it back and forth in live view and take test shots to get the finest point. Live is sometimes sketchy for focus as it will actually look best/brightest when slightly out. Oly has a night preview composition mode that might help too. --extra diligence needed here. I also recommend stopping any lens down a bit to get tighter stars but depending on the lens this can result in odd looking(not a newtonian cross) points on the brighter ones.

Also Sony has no soul. (they sold it) :P

I agree on the 7 artisans. Cheap and reasonably capable. I have two 12mm zooms (12-35 f2.8 and 12-32) that do a fine job if utltra wide isn’t required but obviously not the best for Astro.

My longest m43 is the 45-175, unless I adapt my fa 300.

[blues_hawk]

I agree on the 7 artisans. Cheap and reasonably capable. I have two 12mm zooms (12-35 f2.8 and 12-32) that do a fine job if utltra wide isn’t required but obviously not the best for Astro.

My longest m43 is the 45-175, unless I adapt my fa 300.

Off topic: My minimalist kit is currently an Oly pen mini (Pm2) I got for a song and the store flat 12-42 ez. It literally fits in a jacket pocket. I still love my em5ii though and it goes along if I expect a view. The 75-300mm stayed home last time(it's a bit heavy) but I wished for it after finding unusually clear views. I did have the 50-150mm with me and it got a workout. Guess I should pull those and see what I got!

Look forward to seeing results from your trip!