Hank47

I am going to Iceland and hope to see the Northern Lights. I am a very amateur photographer with appropriate cameras - Nikon 7100 with a Nikkor 18-140 3.5-5.6 lens, or a Nikkor 18-55, 3.5-5.6. I also have a Panasonic FZ-300 with a 25-600, 2.8-8.0. Can I expect to get shots of the Northern Lights with either of these? If not, any reasonable recommendations, e.g., renting a better lens, don't bother, enjoy whatever I can see but forget photos?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

The wider the better.....

I used a 50 ƒ/1.4.
Need tripod, Platypod, or something.
I think mine were around 5 second exposures.
The smaller the aperture, the longer the exposure.
(I had to brace the camera against the side of the bus. )

ricardo00

I know people who have gotten photos with Phone cameras. That said, the faster, wider lens get better pics. For sure you need a tripod or someway to hold the camera/lens stable for 5 seconds or more. So the question is, how much do you want to "bother" to get photos. And a lot will depend on how strong the aurora is and how cloudy it is, both of which you can't control.
The first time I photographed the aurora I used the D200 (which isn't as good as the D7100) and the 18-200mm lens (f/3.5-5.6):

(Download)

nokk Loc: usa

i missed out on my first aurora in sighting in iceland by thinking it was going to be a bright green sky. it wasn't. it was a long wispy white cloud that stretched from horizon to horizon. it moved a little, but there was no color. found out the next day that it was the aurora. luckily, it was back the next night. i left the shutter open for 40 seconds before i got any decent color out of the aurora.

set up for it like you would with any other landscape shot with a lot of sky. a tripod is a must, and a cable release would be very helpful. the last night i was in iceland was a full on, bright green sky, like you'd expect.

this wispy white cloud to the naked eye:
fuji 50r & 32-64mm @ 32mm
40 sec, f/4.0, iso 1000
car was lit by a nearby building


much brighter aurora, visible to the naked eye:
fuji 50r @ 32-64mm @ 32mm
5 sec, f/4.0, iso 1600

PACSMAN Loc: MA

I've been there a few times. You will need a sturdy tripod and I would at least rent a faster lens. I would recommend the nikkor 20 1.8, it's wide and fast. A 1 week rental will be less than $100.

ralfstinson Loc: SF Bay Area

I have made over 6 trips to Fairbanks to photograph the Aurora. If you really want to do your homework in advance, download Patrick Endres's PDF book on Photographing the Lights! This is extreme photography! It is cold, and sometimes very cold. You are away from civilization. It is night photography. While practice not purchase is good advice, you will need to make some significant purchases. Good D-SLR or Mirrorless camera with an wide angle fast lens. I use the Nikon D600 with the Nikkor 14-24mm F/2.8 lens. Wide and fast, with a camera that had good high ISO w/out noise. Avoid the moon and get close to the equinoxes. Learn to use the Aurora predictions. Practice on night photography of stars. For most of my Aurora pictures, the stars are there bright and clear. Practice with gloves on and no lights. Red light if you must use a light. Get critical focus on infinity, and tape your lens! If you email me (ralf1@comcast.net) I will send you a word document (3+pages) on Aurora Photography that I made.

ralfstinson Loc: SF Bay Area

Reykjavik, Iceland, is positions about the same a Fairbanks, AK. So unless there are other factors that draw you to Iceland, Fairbanks is a good US location for the Lights. As for "Chasing" the Lights, they are 60 miles or higher in the atmosphere. To make a real difference you would have to travel 60+ miles on icy roads at night. The only advantage of "Chasing" would be to get to a spot with a more open horizon or less clouds. Plan ahead. Check the moon phases. Try to be near the fall or spring equinoxes (tends to be more auroras and not as cold as mid-winter). Check the number of days of clear weather for the months you are thinking about going. For Fairbanks, September is warmer, but more cloudy days. March is colder but more clear days. Have you checked Iceland? We now have COVID to think about. Also, what daytime activities are available to you.

ralfstinson Loc: SF Bay Area

These are pictures of the Lights I took just outside of Fairbanks, AK.

JBRIII

I have done this twice. First, they are finicky like most astro stuff. In iceland one night, a huge green curtain at Dinner, went looked, back to eat, that was it for visible aurora, advice, if it occurs, drop everything else and watch or photo. Latter that night, I thought I just experiment to be ready, I could just make myself believe there was something different about one distane area, low on the horizon, curtain was directly overhead. Bingo, while others sleep, the leader was told, I got images with red and green using a Canon 6ODa and a GoPro. Used a tripod and bulb mode on 60, just hold and shot for different times and watch view finder. By the way, in Iceland evenntour groups were not going out to try.

Second time Norway, Feb. 2020, before hell came. Every trip to dark sites was a bust, clouds. Then in harbor one night, shy green across entire horizon. Hand shot using Canon R, much better low light than 60. Tripods problematic on ship deck full of people, but R worked great. Changed the ISO for this. The aurora were over the city so certainly not a dark site, but R did fine.

We had hoped to go north to MN or/and/or Canada this winter, but then Covid again. While boosted, wife has an immune problem so we are extremely careful.

artelizabeth

Great shots!!