Edumacate Me...

What's involved with getting into astrophotography?

I shoot with a Canon 40D and 5D and a 70-200mm f/2.8L. Now, I don't know a lot about a lot of things, but I'm gonna' guess that such a set up isn't going to get me into the realm of astrophotography.

I look at some of the shots in the "Celestial Photography" forum here, and I'm consistently blown away by what I see. It's probably the one area of photography which, aside from pictures of the moon, I've never attempted.

What would I need to get started? I'm not afraid of spending a reasonable amount of money, I just have no idea what to spend it on.

Thanks!

Subscribing and I have similar questions.

Have a look through some of the existing threads on this forum as your questions are quite common.
In a nutshell - It's all in the mount. The more you invest in your mount, the more options are available to you.
Having said that, there's a lot you can do with a wider angle lens and a tripod. Again, have a look through the picture section for examples.
There's a lot of learning to do and it will be like starting over, but that's also very satisfying.

SteveInNZ wrote in post #14203826
Have a look through some of the existing threads on this forum as your questions are quite common.
In a nutshell - It's all in the mount. The more you invest in your mount, the more options are available to you.
Having said that, there's a lot you can do with a wider angle lens and a tripod. Again, have a look through the picture section for examples.
There's a lot of learning to do and it will be like starting over, but that's also very satisfying.

Well, I looked through a lot of the existing threads, and didn't really find anything which answered the questions I have. That's why I started a thread. Not to be snippy, but "It's all in the mount" means absolutely nothing to me. I don't know what that's referring to; what mount?

Are there telescopes which actually record images? Are there telescopes which a DSLR can mount to? I know nothing about any of it...

BreitlingFan wrote in post #14204678
Well, I looked through a lot of the existing threads, and didn't really find anything which answered the questions I have. That's why I started a thread. Not to be snippy, but "It's all in the mount" means absolutely nothing to me. I don't know what that's referring to; what mount?

Are there telescopes which actually record images? Are there telescopes which a DSLR can mount to? I know nothing about any of it...

You can begin by reading the "sticky" at the top of this forum, Astro Technique How To's.

There are many sitesthat explain beginning astro photography, it's going to take a little patience on your part to read, ask questions, and just go outside and try some easy shots. Then read and ask more questions.

Hope that helps

In the photo sharing section, is the Astronomy and Celestialforum where you'll find a thread named, You don't need a telescope, this thread is filled with examples of astro photography with just a camera and tripod, take the time to read thru.

One thing I have yet to purchase, but feel it is essential, is an Astro Tracker. Nothing beats alignment and shots without the star trails but, damned they are expensive. (So is the rest of my gear though, right?)


1. A quality tripod
2. Astro Tracker
3. Software (freeware like DSS) to process it all.

It wasn't my intention to sound dismissive, but this forum is likely to be more helpful than an astronomical one, simply because the people asking the questions generally understand photographic aspects and not the astronomical ones. Therefore, the answers reflect that.

Not intending to be snippy back, but the mount is the thing you mount your camera on. The simplest being a tripod where the camera stays still and the stars appear to move as the Earth spins, giving you star trails. Further to that, you can use an astronomical mount of some form (alt-az, german equatorial, astro-track) that will move your camera to follow the stars and/or allow you to point your camera at some defined point in space. There are pros and cons of each.

I think that needed to be said again.

How would you answer your initial question if you substituted "photography" for "astrophotography" ?

BreitlingFan wrote in post #14204678
Well, I looked through a lot of the existing threads, and didn't really find anything which answered the questions I have.

Really? Not even Barry's How to Take Photos of Space article posted in the sticky? I would have thought that would have supplied enough basic information.

the jimmy wrote in post #14205190
In the photo sharing section, is the Astronomy and Celestialforum where you'll find a thread named, You don't need a telescope, this thread is filled with examples of astro photography with just a camera and tripod, take the time to read thru.

I made the mistake of checking out that thread and now I need an astrotrac.

Firstly I should probably get a clue to where things are in the sky I suppose.

SteveInNZ wrote in post #14205240
How would you answer your initial question if you substituted "photography" for "astrophotography" ?

I would answer it as such:

"That's a ridiculously broad subject. Could you narrow it down a little?"

20DNewbie wrote in post #14207401
I made the mistake of checking out that thread and now I need an astrotrac.

Firstly I should probably get a clue to where things are in the sky I suppose.

Good point to the OP, my question would be, can you identfy any constellations? If not, then this would also be helpful.

I would advise NOT spending any (or much) money until you learn more, and try basic astro shots using just a tripod. Doing this will tell you if you are interested to continue.

BreitlingFan wrote in post #14210217
I would answer it as such:

"That's a ridiculously broad subject. Could you narrow it down a little?"

A good answer...and the same goes for astrophotography

The first question to ask is: what do you want to take photos of? The Moon? Widefield shots of the Milky Way? Detailed closeups of nebulae and galaxies?

The answers to those questions will determine whether you need an ultra-sturdy and solid mount, motorized tracking so that you can compensate for the Earth's rotation, types of equipment, and so on.

Astrophotography can be as simple as putting a camera on a tripod and taking a simple short-exposure photo of the night sky, or as complicated and expensive as having a solid pier mount with a motorized equatorial mount on top of that and shooting through a 16" telescope with liquid-cooled CCDs at enormous cost, or anywhere in between.

With your current gears and if you only own a tripod, you are limited to star trails shots and pictures of the moon looking pretty small.

To go further than that, then a lot of learning as depending on the path you take, the requirements are different and hence the cost.

You may be willing to spend a reasonable amount of money but without knowing what you are trying to achieve and what is considered reasonable to you, it's a little bit hard for us to recommend.

As a guide, if you are interest in wide field normally single frame shots or star trail, it can be as cheap as getting a $100 kit lens.

At the other end, shooting faint galaxies and such, the sky's the limit.

As Cyberon said, your 70-200 and a standard tripod put you in kind of the no-man's where you're pretty limited. An ultra-wide angle lens like a Tokina 11-16f/2.8 on a crop, or a fast 24 on a FF camera, will give you some great shots with 20-30 second exposures on a tripod. The summer milky way is a favorite target for that kind of stuff. Putting a 2x teleconverter on your 70-200 on the 40D will give you decent framing on the moon, and it's bright enough that you can use fast enough shutter speeds to prevent motion blur.

For smaller targets at longer focal lengths, you need a tracking mount. At the low end, you can get a used LXD-55 or -75 for probably $300 (I have a -55), and the high end goes up to whatever your bank account can support.