NJphotodoc Loc: Now in the First State

Looking for your advice / suggestions. Just got back from a week in Hawaii and was blown away by the beauty of the night skies. When I got back home (northern NJ), spoke with a friend who is deep into astronomy and he said that while the night sky here has to take into account background light, pollution, etc., there is still lots of great things to be seen after the sun goes down. When I told him my equipment (D7000, 500mm f6.3 lens), he said that would be more than sufficient. However his buddy said I would be better off getting a telescope and adding either a camera adaptor or use a camera designed to work with a telescope.
I'd welcome your comments and suggestions. I already have a lot invested in my camera and lens, however I don't mind spending a few bucks to get a telescope or other equipment if it would result in some great photos of what I can see in the sky.
Thanks!

pmsc70d Loc: Post Falls, Idaho

One consideration is the field of view. A telescope is just a very long telephoto lens. You can get beautiful pictures of the moon or star clusters, but if you want panoramas, like the Milky Way, you will do better with a regular lens.

Leitz Loc: Solms

I would suggest you post your question in the Astronomy Photography Forum:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-109-1.html

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

The 500mm f6.3 is not a quality lens. I have that lens in f/8. You may be better off getting a fixed lens camera like a Nikon P900 or a Canon SX60. With focal length of 2000mm and 1355mm.

Nymphadora

I have an 8 inch reflector telescope that's 6 feet tall. Narrow field of view. About the widest it can do is two widths of the Pleiades. You need a motor drive to track things...the moon will blind you without an ND-2 or 4. For wide field, usually people want the Milky Way, a camera is much better. But know that anything longer than about 30 seconds will start to smear because of Earth's movement. Simply take multiple exposures and download an Image Stacker for free. It lets you stack multiple images, like 30 or more, of the same view, and it shoves them into alignment. This lets the intensity build up just like a 20 minute exposure, for example. I've used a 300mm old Nikon lens, and sometimes with a 2x extender...or a 500mm mirror....contrast is added in Photoshop, etc. But you'd be amazed what you can get with a 50mm..... Nyms

NJphotodoc Loc: Now in the First State

Just posted the ? on the astronomy page. Really prefer not to buy another camera- have a closet full of bodies and lenses going back to my Ftn. From what I hearing, my bigger concern may be taking into account the Earth's rotation on long exposures

Nymphadora

That's why I mentioned an Image Stacker. You stack up shorter exposures. I'm trying to do all this by memory...haven't done it for awhile.... I've used my Ftn many times.... don't buy another body if you already have them.

ecobin Loc: Paoli, PA

Before you spend any $ I suggest that you google "astro photography" and read as much as you can handle. Then decide where you want to start.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Yes - the rotation is an issue. The second is light pollution in city settings, but there are digital techniques to deal with that. I have a friend who is a serious astrophotographer, who takes fabulous photos from downtown Charleston, SC. You can either use the image stacking technique or buy a tracking, motor drive mount. A computer-driven mount with a database of celestial objects is very convenient, and if large/sturdy enough, can be used to support a telescope if you decide to go that way in the future.

NJphotodoc Loc: Now in the First State

Great advice from all and thanks! My friend who is in a astronomy club has invited me to attend a mtg so I can evaluate the options hands-on. Trying to do it right w/o costing too much. He said a lot of members often have equipment they would like get rid of (and use the money to buy new toys) so this might be the best way to go.
Did look at the equatorial mounts online (Orion, Celestron, Meade, etc.) and the specs look decent within my price range and being able to hold my camera and lenses. And if all else fails, I can ask my kids to get it for me for the holidays.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Njphotodoc -- started on the same trip this morning -- check out a couple of basic tutorials on the Astro pages. Looks as if it is possible to get a good start with mostly regular gear, and a couple of mostly free DIY gadgets. Believe I'll play a bit before I think about buying more stuff.

wkocken Loc: McGregor, MN

It definitely depends on what you want to take photos of. Widefield photos of the Milky Way require a wide aperture, wide angle lens. I use a 12-24F4 on my crop sensor camera and I wish I had an F2.8 lens and a full frame camera.

If you want to take photos of celestial objects you're going to want an equatorial mount. You could piggy back your camera-lens combination on top of a telescope and let it ride along. You could skip the telescope and just mount the camera on the mount. There is even a drive called a barn-door tracker that you could make to carry your camera and allow it to track the sky for example http://petapixel.com/2013/08/10/buidling-a-diy-barn-door-tracking-mount-for-long-exposure-astrophotography/
or
http://makezine.com/2015/09/11/star-trackers-for-night-sky-photos/

Photos of planets and the moon are often done with webcams attached to telescopes. Software is used to extract the sharpest frames out of the movie and stack them to produce stunning NASA quality images.

Of course you could attach your camera directly to the telescope. This will produce the highest quality images at the cost of increased complexity and a steeper learning curve. Some of the high quality telescopes cost thousands of dollars, sturdy equatorial mounts and dedicated astro cameras push the investment much higher.

whitewolfowner

The best thing you can do before you spend any money on astro photography is to join an astronomy club and find members that shoot the sky. There has been a load of digital cameras that hook up to telescopes that do very well and for relatively cheap. You can also use your camera, but most use wide angle lenses when they do that. Learn what's going on first because astronomy can as expensive or even more expensive than photography is.

mjmoore17 Loc: Philadelphia, PA area

If you end up wanting to use wide angle lens with f1.4 or 2.8, I would suggest going to the southern part of your state. The pine barrens and Cape May offer about as dark of sky as you would get in NJ. Also, there is a state park in PA that is dedicated to dark sky viewing.

ecobin Loc: Paoli, PA

What PA park are you referring to? Thanks