Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Astronomy & Celestial Talk 
Thread started 13 Aug 2014 (Wednesday) 13:23
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Focal length for M31

 
archer1960
Goldmember
Avatar
4,930 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 81
Joined Jul 2010
     
Aug 13, 2014 13:23 |  #1

About what focal length would I need to get all of M31 in the frame, with a bit of space around it for composition and tracking leeway? 800mm FF-equivalent or so?


Gripped 7D, gripped, full-spectrum modfied T1i (500D), SX50HS, A2E film body, Tamzooka (150-600), Tamron 90mm/2.8 VC (ver 2), Tamron 18-270 VC, Canon FD 100 f/4.0 macro, Canon 24-105 f/4L,Canon EF 200 f/2.8LII, Canon 85 f/1.8, Tamron Adaptall 2 90mmf/2.5 Macro, Tokina 11-16, Canon EX-430 flash, Vivitar DF-383 flash, Astro-Tech AT6RC and Celestron NexStar 102 GT telescopes, various other semi-crappy manual lenses and stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
SteveInNZ
Goldmember
1,419 posts
Likes: 65
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
     
Aug 13, 2014 15:30 |  #2

On a crop body camera, 300mm focal length is about right. It's quite big.

Steve.


"Treat every photon with respect" - David Malin.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FuzzSummit
Senior Member
Avatar
882 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 548
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
     
Aug 13, 2014 23:16 |  #3

I shot M31 a few years back with a crop body (40D) + 70-200L @ 200mm, and really liked the dense field of stars around it:

IMAGE: https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8243/8580083586_93553a83d0_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/e5ca​VC  (external link) Andromeda Galaxy (external link) by FuzzSummit (external link), on Flickr

I like that much better than the one I shot with the same body @ 300mm (28-300L). At 300mm, it was a bit too tight for me. YMMV.

IMAGE: https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1319/5102133665_5a3c9e9e21_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/8LRL​zP  (external link) Andromeda Galaxy (external link) by FuzzSummit (external link), on Flickr

Website (external link) || Instagram (external link) || Facebook (external link) ||Blog (external link) ||
Canon 6D || Canon 16-35/2.8 | Canon 35/1.4 | Canon 50/1.4 | Canon 70-200/2.8 | Sigma 85/1.4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
archer1960
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
4,930 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 81
Joined Jul 2010
     
Aug 14, 2014 06:58 |  #4

Thanks, guys. The framing you got at 300mm is about what I'm looking for, though the 200mm one isn't bad either. I have a 200/2.8L II, so that would likely be my best option. Even after cropping, I expect it will be sharper than my Tamzooka at 300mm.


Gripped 7D, gripped, full-spectrum modfied T1i (500D), SX50HS, A2E film body, Tamzooka (150-600), Tamron 90mm/2.8 VC (ver 2), Tamron 18-270 VC, Canon FD 100 f/4.0 macro, Canon 24-105 f/4L,Canon EF 200 f/2.8LII, Canon 85 f/1.8, Tamron Adaptall 2 90mmf/2.5 Macro, Tokina 11-16, Canon EX-430 flash, Vivitar DF-383 flash, Astro-Tech AT6RC and Celestron NexStar 102 GT telescopes, various other semi-crappy manual lenses and stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
spotz04
Goldmember
Avatar
1,971 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 30
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Local Yocal, USA
     
Aug 22, 2014 03:01 |  #5

FuzzSummit wrote in post #17095006 (external link)
I like that much better than the one I shot with the same body @ 300mm (28-300L). At 300mm, it was a bit too tight for me. YMMV.

QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/8LRL​zP  (external link) Andromeda Galaxy (external link) by FuzzSummit (external link), on Flickr

Something I always wondered - what is the purpose of varying the length of exposure time? 73 x 30 sec + 72 x 1 min + 68 x 2 min.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FuzzSummit
Senior Member
Avatar
882 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 548
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
     
Aug 22, 2014 14:26 |  #6

spotz04 wrote in post #17110833 (external link)
Something I always wondered - what is the purpose of varying the length of exposure time? 73 x 30 sec + 72 x 1 min + 68 x 2 min.

Because there is a wide range of brightness in the image. If I shot all frames at 2min, then the bright core would get blown out and not contain any detail. Conversely, if I shot all frames at 30sec, then the faint outer edges would not contain much detail. Capturing frames of various lengths and then masking/blending them allows a more balanced final image.

This does not necessarily apply to all astro objects. But for large and bright ones (e.g. Andromeda, Orion, etc.), blending exposures of different lengths is useful.


