New Camera Advice for Aurora Photography

S

Shelliejade

Messages
6
Name
Michelle
Edit My Images
No
Hello everyone!

I am in desperate need of help with a camera purchase for the sole purpose of shooting decent photographs of the Northern Lights during a road trip in March to Ivalo, Abisko and Tromso.

To give a bit of extra info...

I went on a last minute birthday trip to Iceland in November (last month) and borrowed my Dad's Sony Alpha 100 with the following lens:

- Minolta AF lens 35-105mm 1:3.5 (22) - 4.5

I was/am a complete beginner and a research session revealed that I needed a much wider angle lens etc. However, I actually managed to get some pictures of the lights with the kit during the trip. I shot with manual settings on infinity setting in RAW with a combination of ISO 400 - 600 (to reduce noise) and between 10 - 30seconds. I had a release cable and a sturdy tripod to help with the harsh Icelandic winds.

The lights appeared mainly as white wisps in the sky - it was a full moon during my visit and the colour only appeared in the photographs.

After this somewhat successful experience, it is safe to say that I have the bug and want to buy some kit of my own to use in March. To increase my chances, I am going for at least a week and during a new moon. Ideally, I do not want to spend more than 300 for a second-hand camera and lens. I realise it could be worthwhile to invest a hefty sum into a kit then sell afterwards to recoup costs, but I would prefer to stick to buying a camera/lens within my budget to keep hold of :)

However, after a few weeks of solid research, I am overwhelmed (doesn't take much tbh!) with all the options and camera/lens combinations available. For example, full sensor or cropped, opting for a low budget camera with a very hefty priced lens e.g Sigma/Samyang, DSLR or Mirrorless etc..

What I am sure of is I am not fussed about the camera having Wifi/Bluetooth capabilities.

Any help/suggestions/advice is much appreciated!
 
newbie1 said:
This a big ask for your budget I think. For low light like this I would want a big sensor and wide angle lens with a low f number. How about borrowing your dads camera and getting a better lens. It’s Sony A mount? So how about this https://www.neocamera.com/lens/samyang/16mm_f2_ed_as_umc_cs/alpha
Click to expand...

Yes, that is definitely an option as well. However, the Sony Alpha 100 was released in 2006, 10mp and scores quite low in comparison with newer cameras.

What budget would you suggest for my asking?

Many thanks
 
Last edited:
Shelliejade said:
The lights appeared mainly as white wisps in the sky - it was a full moon during my visit and the colour only appeared in the photographs.
Click to expand...

That's not unusual.

We've seen them at various strengths in Tromso a few times both from ships in the harbour and from out of town. Our best sighting, however, was in Greenland with bright colours from horizon to horizon. Unforgettable!

Have faith and you'll eyeball them in their full multicoloured glory.
 
Shelliejade said:
Yes, that is definitely an option as well. However, the Sony Alpha 100 was released in 2006, 10mp and scores quite low in comparison with newer cameras.

What budget would you suggest for my asking?

Many thanks
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t worry too much about the mpix. I’m still using my Canon 350D (about the same age and mpix) for infrared.

It depends what sort of picture you want, print or web? If print how large do you want?

As you demonstrated you got a picture with the kit you borrowed. So I would think the cheapest option would be a wider lens for that as above.

Next step up from that would be a good compact or compact system camera (say Olympus) and that’s about double your budget, maybe a bit less if you go second hand. These would be good for reasonable sized prints.
 
What is your budget?
 
Photographing Aurora Borealis is difficult on just about every front. Finding it on a clear night is the first hurdle, then it's not very bright at all, often covers a large amount of sky, and can move ('dance') pretty quickly at times. It all adds up to a massive light gathering challenge.

Ideally, you want a full-frame camera (expensive) with good performance at high ISO (a recent model, expensive). Then a very wide angle lens (expensive) with a fast aperture (low max f/number like 1.4 - expensive). And a tripod.

Personally, I wouldn't want to leave anything to chance on a trip like this, so would hire. Eg Nikon D850 with say Sigma 20mm f/1.4 Art lens, or Sigma 14mm f/1.8 Art. From our Stewart at LFH http://www.lensesforhire.co.uk/

Edit: Very round numbers, about £4.5k of kit for £350-ish for 7 days.
 
Last edited:
With hiring, one thing to consider is getting enough practice before you go so you’re not frustrated in the cold and dark and missing the shots.

Try searching Flickr and see the kit used for pictures you like. There are some good ones with less expensive gear.

