Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Landscape Photos

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 27, 2010, 9:00 PM   #21
spy
Senior Member
 
spy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,129
Default

Yes Bynx, everything you need to know is in the article. Copy everything in it and you will have amazing shots.

I'm guessing that the brown colour is one of two things. 1 - your too close or took the shot from within the town or city you live and the brown colour is just light pollution. Drive at least 40 minutes away from any town or city and set up again. 2 - set your wb to auto.

If your wanting to see celestial colours, 1 - your sensor has to be good enough to record it - 2, you MUST use a 2.8 lens - 3, drive to a very dark place where there is NO light pollution - 4, NO MOON - 5, ISO's 1600 for amateur camera bodies and 4000 for pro bodies and lastly - 6, 25 to 30 second shutter. If you can wrangle up all of this, you'll see celestial colour and a zillion stars then pair it all up with a great foreground light painted subject.

Cheers!

Kevin
spy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2010, 8:29 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

Well my Nikon D1X isnt going to do the trick. On top of that when I went down to the lake last nite what do I see but a big orange ball coming up from the horizon. Of all the days for a full moon. Is it possible to get one of those things that telescopes fit onto that revolves with the earth. Then you could take really long exposures and the stars would remain pinpoints instead of lines?
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2010, 9:39 AM   #23
spy
Senior Member
 
spy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,129
Default

Bynx, I think your looking for this. If you do a lot of searching you may find other models. I have found a unit with tracking motor for around $400. I'll have to retrace my steps to the place in the States that is making them.
http://www.samirkharusi.net/skymemo.html
spy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2010, 11:36 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

Well I guess its how serious you take your photography. $1200 is no chump change but to get the results it is capable of producing it would be worth it. Certainly enables one to take the kind of shots not many can produce. Thanks for the info.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2010, 7:59 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 447
Default

Well I had every intension of getting her done......but when I got out there, the moon came up and the clouds rolled in and I had forgotten my remote. Maybe tonite.
emptyquiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2010, 8:39 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
frank-in-toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Toronto Canada
Posts: 1,083
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by emptyquiver View Post
Well I had every intension of getting her done......but when I got out there, the moon came up and the clouds rolled in and I had forgotten my remote. Maybe tonite.
every day you wait, there will be less moon. i'm prepping for the aug 7/8 weekend when i'll try for meteor shots. i have those warming pads to reduce the risk of dew. i'll need to get up one night and test them this weekend.
frank-in-toronto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2010, 10:04 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

Just a dumb question here. Since my camera only goes to ISO 800, but my lens is f1.8, if I require 2.8 lens then wouldnt 1.8 give me the equivalent of ISO 1600?
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2010, 11:08 AM   #28
spy
Senior Member
 
spy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,129
Default

Not dumb......1.8 is way better for letting light in but it's a zoom, probably a 50mm?? You will want a wide angle to get Milky Way shots. You can still use your 50mm of course, but you won't get that nice wide angle look.
spy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2010, 1:50 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 447
Default

Question Spy....can I use my 35 1.8 or would I be better off with my 10-24 3.5. Our should I be looking at something else altogether.
emptyquiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2010, 2:40 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

My f1.8 is a Sigma 28mm. That is wide angle enough isnt it?
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:16 PM.