Website (external link) || Instagram (external link) || Facebook (external link) ||Blog (external link) ||
Canon 6D || Canon 16-35/2.8 | Canon 35/1.4 | Canon 50/1.4 | Canon 70-200/2.8 | Sigma 85/1.4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
spotz04
Goldmember
Avatar
1,971 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 30
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Local Yocal, USA
     
Aug 23, 2014 06:40 as a reply to  @ FuzzSummit's post |  #7

Thanks for the explaination. :D
Great image btw!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mpbowyer
Member
90 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2013
Location: NE Ohio
     
Aug 24, 2014 12:39 |  #8

This is 960mm effective. T3i+2xTC+300F4/L. I had a bad alignment, so it walked in the frame a bit from exposure to exposure. I used the DSS option where it only uses the frame present in all subs, so that crops it a bit.

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i1160.photobuck​et.com …o/Capture_zpseb​a40f81.png (external link)



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
modestglock26
Senior Member
293 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 48
Joined Apr 2014
Location: Georgia
     
Sep 09, 2014 11:11 |  #9

These shots are awesome! I'm still completely lost on how to get something like this with my 40d. I have a 70-300 and a 200-400mm lens but I never thought it could yield something this cool. Not sure if I can even view anything like that here in Georgia.

FuzzSummit wrote in post #17095006 (external link)
I shot M31 a few years back with a crop body (40D) + 70-200L @ 200mm, and really liked the dense field of stars around it:

QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/e5ca​VC  (external link) Andromeda Galaxy (external link) by FuzzSummit (external link), on Flickr

I like that much better than the one I shot with the same body @ 300mm (28-300L). At 300mm, it was a bit too tight for me. YMMV.

QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/8LRL​zP  (external link) Andromeda Galaxy (external link) by FuzzSummit (external link), on Flickr


Sony A7ii and a Ricoh GR II with just about no skill

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
archer1960
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
4,930 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 81
Joined Jul 2010
     
Sep 09, 2014 11:20 |  #10

modestglock26 wrote in post #17144169 (external link)
These shots are awesome! I'm still completely lost on how to get something like this with my 40d. I have a 70-300 and a 200-400mm lens but I never thought it could yield something this cool. Not sure if I can even view anything like that here in Georgia.

You should be able to see it from GA, though it might be a little low on the horizon. You pretty much need a tracking mount of some kind (barn door, standard equatorial mount, etc) and some way of attaching your camera to it. I have an adapter that attaches to the camera's tripod socket, and clamps into the mount just like my telescopes do.


Gripped 7D, gripped, full-spectrum modfied T1i (500D), SX50HS, A2E film body, Tamzooka (150-600), Tamron 90mm/2.8 VC (ver 2), Tamron 18-270 VC, Canon FD 100 f/4.0 macro, Canon 24-105 f/4L,Canon EF 200 f/2.8LII, Canon 85 f/1.8, Tamron Adaptall 2 90mmf/2.5 Macro, Tokina 11-16, Canon EX-430 flash, Vivitar DF-383 flash, Astro-Tech AT6RC and Celestron NexStar 102 GT telescopes, various other semi-crappy manual lenses and stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FuzzSummit
Senior Member
Avatar
882 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 548
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
     
Sep 09, 2014 16:23 |  #11

modestglock26 wrote in post #17144169 (external link)
These shots are awesome! I'm still completely lost on how to get something like this with my 40d. I have a 70-300 and a 200-400mm lens but I never thought it could yield something this cool. Not sure if I can even view anything like that here in Georgia.

Thanks. As archer said, you need dark skies + some way of tracking the motion of the sky, e.g. telescope mount, barndoor tracker, etc. Look up where Andromeda will be in your sky (using something like Stellarium), shoot, and then process (e.g. stacking/calibrating in DeepSkyStacker, editing in Photoshop, etc.).


Website (external link) || Instagram (external link) || Facebook (external link) ||Blog (external link) ||
Canon 6D || Canon 16-35/2.8 | Canon 35/1.4 | Canon 50/1.4 | Canon 70-200/2.8 | Sigma 85/1.4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
modestglock26
Senior Member
293 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 48
Joined Apr 2014
Location: Georgia
     
Sep 09, 2014 18:45 |  #12

I am going to have too look into the tracking stuff as I have zero knowledge on what to do for this type of stuff. I just feel like there can't be any way for my 300m or 400mm to allow me to see m31 as in the above pics. Again, complete newb to this stuff as I normally just make myself happy with my moon shots as I geek out just over seen the details on the moon. Do I have to add in some sort of 2x tele converter with it or am I way off on that?