Personally I would go full frame, good iso, wide angle fast aperture too....buts it’s way out of the OPs budget to purchase.
 
newbie1 said:
With hiring, one thing to consider is getting enough practice before you go so you’re not frustrated in the cold and dark and missing the shots.
<snip>
Click to expand...

Absolutely
 
Hey,

I spent 9 nights in Tromso last year in march aswell in what will be similar weather I imagine. I took two cameras with me. My Nikon D810A with assorted lenses (The two I mainly used for the northern lights were the Samyang 14mm 2.8 and the Nikon 20mm 1.8G) was my primary camera, but I also took my little Canon Eos M with me and used the kit 18-55 and my nikkor 10.5 (f2.8) fisheye (on an adapter).
Now while the Nikon was by far the better camera, at under 200quid the Eos m was pretty capable to be fair. If my Nikon had broken, I could have happily gotten great shots using the Eos. Most shots I took with it were between 13-30 seconds and at ISO 800-1600 and this was more than enough for the situations I found myself in and got pretty decent results. I would have gotten better shots from it had I not been using the Nikon most of the time however.

Of the 9 days there we saw the lights on all bar 2 days and that was due to cloud cover, this leads me onto what my advice would be. Don't worry *too* much about camera. Yes, you need a decent tripod, I would say that any camera that has decent enough high iso (up to 6400) would be sufficient, many entry level cameras do nowadays. A wide 2.8 lens is ok but faster would be better ideally. I loved the 20mm 1.8 on the Nikon.

Spend your time exploring around tromso.
We did not see the lights in tromso city itself . Every night we would have to search out clear skies and using a combination of weather apps, moving locations to cloud or less cloudy areas. Often this might have been just around the corner, or drive for 20 mins and all of a sudden an awful snowing, cloudy night there was a patch of clear sky above a bay. We went as far out to the border, and spent a lot of time in the various areas around Kvaloya,Rekvik, Tromvik,Dafjord, nordkjosbotn,skibotn, lyngen alps and the islands around tromso. Basically following the clearest weather we could. We saw a lot of people staying in just one spot and we suspect they didn't see a lot some nights.... but we def had to work to see the lights.

BTW: the lights varied massively each night. First two nights we thought were great, and were quite bright, but as it turned out the night after that was unbelievable.Then the following times we saw it were a mix, nothing quite matching the third showing but each different. Some of the lights dance, some more a glow, so the only times I used 6400 iso + was when I was trying to have short shutter speeds to capture this better.

This shot was on the Eos m, 13 seconds at ISO 1600 to give you an idea.
_MG_0493 by K2spb, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
mosguido said:
Hey,

I spent 9 nights in Tromso last year in march aswell in what will be similar weather I imagine. I took two cameras with me. My Nikon D810A with assorted lenses (The two I mainly used for the northern lights were the Samyang 14mm 2.8 and the Nikon 20mm 1.8G) was my primary camera, but I also took my little Canon Eos M with me and used the kit 18-55 and my nikkor 10.5 (f2.8) fisheye (on an adapter).
Now while the Nikon was by far the better camera, at under 200quid the Eos m was pretty capable to be fair. If my Nikon had broken, I could have happily gotten great shots using the Eos. Most shots I took with it were between 13-30 seconds and at ISO 800-1600 and this was more than enough for the situations I found myself in and got pretty decent results. I would have gotten better shots from it had I not been using the Nikon most of the time however.

Of the 9 days there we saw the lights on all bar 2 days and that was due to cloud cover, this leads me onto what my advice would be. Don't worry *too* much about camera. Yes, you need a decent tripod, I would say that any camera that has decent enough high iso (up to 6400) would be sufficient, many entry level cameras do nowadays. A wide 2.8 lens is ok but faster would be better ideally. I loved the 20mm 1.8 on the Nikon.

Spend your time exploring around tromso.
We did not see the lights in tromso city itself . Every night we would have to search out clear skies and using a combination of weather apps, moving locations to cloud or less cloudy areas. Often this might have been just around the corner, or drive for 20 mins and all of a sudden an awful snowing, cloudy night there was a patch of clear sky above a bay. We went as far out to the border, and spent a lot of time in the various areas around Kvaloya,Rekvik, Tromvik,Dafjord, nordkjosbotn,skibotn, lyngen alps and the islands around tromso. Basically following the clearest weather we could. We saw a lot of people staying in just one spot and we suspect they didn't see a lot some nights.... but we def had to work to see the lights.

