Can an entry level DSLR be used for astrophotography?
Absolutely they can, and it’s what I recommend most for beginners.What I started withI personally started with a used Canon EOS Rebel XSI (450D) with a kit lens. (18–55mm). This was the camera I used to capture my very first wide-angle astrophotography images of the night sky from my parents backyard.A tripod is all you need to take some beautiful nightscapes including constellations, star clusters, the Milky Way and the planets. It’s very important to not touch the camera during a long exposure, as the slightest shake will ruin the image.By using bulb mode you can take 30-second long exposure images, to record many more stars in your image than your eyes can see visually. My first shots included the Pleiades, Orion and the Milky Way.Under the right conditions (dark, moonless sky) The brighter deep-sky objects will show up in a wide angle shot. For instance, the Lagoon nebula and eagle nebula will look like little pink smudges in Sagittarius.Here is a photo of the Milky Way I took using a DSLR camera and a 17–40mm F/4L lens. (Stacked 30-second exposures)Through a telescopeI used the same entry level DSLR for my first deep-sky images through a telescope. With a t-ring and adapter, the camera connects directly to the telescope like a camera lens would. This is called prime focus astrophotography.The difficult part is tracking the night sky, and compensating for the rotation of the Earth. To take exposures longer than 30 seconds requires an equatorial mount to avoid star trailing.Here is my current deep-sky astrophotography setup. Here you’ll see everything needed for long exposure deep-sky images of nebulae, galaxies, star clusters and more.Here are some deep-sky objects captured using an entry-level DSLR (Canon EOS Rebel Xsi) through a telescope.Which camera should you use?As others have mentioned, Canon and Nikon are superb choices when it comes to astrophotography. Just remember that you will need to stick with the brand you choose for a long time!For example, over the years I have invested in a number of lenses for my Canon cameras. It only makes sense to stick with a camera body that supports my my various lenses.If you want a hard answer, I’d say go for the Canon EOS Rebel T7i with a kit lens as a beginner. Live-view focus on stars, great noise performance, easy to use and an endless supply of lenses in both the new and used markets.Beginner Astrophotography Presentation (Video)
What are the general settings for astrophotography with a kit lens?
First and foremost: get to where it’s the darkest. DarkSiteFinder.com - Light Pollution Map will give you an idea of locations, you’re interested in areas that are at least bright blue on this map, preferably dark blue and ideally dark gray or black. Obviously, such areas are usually quite hard to get to, impossible to get to without a car and definitely there are next to no amenities other than those you bring yourself in a said car (supposedly a real 4×4… and don’t forget to take any trash back with you). Stop the engine, shut down all car lights. Oh, almost forgot: do it on a cloudless and moonless night.You need a sturdy tripod, unconditionally, and point your camera up. You’ll obviously want to capture the Milky Way. You’ll see it.Set your camera to ISO 3200, your lens at 18 or 16 mm, aperture at 3.5 (assuming your kit lens is 18–55/3.5–5.6 or 16–50/3.5–5.6) and shutter speed… well, I guess 8 seconds (8″). That will be it. Mind that any f/2 or faster prime lens will give you noticeably better results, with different shutter speed settings, of course. Even something as trivial as 50/1.8, 35/1.8 and so forth. If you’ll get the taste of it, let me congratulate you: you have a destination for all your income scheduled for years. If you want star trails, it’s easier (ISO setting will be much, much lower), except that you have to have cable release and some kind of power source, because your camera won’t make it for long enough (your shutter speed will be measured in hours).If you want to do deep sky photography with all that nebulae, you’re in for expense: IR-modified camera, a large-aperture telescope with motor-driven tracking mount, getting to remote mountain regions and then spending hours in specialized software. Definitely not a task for a kit lens on a conventional camera.
Is the Nikon 35mm F/1.8g lens good for astrophotography on a Nikon D3300?
That depends on what you’re taking a picture of. I use a wide angle lens for aurora borealis because it’s a landscape type shot. It would also be good for the milky way or star trails/meteor showers, where you want to incorporate part of the landscape into your composition.If you like to shoot nebulas, however, not so much.
Which of these cameras would be best for astronomy photos?
Im not too keen on photography jargon but im looking for a mid range camera that can do some time lapse photos/ video of the stars moving through the sky. My prime candidates thus far are: - Nikon d3200 - Fujifilm FinePix S8350 - Olympus PEN E-PL5 ..im leaning towards the olympus because its the lightest on the wallet & coupling it with a rokinon 500mm telephoto but would appreciate some knowledgeable input just in case this is a stupid idea
Is there a cost-equivalent way to use my Nikon D5100 for telephoto and have the same or better IQ as the new P900?
Well you have to decide what your goal is.Is it simply to have a camera that can take pictures from really far away?Or, is it to take good pictures?In photography, you get what you pay for. Sure, the user is what makes a picture great and a pro can get great pictures out of most cameras, but there are limitations. A camera like the P900 is going to have more chromatic aberration and much more noise than a good DSLR and fast glass. Just like the D5100 is going to have more of those than a D800. The P900 may seem like it will fix all your problems, but it is not going to get better pictures than a dedicated long range lens/DSLR combo.But, like I said, if all you want is a camera that can reach 700mm, then go for it. Although, personally, I don't see a need for that. There are very few pro lenses in that range. Many wildlife photographers get amazing shots with 300mm lenses. It looks like they both have about 16 MP, although I've read the "true" resolution of the P900 is only 9 MP, so the other factor you take into consideration is cropping. If you have the P900, you wont have to crop to get closer, whereas if you have a 300mm lens and you want the subject to be larger, you'll have to crop it, thus losing pixels. However, again, pros have been using cameras with 10-12 mp for years with no problems, so that won't be a huge issue unless you want large prints. But then again, the noise and aberrations from the P900 will show up there too.Finally, you'll also need to think about a tripod. For most DSLR shots with a long lens, if lighting is decent, you can hand hold the camera. However, with a zoom that is 700mm+ on the P900, you will likely need at least a monopod and most likely a tripod with a very sturdy head. That alone can put you back as much as a used Nikon 70-300 lens. I've seen used Nikon 300mm lenses go for around $800 (just a few hundred more than the P900). Use that and a teleconverter and you have 600mm+. So again, you'll have to think to yourself. Do you want to improve your photography in the sense that you will need to work on the "art" of framing subjects and using your problem solving skills and your legs/eyes to get a good shot? Or do you want a camera that can simply zoom into anything and get a picture? Either way it'll be an investment. Obviously the P900 will be cheaper.
Long exposure light photo, Nikon d3200?
What no help from the Owners Manual? Pages 55 and 57 covers on how to change the shutter speed http://www.nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/dslr...