The Milky Way - So many stars: This shot was taken with a full frame Sony A99 and a 24-70 f2.8 Tamron lens at 400 ISO and was a 4 minute image using iOptron to track the stars. It was...

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

This shot was taken with a full frame Sony A99 and a 24-70 f2.8 Tamron lens at 400 ISO and was a 4 minute image using iOptron to track the stars. It was first processed in DxO Optics Pro - Elite Version where is had noise removed, Detail Boosted and ClearImage bringing out the dust lanes more clearly. The a trip to Lightroom where it has been cropped a bit to remove a blurred tree to the right and a totally blown out bottom of the image. This was taken from Henry Coe State Park in California and the city of Gilroy is perhaps 10 miles away to the south and perhaps 2500 feet lower in elevation.

But the thing that I find unbelievable is the number of stars. The bright star a little to the left is Altair. And I am finding this Tamron lens to be about perfect in dealing with bright stars, corner stars and all stars. It seems to handle the bright stars really well and not give me those fat, blooming stars.

Milky Way

(Download)

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

Incredible, isn't it?

I was dabbling on the Hubble site and came across where they pointed it at the darkest spot they could find and took a long exposure.
If you haven't seen it, it is very humbling.
http://youtu.be/oAVjF_7ensg

roicead Loc: delaware

excellent, love all of the stars.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

SonnyE wrote:

Incredible, isn't it?

I was dabbling on the Hubble site and came across where they pointed it at the darkest spot they could find and took a long exposure.
If you haven't seen it, it is very humbling.
http://youtu.be/oAVjF_7ensg

Take a look at the Nov issue of Astronomy Magazine this month (its still in the grocery store magazine section). They have a real nice story on that very topic and also go into the resistance about doing it vs not doing it. There was a very strong opinion that it was a complete waste of Hubble's time and that it should be used for other experiments.

But they did it anyway. Developed the dithering technique for better resolution. And changed our view of the universe forever.

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

JimH123 wrote:

Take a look at the Nov issue of Astronomy Magazine this month (its still in the grocery store magazine section). They have a real nice story on that very topic and also go into the resistance about doing it vs not doing it. There was a very strong opinion that it was a complete waste of Hubble's time and that it should be used for other experiments.

But they did it anyway. Developed the dithering technique for better resolution. And changed our view of the universe forever.

And where are the nay-sayers now... :?: :?: :?:
Hiding in their domes?

A 10 day exposure... in our dreams.

Then the next one was 11 days!

(A shameless plug: )
http://www.astronomy.com/magazine

hettmoe Loc: Rural ND

Nice photo.

CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.

JimH123 wrote:

This shot was taken with a full frame Sony A99 and... (show quote)

OMG look at all those great stars and dust lanes, great job Jim H.
I like my Tamron Lens too. It's the next on down, 16-28mm f/2.8.
Craig

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

CraigFair wrote:

OMG look at all those great stars and dust lanes, great job Jim H.
I like my Tamron Lens too. It's the next on down, 16-28mm f/2.8.
Craig

Thanks. Yes, I should probably get the third member of the family for the wide angle shots. I just read Ken Rockwell's write up on that lens and he likes it a lot.

I have been using an older Minolta 20mm for wide angle, and it looks really good for terrestrial stuff. But pictures of the stars takes really good glass. If its not perfect, you start getting distortion -- i.e. coma and chromatic aberrations. And I can see that in this 20mm lens. I don't like it for stars.

But the two Tamrons are about perfect.

And these full frame lenses work well on my crop sensor bodies too.

And really, its only been in recent years the Tamrons have gotten that good. The older ones can't match the newer ones.

CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.

JimH123 wrote:

Thanks. Yes, I should probably get the third memb... (show quote)

I have had older Tamrons and was dissatisfied. I'm missing the 70-200mm f/2.8. I intend on getting all Tamron glass some day.
Here is the shot I took with the T 16-28mm f/2.8. With Andromeda in the Upper Middle.

Check Download for best view

(Download)

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

CraigFair wrote:

I have had older Tamrons and was dissatisfied. I'm missing the 70-200mm f/2.8. I intend on getting all Tamron glass some day.
Here is the shot I took with the T 16-28mm f/2.8. With Andromeda in the Upper Middle.

Looks like you have the Double Cluster too. Its to the left and down slightly from Andromeda. A little bit too small for an extreme wide angle. You can see my Double Cluster posted last night at 200mm with the Tamron.

And from your image, you can see why I saw so many stars in that image.

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

Wow, Craig.
Jim and your shots are just amazing!
So I presume you are home from the hill?

Maybe I can catch something now.
I got my Intervalometer today. And since it is wireless, I won't have to go out in my undies to start it. ;)

My brain is thinking of how I could incorporate it to my telescope gear, maybe. :roll:
(Never a dull moment between my ears.)

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

SonnyE wrote:

Wow, Craig.
Jim and your shots are just amazing!
So I presume you are home from the hill?

Maybe I can catch something now.
I got my Intervalometer today. And since it is wireless, I won't have to go out in my undies to start it. ;)

My brain is thinking of how I could incorporate it to my telescope gear, maybe. :roll:
(Never a dull moment between my ears.)

The more you do it, the easier it becomes. But I was stuck for a little while last night. I was hitting the remote, and the camera wasn't taking a picture. Took me quite a while to figure out the camera was still on auto focus, and it was not achieving what it considered focus, thus no pictures. Once I fixed that, the clouds started rolling in! Had to quickly get the Double Cluster.

CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.

SonnyE wrote:

Wow, Craig.
Jim and your shots are just amazing!
So I presume you are home from the hill?

Maybe I can catch something now.
I got my Intervalometer today. And since it is wireless, I won't have to go out in my undies to start it. ;)

My brain is thinking of how I could incorporate it to my telescope gear, maybe. :roll:
(Never a dull moment between my ears.)

Got home fro the Hill alright. The black flies were insane, the only way to get rid of them was to light up a smoke. Bug spray no good at all.
Never used a wireless before. Jim H. Can you control the Timer with it to do exposures over 30 sec???
Craig

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

JimH123 wrote:

The more you do it, the easier it becomes. But I was stuck for a little while last night. I was hitting the remote, and the camera wasn't taking a picture. Took me quite a while to figure out the camera was still on auto focus, and it was not achieving what it considered focus, thus no pictures. Once I fixed that, the clouds started rolling in! Had to quickly get the Double Cluster.

Hi Jim!
I had to chuckle at myself.
I inserted the batteries, set the timer, mounted the receiver and plugged it in, and started trying out the new release/intervalometer.
Blinkie lights, action, countdown.... no shutter. :hunf:
Finally found the receiver was on Ch 1.
The control was on Ch 4. :oops:
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Works... now.
I think I should go play. ;)

If I get stuck, I can always read the manual, right? :lol: :roll:

PS: No tracking available right now. But you can't keep a good man down.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

CraigFair wrote:

Got home fro the Hill alright. The black flies were insane, the only way to get rid of them was to light up a smoke. Bug spray no good at all.
Never used a wireless before. Jim H. Can you control the Timer with it to do exposures over 30 sec???
Craig

With the one I am using, I set the camera on Bulb, and I can set whatever time value I want, including hours and hours if I wanted. And I can set a time value for time between shots. And how many shots to take.

I use this one: (I'm sending the one for Nikon, since that is what you use)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Timer-Remote-Control-shutter-Release-For-Nikon-D90-MC-DC2-D7000-D3100-D5100-R8F9-/310756798526?hash=item485a8c703e

I actually have two of them. One for my Sony a-mount bodies, and one for my Sony A6000 which does it through the USB port.