Sony A7ii and a Ricoh GR II with just about no skill

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
archer1960
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
4,930 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 81
Joined Jul 2010
     
Sep 09, 2014 19:47 |  #13

modestglock26 wrote in post #17144989 (external link)
I am going to have too look into the tracking stuff as I have zero knowledge on what to do for this type of stuff. I just feel like there can't be any way for my 300m or 400mm to allow me to see m31 as in the above pics. Again, complete newb to this stuff as I normally just make myself happy with my moon shots as I geek out just over seen the details on the moon. Do I have to add in some sort of 2x tele converter with it or am I way off on that?

On your 5D, the 400 all by itself should be a fine lens for M31 once you learn how to find it. M32 is about 6 times as wide as the full moon, but without long-ish exposures all you ever see is the core, and miss the arms where all the cool stuff is.


Gripped 7D, gripped, full-spectrum modfied T1i (500D), SX50HS, A2E film body, Tamzooka (150-600), Tamron 90mm/2.8 VC (ver 2), Tamron 18-270 VC, Canon FD 100 f/4.0 macro, Canon 24-105 f/4L,Canon EF 200 f/2.8LII, Canon 85 f/1.8, Tamron Adaptall 2 90mmf/2.5 Macro, Tokina 11-16, Canon EX-430 flash, Vivitar DF-383 flash, Astro-Tech AT6RC and Celestron NexStar 102 GT telescopes, various other semi-crappy manual lenses and stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
modestglock26
Senior Member
293 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 48
Joined Apr 2014
Location: Georgia
     
Sep 09, 2014 20:12 |  #14

archer1960 wrote in post #17145105 (external link)
On your 5D, the 400 all by itself should be a fine lens for M31 once you learn how to find it. M32 is about 6 times as wide as the full moon, but without long-ish exposures all you ever see is the core, and miss the arms where all the cool stuff is.

Thanks for the info! I love being on here cause just about everyday I'm like, "wow I wish I could do that" and it gives me some motivation. I'll have to see what I can do for a poor mans rig for astro stuff. I've always been a fan of looking up for shots be it the moon, clouds, stars or sunsets and rises. My mind still has a hard time accepting seeing the bands of the Milky Way in photos. I wish I could see that here all the time. Something about it just boggles my mind.

Now to see what I can rig up with my current options. Would the Rokinon 8mm 3.5 fisheye be a decent choice to run on the 40d in a wide open portion of sky? I also have a 17-85mm that is nice on the wide end.


Sony A7ii and a Ricoh GR II with just about no skill

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
archer1960
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
4,930 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 81
Joined Jul 2010
     
Sep 10, 2014 07:10 |  #15

modestglock26 wrote in post #17145131 (external link)
Thanks for the info! I love being on here cause just about everyday I'm like, "wow I wish I could do that" and it gives me some motivation. I'll have to see what I can do for a poor mans rig for astro stuff. I've always been a fan of looking up for shots be it the moon, clouds, stars or sunsets and rises. My mind still has a hard time accepting seeing the bands of the Milky Way in photos. I wish I could see that here all the time. Something about it just boggles my mind.

Now to see what I can rig up with my current options. Would the Rokinon 8mm 3.5 fisheye be a decent choice to run on the 40d in a wide open portion of sky? I also have a 17-85mm that is nice on the wide end.

A fisheye's distortion would give an interesting perspective on the Milky Way, that's for sure. Most people use ultrawide rectilinear lenses like a Tokina 11-16 for that, but there's nothing stopping you from trying a fisheye and seeing what you get.


Gripped 7D, gripped, full-spectrum modfied T1i (500D), SX50HS, A2E film body, Tamzooka (150-600), Tamron 90mm/2.8 VC (ver 2), Tamron 18-270 VC, Canon FD 100 f/4.0 macro, Canon 24-105 f/4L,Canon EF 200 f/2.8LII, Canon 85 f/1.8, Tamron Adaptall 2 90mmf/2.5 Macro, Tokina 11-16, Canon EX-430 flash, Vivitar DF-383 flash, Astro-Tech AT6RC and Celestron NexStar 102 GT telescopes, various other semi-crappy manual lenses and stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,285 views & 0 likes for this thread
Focal length for M31
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Astronomy & Celestial Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is bsipka
1010 guests, 347 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.