# Astrophotography using D5000



## Provo (Nov 18, 2009)

I am interested in astrophotography espcially after seeing some of the results others have taken with Nikon & Cannon Cameras

I have D5000 and was wondering what would be the optimal settings and lens in order to achieve great results.

I tried last night 30sec f5.6 and managed to get 40 shots and all i managed to get was stars moving around and one meteorite the lens I was using was NIKKOR 55-200MM AF-S DX ZOOM LENS  none of them looked as good as the link below I have a few stars I do mean a few nothing as clear is this.

What I would like to achieve is something as good as this. http://www.vimeo.com/4505537

Any help is always appreciated


----------



## Cojaro (Nov 18, 2009)

To get decent results, you'll need a motorized altazimuth mount or an equitorial mouth so that your camera can track the stars. The most you can get with just a camera and a tripod are some decent moon shots and some star trail shots.

Check this site out: Astrophotography Techniques

To get a shot like in that video, you'll need to be far, far away from any nearby cities to escape as much light pollution as possible. A 30 second exposure in the suburbs of Memphis results in something that looks like it was taken in daylight almost.

To get an idea of where you can go to find the least light pollution, check out cleardarksky.com. Look for your city and find the Light Pollution map for it and the surrounding area. To get a better idea of where the light pollution is, you can overlay these map images on Google Earth.


----------



## Provo (Nov 18, 2009)

Thanks for the tips

This is what I got by the way as a test and yes where I live I was expecting high light ouput since I was off the balcony in my complex, I will most def look at those websites and the map.
Any idea on how to improove the clarity of the stars however because they only are showing as a blurred streak.
View My Video


----------



## battletone (Nov 18, 2009)

I have been trying it.  You do not HAVE to have a tracker, you can take lots of photos and stack in them in Photoshop as a Smart Object and use their Median function...but I have been having a hard time getting CS4 to auto align them, and I don't have the patience to do it manually.


----------



## Stosh (Nov 18, 2009)

Wow, so much to know about astrophotography.
If we're comparing to that video over the Texas star party, the #1 limiting factor is going to be your skies.  I'm not familiar with that location, but based on the video it's probably one of the best (darkest) skies in America.  If you don't have dark skies, you're sunk before you even start.

That first video is using a much wider lens than your 55-200.  He shot it at 15mm, f/2.8, ISO 1600 for 20 seconds.  So his exposure (in terms of f/5.6) is almost triple yours.  I don't know what ISO you shot at, but I bet it wasn't 1600, making his exposure almost 6x or 12x more than yours.  Again, to support this very deep exposure, you'll have to have dark skies.

If your main purpose is a web image or video, shoot wide open.  For enlargements you'll want to stop down to something sharper.  Shoot wider angle.  That will allow you to capture skies up higher where light pollution is less.  Experiment with ISOs, but aim for 400 as a minimum, up to 1600 if you can stand the noise.


----------



## KmH (Nov 18, 2009)

The video you posted was not made with a motor driven mount. The camera did not move. That 00:48  video is made from several hundred images made over the course of 5 or 6 hours.

The camera was mounted on high quality tripod legs topped by a good head. The photographer was at a *very* dark site, in the middle of nowhere in western Texas, south of Interstate 10 and east of El Paso.

The site is near the McDonald Observatory.


----------



## Provo (Nov 18, 2009)

What lens would some of you recommend as long as I can get decent results I can care less of the manufacturering brand.

I am going to attempt again hopefully over the weekend up in high point nj
elevation 1,803 theres a trail up there that i know pitch black noooo lights.

anyway this has really peaked my interest now


----------



## TJ K (Nov 18, 2009)

I would say that you shouldn't shoot any longer than 20-30 seconds per exposure. Also the closer together the shots the smoother of an effect you will get. If you wait 30 seconds in between it will be choppier than 10 seconds in between shots. The more shots you take the better. Throw it in to windows movie maker and speed it up. GL!
tj


----------



## Stosh (Nov 18, 2009)

Provo said:


> I am going to attempt again hopefully over the weekend up in high point nj
> elevation 1,803 theres a trail up there that i know pitch black noooo lights.


Sorry, can't help you out with the Nikon lenses, but I can burst your bubble a little with your dark sky site.  Yes, darker is better, but I would bet there is *no place* in the mid-Atlantic that will achieve results like that video you posted from the Texas Star party, except for possibly one location.  Cherry Springs State Park, PA.  And even there you would need unbelievably perfect conditions which are rare.  By all means keep your plans and have fun, but don't expect that kind of result.

For fun, visit this site to find your closest "dark" skies, then compare it to out west!!!
Dark Sky Finder


----------

