My first serious effort at star photos.

[ricktas]

that blur is caused by either camera movement of rotation of the Earth.

Looking at the EXIF, it says it was a 30 second exposure, so the blur is being caused by the Earth's rotation. You need a shorter exposure time.

[Mr Felix]

Granted and it suffers the same problem as my initial effort.

Because it is such a "narrow" focus there is less light and I need the longer exposure.
Back on page 1 someone showed me their effort of Orion and the meta-data showed a short lens, but the image was pretty well only the main body of Orion and it was quite bright.

Ok, I shall have to wait until I am getting to the outback where it is darker and try the settings shown from that picture.

It just seems a bit confusing to what I am reading and what I am getting.

No worries. More trial and error.

Thanks.

[ricktas]

Increase your ISO, to get a faster shutter speed, open up the aperture, and then do some noise reduction in post processing.

[ameerat42]

Nothing particularly "wrong" with this shot. It's the Southern Cross slightly trailled. If you didn't want the trailling, then OK.
Your EXIF data shows you used f/6.3 at f=200mm for a 30sec exposure time at ISO200. If that is your widest f-stop OK, but as in my previous post, try upping the aperture - see if you can get an extra f-stop - and (in this case) even up the ISO to 800. But then to stop trailling, expose for only 10 sec.

Alternatively, for a nice trail, stop down to about f/8, drop the ISO to 50 if you can, and shoot for about 2 min (if your camera lets you). Shoot a series like this and use a star stacker to make a nice, long trail.

(After all that, go inside and have a cuppa.)
Am.
Am.

[ameerat42]

...Because it is such a "narrow" focus there is less light and I need the longer exposure...
...Back on page 1 someone showed me their effort of Orion and the meta-data showed a short lens, but the image was pretty well only the main body of Orion and it was quite bright...

...No worries. More trial and error...

Mr Felix. Somehow I missed this post of yours before I wrote my last one.
I would like to point out how lucky you are that you are QUITE WRONG in your first line quoted above.
It is NOT because of your narrower angle (of view) that you need more exposure. Know this: When photographing stars - which are considered "point sources of light" - ONLY the aperture of the objective lens matters.
That translates to "the wider your objective lens (including the aperture you have set it to), the brighter the image of the star". I am saying "aperture" and not "f-stop".

To try to explain: this is because ALL of the light received by the objective (lens or mirror) is concentrated into the "resultant point" on the sensor. It is not the same for when you are photographing the likes of the moon. In that case "f-stop" matters in what exposure is required.

It might be a bit of a concept, but try looking up "photographing point sources of light". It's an important idea if you are to succeed at it.

Other factors still apply, like how dirty the atmosphere is, and how much skylight is reflected.

Also, back on Page 1 that was me, and the exposure was bright because I was using the widest (meagre) aperture I could, and I think I had the ISO up a bit, too.

Correct about trial and error, but also helpful is Q and A.
Am.

[Mr Felix]

Ameerat42.

Thanks.

Actually I looked and thought it was anothe name which posted the shot of Orion.

Jerry.

Anyway, doesn't matter.

I shall read what you posted and try to put it to use. Alas living in Sydney makes dark nights difficult.
That latest show was taken in Wanaka on a cold night.

[arthurking83]

OK, from what I understand of what it is that you want to achieve, the only real solution for you is either a very very expensive camera kit upgrade or a tracking tripod.

With a modern camera body that has reasonable detail level at ISO25600 you can shorten the shutter speed to a reasonable time, and you would also want a much higher quality lens to match it too.
Something that shoots with superb quality at the fastest aperture setting(in Canon world I believe this may be something like a 135/2).

I think you can find a tracking mount for about $500 - $1K which then allows you to shoot 10 mins exposures or more as the camera is automagically rotated to track the stars.

I think in this case you have a few elements working against you: too slow exposure time, and a lens with a too small aperture.

[jjjnettie]

I've already given the best tips I can earlier on in this thread. If you follow them you will be able to get a good night sky portrait.
PLease go back and read them.
For fixed tripod shots, your 18-55mm kit lens @ 18mm is going to give a good wide FOV and will give minimal trailing at say 30-40 seconds.
Use ISO 1600 or 3200.
Yes, focus can be a right pain, but you have the luxury of live view, it's a breeze compared to using early camera models. There are plenty of bright stars out there to focus on. Don't zoom in and focus, then go wide again. The focus point changes.

A tiny wad of blue tac overlapping the focus ring and the lens body may help if the ring is sloppy.

Buying a better camera and lens will NOT make you a better astrophotographer.
If I bought a 7D, does that mean I automatically become an outstanding Wedding Photographer? I don't think so.
Learning the skills necessary to create the photos will.
I use an elderly 20D and a 550D for my imaging. For wide field work, I use the Canon kit 18-55mm lens and the el cheapo Canon Nifty 50mm f1.8. ( I love my nifty 50 )

The learning curve for astro imaging is long, hard and frustrating. There is no easy way around it.
It's entirely different to terrestrial imaging.

As for a tracking EQ mount, I wouldn't recommend one at this stage. It's not just a case of plonking it on the ground and turning it on.
It needs accurate polar alignment, (do you know what the constellation Octans looks like and it's relative position to the SCP? ), and if you intend to go beyond a couple of minutes exposure time, you will need to learn drift alignment and guiding. Which means additional purchases of guide cameras, guide scopes and relevant software.

[jjjnettie]

The sky cleared for 20 minutes tonight so I grabbed the camera and tripod and headed outside.
I used my new Tamron 18-200 lens to take these. So it's by no means a high end lens.
Checking through the view finder, I focussed roughly on the Pointers, then I activated Live View and refined focus. Then I swung over to the Sagittarius region (our Galactic centre) and took a couple of test shots to frame up.
The images I posted are all 30 second exposures, taken with the lens @ 18mm and @ f3.5.
They are taken at ISO800, ISO1600 and ISO3200. Just to show you the difference it can make.

[jjjnettie]

I'm sorry for hi jacking your thread, but I'd love to see you out there imaging the stars too.

[Mr Felix]

No, that's quite all right.

It gives me food for thought.

Me, alone, taking pictures, I have nothing to compare them to.

Seeming more and more examples helps establish for what I am aiming.



Now, you are in QLD. I am in NSW.

Would the different latitudes have much bearing on star trails and long exposure?

[ameerat42]

Good shots jjj for such poor conditions.

Mr Felix, to answer your (two) Qs about latitude:
1) No for terrestrial latitude
2) Yes for celestial latitude.

The No answer is the one you were looking for, the Yes answer is the one you should be considering in stellar photog.
Am.

[jjjnettie]

There is no substitute for just getting out there and practising.
Use the widest lens you have.
These were taken at 18mm. The bigger the lens the more trailing you will get, therefore your exposures will be shorter and your images will be dimmer and less detail will be captured.
If you're really keen, you can download some star maps and see what interesting Nebulae and Clusters you've have in your picture.