BTW: the lights varied massively each night. First two nights we thought were great, and were quite bright, but as it turned out the night after that was unbelievable.Then the following times we saw it were a mix, nothing quite matching the third showing but each different. Some of the lights dance, some more a glow, so the only times I used 6400 iso + was when I was trying to have short shutter speeds to capture this better.

This shot was on the Eos m, 13 seconds at ISO 1600 to give you an idea.
_MG_0493 by K2spb, on Flickr
Click to expand...

You will be lucky to find a Canon EOS-M for £200 new these days, more like £300 now if you can find one. Possibly a better bet now is the EOS-M10 which goes for £270 with a wider 15-45mm kit lens and has a tilt screen which would be helpful when mounted on a tripod. A few more advances on the original EOS-M aswell.

Great shot with the Nikon Fisheye, got me tempted to try and find one myself as I use the EOS-M for milky way and other astrophotography and had been considering a Samyang fisheye, seeing this opens up the options, so thanks from me for posting this.
 
Just a thought - will you only use your kit for the Aurora?

What may seem like a huge outlay for ten days aurora chasing might not seem so bad if you plan to use it for other things when you get back.

As someone else mentioned above, try to familiarise yourself with your kit before you go, whatever you decide to buy/rent.
 
HoppyUK said:
So she does ;)
Click to expand...

Budgetwise ideally I would like to keep to approx 300 pounds for the camera and lens. But that on the reach that I am able to get an "old but still good enough" camera that is known for capturing the lights and with a decent lens.

However, if there is a recommended used far better quality camera/lens that is available for approx 500 pounds then I might be able to ask Santa Claus to contribute to my camera fund :D

I have seen semi-pro DSLRs full frame released in for example 2005 that are available on ebay second hand but not sure if they are much better than a modern croppsed entry-level DSLR available to buy today?
 
Last edited:
jerry12953 said:
Just a thought - will you only use your kit for the Aurora?

What may seem like a huge outlay for ten days aurora chasing might not seem so bad if you plan to use it for other things when you get back.

As someone else mentioned above, try to familiarise yourself with your kit before you go, whatever you decide to buy/rent.
Click to expand...

Yes for the Aurora, I do wish to continue Northern Light photography as it is a new found obsession.

I also regularly go to the north of England near Snakespass/Peak District way to try and capture them when the KP activity is high enough. I used to go to the higher grounds when I lived in Manchester. Now I am in Cheshire, light pollution gets in the way. But I do plan to head to Scotland more to capture the lights in the future.


I did get practice with my Dad's Sony Alpha 100 before going and very glad I did. Fine-tuned the settings and practised the best position on the tripod etc :)
 
Last edited:
Providing I am lucky to capture the lights during my road trip in March, I am hoping to have decent enough quality photos to print and frame/canvas for my house. However, I am wanting to learn more about Astrophotography and especially the Northern/Southern Lights. I have been looking at doing a Photography course too.

Here are a few pictures that I managed to capture during my trip to Iceland last month using the Sony Alpha 100 and Minolta AF lens 35-105mm 1:3.5 (22) - 4.5



















 
Last edited:
I also tried increasing the ISO at lower shutter time but the finished pictures were awful. Very grainy. Because the lights are not visible to the naked eye, the bright colours were only revealed with longer exposure at between IS0 400-800 14-25seconds.

Reading reviews of the Alpha 100, it became apparent that model does not handle low light very well and noise is horrendous. Which is what I encountered and ended up with blurry photos rather than detailed for the most part.

If I kept my dad’s camera and invested in a high quality lens, will this counter the poor low light sensitivity of the camera?

Many thanks
 
Shelliejade said:
I also tried increasing the ISO at lower shutter time but the finished pictures were awful. Very grainy. Because the lights are not visible to the naked eye, the bright colours were only revealed with longer exposure at between IS0 400-800 14-25seconds.

Reading reviews of the Alpha 100, it became apparent that model does not handle low light very well and noise is horrendous. Which is what I encountered and ended up with blurry photos rather than detailed for the most part.

If I kept my dad’s camera and invested in a high quality lens, will this counter the poor low light sensitivity of the camera?

Many thanks
Click to expand...

Having a lens that lets in more light means you can use a lower ISO for the same exposure time. This will counter poor low light sensitivity to some degree.

For example an f2 lens vs f4 lets in 2 stops more light or 4x the amount of light. This means for the same exposure time you would need only ISO 200 at f2 instead of ISO 800 at f4.

Hope this makes sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top