My first star tracker image.

Moab Man

Senior Member
This is my first star tracker image. No, it's not much and nothing spectacular. My first image was to see if I could achieve round stars... and I did it. This is a four minute exposure pointed at Vega. Between now and the twelfth I will keep practicing setting it up from scratch each night. June 12 is when I head out for a week long photography trip and am heading for dark skies. So for right now, round stars are beautiful! The second shot is a 1 inch slice. It's amazing how many stars are there and the weakest were actually lost in a cursory edit.

W_DSC_0941.jpg

W_DSC_0941_1inch.jpg
 

Moab Man

Senior Member
Looks good, can't wait to see what you do in a dark site.

What jumps out at me most is how clean the image is. Not having to shoot at an ISO in the 1000's, but at the base ISO gives such a clean image.

This image was shot at ISO 400 and was ridiculously overexposed. My subsequent images I dropped down until I found 100 was more than enough. But I wanted to use my very first image from the tracker.
 
Last edited:

Dawg Pics

Senior Member
I would love to get a tracker. I am lucky enough to live driving distance from Joshua Tree National Park. There is a quite pricey overnight class there to learn astrophotography. It sells out. I need to be in better shape due to the hiking, though. :D
 

Moab Man

Senior Member
I'm into it about $1000.

$350 for a rock solid tripod - and it needs to be rock solid for deep space long focal length
$350 for the iOptron Skyguider tracker - from my research this seems to be a really solid unit - cost a bit more
$250 for the iPolar sighting system - this is NEEDED if you are going for the deep space object on a long focal length

If you wanted, if you have a decent tripod, can really get into it for the $350. However, that configuration is best for wide photography like the Milkyway. When you are shooting 300mm+ the rock solid tripod and a computerized alignment are needed.

The next step is the post processing. Milkyway and space images are all in the edit. Deep space gets really hard combined with the hours of learning, and I know Photoshop well.

It really is a daunting task to learn it because good isn't good enough. I want this skill commensurate with my other skills. Sure, I can edit the Milkyway, but deep space nebula... that is a challenge.
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
I'm curious which tripod you use. Carbon Fiber is supposed to be better and helps eliminate some vibrations, but it doesn't necessarily mean they are better than a really heavy aluminum tripod - or one that is weighted down well.
 

Dawg Pics

Senior Member
I used to belong to an astronomy forum. There were a few serious astrophotographers on there, and they had lots of money invested in equipment and software. The cost of equipment is the reason I never entertained it as a serious hobby. Back then, I couldn't even afford a decent camera, much less a computer, stacking software, tracker, etc, etc.
 

Moab Man

Senior Member
I'm curious which tripod you use. Carbon Fiber is supposed to be better and helps eliminate some vibrations, but it doesn't necessarily mean they are better than a really heavy aluminum tripod - or one that is weighted down well.

You hear that said all the time about carbon vs aluminum and it is true. However, if I'm needing carbon to absorb vibration then my tripod is not in the right place to be taking long exposures.
 

Hobbit

Senior Member
i use my cheap and cheerful SLT goto and a 80mm wide field scope with my camera attached, the mount and scope owes me £160 :)
i also have a motorised CG4 EQ mount , but for some reason i cannot get it work properly , greased , re greased, backlash set, re set , Dec motor removed and so on but it will not play :(
 

Whiskeyman

Senior Member
I used to belong to an astronomy forum. There were a few serious astrophotographers on there, and they had lots of money invested in equipment and software. The cost of equipment is the reason I never entertained it as a serious hobby. Back then, I couldn't even afford a decent camera, much less a computer, stacking software, tracker, etc, etc.

I am acquainted with several members of the local astronomy club here, and I have to say that they give photographers a go, and often eclipse them (ha-ha), on how much they spend on equipment.

WM
 

Dawg Pics

Senior Member
@Whiskeyman. Good one.
Yeah, they even have their own observatories. Forum posts looked something like this:
"I converted my attic and constructed a sliding roof. I connected my computer to the super go-to with night vision and piggy-backed my CCD on my scope. My first star test showed some mild coma, so I ground another mirror out of a blank.....I am very happy with the observatory, which is good because after all of the money, I spent, my wife might make me move into it. Oh yeah, it also has a beer cooler." :rolleyes::D
 

Moab Man

Senior Member
i use my cheap and cheerful SLT goto and a 80mm wide field scope with my camera attached, the mount and scope owes me £160 :)
i also have a motorised CG4 EQ mount , but for some reason i cannot get it work properly , greased , re greased, backlash set, re set , Dec motor removed and so on but it will not play :(

Sorry to read that.
 

Whiskeyman

Senior Member
Captain Kristen "Beo" Wolfe - F-35 Demonstration Pilot - Hill AFB, Utah.
View attachment 339438

Rarely do you see the situation where you need less lens for aviation photography, but it's the case here. Just how close were you?

We've got a lot of F-35's flying around where I live in Florida, but no mountains. We need to get some mountains like you have in the background.

;)

WM
 
Last edited:

Moab Man

Senior Member
Rarely do you see the situation where you need less lens for aviation photography, but it's the case here. Just how close were you?

We've got a lot of F-35's flying around where I live in Florida, but no mountains. We need to get some mountains like you have in the background.

;)

WM

How close? I could have thrown a rock and hit the plane.

Boxing up some mountains for you in a flat rate box.
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
Rarely do you see the situation where you need less lens for aviation photography, but it's the case here. Just how close were you?

We've got a lot of F-35's flying around where I live in Florida, but no mountains. We need to get some mountains like you have in the background.

;)

WM

How close? I could have thrown a rock and hit the plane.

Boxing up some mountains for you in a flat rate box.

We are pretty much at sea level here - dig down 6 feet and you run the risk of hitting an underground stream. And the only mountains we have here are the man made ones courtesy of Wast Management (aka landfill). :rolleyes:

Great plane shot, George! :encouragement: It's amazing with the mountains in the background. :) The only way I'd be able to do that here is with a composite unless a plane flies close to the landfill humps. Lol.
 

Moab Man

Senior Member
Scratching my head on how my plane photo ended up here on this thread? Stupid human.

Anyway, here is my first deep space object with my star tracker.

For those wondering, Nikon D500, f/4, ISO 200?, 4 minute exposure.

W_500_7508.jpg
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
Scratching my head on how my plane photo ended up here on this thread? Stupid human.

Anyway, here is my first deep space object with my star tracker.

For those wondering, Nikon D500, f/4, ISO 200?, 4 minute exposure.

George, EXIF says ISO 320.
 
Top