Milky Way?

julianhj

julianhj

Messages
635
Edit My Images
No
I have a 5D2 and a 17-40mm, and I'm off to the USA in a couple of months. A couple of national parks I'm visiting in Utah might be good for star trails and possibly the Milky Way. I'm not sure whether a maximum aperture of f4 is wide enough for getting a decent shot. I'm considering hiring something, but I'm not sure how wide I'll need to go to keep a reasonably low ISO.
 
F4 will be perfect for getting pictures of the stars (y) if you check my signature you'll find a link to a star trails tutorial that I've written if you want static stars you need to keep your exposure as short as possible

There is a formula out there and if I can remember it I'll post it (y)
 
The formula Matthew mentions is the 600 rule.

Divide 600 by the focal length of the lens as it would appear on a 35mm full frame (so, for example, an 18mm lens on a camera with a 1.5 crop factor gives a figure of 27) and the answer is the maximum exposure in seconds that you can use before the stars start to show as trails.

It more a guide than a rule as it varies with latitude but it is a reasonable place to start.

No need to hire another lens for star shots, the 17-40 will be fine.

You could also look at stacking photos - plenty of free software around.

Dave
 
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=417034

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=339822

http://www.drewbuckleyphotography.com/blog/2011/03/17/carreg-samson-startrails/


i55_pp_mw.jpg


anymore advice, give us a shout
 
Thanks all for your advice, that 600 rule sounds good. I'll read up on the links posted.

Cheers!
 
Tringa said:
The formula Matthew mentions is the 600 rule.

Divide 600 by the focal length of the lens as it would appear on a 35mm full frame (so, for example, an 18mm lens on a camera with a 1.5 crop factor gives a figure of 27) and the answer is the maximum exposure in seconds that you can use before the stars start to show as trails.

It more a guide than a rule as it varies with latitude but it is a reasonable place to start.

No need to hire another lens for star shots, the 17-40 will be fine.

You could also look at stacking photos - plenty of free software around.

Dave
Click to expand...

I don't understand this have you said it right? "Divide 600 by the focal length of lens" 600 divided by 18mm is 33.3?
 
Sorry I should have shown a full example and been a bit more careful in my wording.

My camera has a crop factor of 1.5. My kit lens at 18mm gives the same view as a 27mm lens would on a full frame 35mm camera (18 x 1.5 = 27)

Maximum exposure in seconds to prevent trailing = 600/focal length of the lens as it would appear on a 35mm full frame.

In the example above -

600/27 = about 22s


Alternatively

Max exposure = 600/(focal length of lens x crop factor)

Hope this helps.

Dave
 
Ah thanks for bringing this topic back to the top again.
I knew I'd read this rule somewhere but couldn't remember where or what the rule was.

Making a note of it now! ;)
 
Tringa said:
Sorry I should have shown a full example and been a bit more careful in my wording.

My camera has a crop factor of 1.5. My kit lens at 18mm gives the same view as a 27mm lens would on a full frame 35mm camera (18 x 1.5 = 27)

Maximum exposure in seconds to prevent trailing = 600/focal length of the lens as it would appear on a 35mm full frame.

In the example above -

600/27 = about 22s


Alternatively

Max exposure = 600/(focal length of lens x crop factor)

Hope this helps.

Dave
Click to expand...

Yes.Thanks for that.(y)
 
For milky way I'd ideally get Canon 14mm, Zeiss 15mm or adapt Nikon 14-24mm, or Canon 16-35 II in the worst case. You do want it really wide and sharp. 17-40 is a bit slow, and definitely soft in the edges
 
I'm going to try and get something with my Samyang 14mm 2.8 in December. Going up to Galloway forest.

Hopefully I can get some useable images.

In the pics you've taken, can you see the Milky Way with the naked eye? Or is it purely using software to locate where it is.
 
You aren't going to see the Milky Way as detailed as in the photos on this thread but, given a clear night and a dark site it is obvious to the naked eye, once you eyes have adapted to the dark.

Dave
 
Tringa said:
You aren't going to see the Milky Way as detailed as in the photos on this thread but, given a clear night and a dark site it is obvious to the naked eye, once you eyes have adapted to the dark.

Dave
Click to expand...

Have you been up there already?

I'm completely green, so would like to know what to do to prepare.

I've got as far as warm clothes and red torch light so far.
 
I wish I had read this thread before I went out yesterday morning! 600 rule, must remember that one. So I should have set my 35mm on X-Pro for approx 11 seconds (as opposed to 30) and probably upped the ISO. Oh well, bound to be a few more clear nights as we go through the season.
 
I have been reading this with interest, I am going to The Canaries next month and the missus said she would love to do some star gazing. She said to try and get some nice shots of the milky way.

Already some interesting hints and tips :)
 
Last edited:
Deron said:
Just processed an image which I took using my Samyang 14mm @ iso 6400 30secs f/2.8.
Click to expand...

Very impressive, and a nice capture on the left of a galaxy by the looks of it.
As a single frame capture, I'd say your exposure was just a shade too long as the full size image shows elongation of stars towards the outer edge of the lens.
But on the whole, a cracking shot.

What did you use/do for the same image with the light pollution removed?
 
Last edited:
PJ S said:
Very impressive, and a nice capture on the left of a galaxy by the looks of it.
As a single frame capture, I'd say your exposure was just a shade too long as the full size image shows elongation of stars towards the outer edge of the lens.
But on the whole, a cracking shot.

What did you use/do for the same image with the light pollution removed?
Click to expand...

I'd done the calculation and thought I'd be fine as I was doing 30secs using a 14mm on full frame. But I noticed the same. Next time I got there I may try shorter exposures and stack.

I bought some plugins for photoshop...that had automated actions...

http://www.prodigitalsoftware.com/Astronomy_Tools_For_Full_Version.html

worked out about £13...but I'd tried doing it manually and my PS skills aren't too hot...Gave up in the end.

But this was the result.


Mily Way re-edit by D3RON, on Flickr

I also processed another shot with false colour to make it 'prettier' , which also has a meteor in it. As you can see this covers about half the sky of the the first pic.


Scotland Milky Way - False colour by D3RON, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Deron said:
I'd done the calculation and thought I'd be fine as I was doing 30secs using a 14mm on full frame. But I noticed the same. Next time I got there I may try shorter exposures and stack.

I bought some plugins for photoshop...that had automated actions...

http://www.prodigitalsoftware.com/Astronomy_Tools_For_Full_Version.html

worked out about £13...but I'd tried doing it manually and my PS skills aren't too hot...Gave up in the end.

But this was the result.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/9945386@N06/8287981530/
Mily Way re-edit by D3RON, on Flickr

I also processed another shot with false colour to make it 'prettier' , which also has a meteor in it. As you can see this covers about half the sky of the the first pic.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/9945386@N06/8290922822/
Scotland Milky Way - False colour by D3RON, on Flickr
Click to expand...

These are amazing! How do you go about achieving such detail?? Could you get something like this from one single exposure or would you HAVE to stack? Is there another way?
 
ThelVlenace said:
These are amazing! How do you go about achieving such detail?? Could you get something like this from one single exposure or would you HAVE to stack? Is there another way?
Click to expand...

1 single exposure for 30 seconds using my Samyang 14mm at iso 6400 at f/2.8 on my 5dmk2.

No stacking involved...
 
PJ S said:
As a single frame capture, I'd say your exposure was just a shade too long as the full size image shows elongation of stars towards the outer edge of the lens.
Click to expand...


That's nothing to do with exposure time. Exposure time would affect all stars equally across the frame. This is coma from the lens.
 
I'm heading to middle Sweden in a week (pitch black and sparse people!), should I take my 35 1.8 for trying the milky way or might i be able to use my (nikon) 18-55 5.6? (Both nikon lenses)
 
Took this in the New Forest last week! You can just about make it out. Spent the best part of two hours driving round, too much light in the countryside and decided to try the forest (I live about 10 miles from this shot).. got hassled by a bunch of Shetland ponies and several people trying to attempt dogging (I kid you not!)


Stoney Cross Milky Way by keety uk, on Flickr

Taken with the Sigma 10-20mm on my 40d. Went with the old 600 rule. Could do with a faster lens really. and next time I'll know that frozen puddles break easily and are bladdy cold!
 
Last edited:
Errr, yes. Generally in the direction it is.....there are plenty of star walk apps for iOS devices that will show you what's where.
 
keety said:
I use star walk on my ipad.
Click to expand...

i used to use google sky map when i had android and it was brilliant, since going across to iphone never found one that was reliable. i will give this a try
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top