Jump to content

NLCbanner2024.jpg.2478be509670e60c2d6efd04834b8b47.jpg

ISO Settings

nephilim

Recommended Posts

carastro

carastro

Posted
Posted

I have been using a DSLR for about 3 years and am not into the technical side of things, I just do what works.

When I started I was advised to do 800iso and 5min subs and this has stood me well (except shorter subs for bright cores and combine). However I was plagued by noise and in my experience I didn't find taking darks made a lot of difference.

I then read about some-one who lowered the iso but took longer subs.

So tried imaging at 400iso and took 10 minute subs instead of 5mins and I have to say it made quite a difference to the noise.

I only tried once imaging at 1600 iso and the noise was horrible in comparison to 800iso.

I would suggest you try different iso and see what works.

Carole

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Pete Presland

Pete Presland

Posted
Posted

Well, I tried imaging with my 450D at f/11.8 with ISO800 for 300s...

Not an awful lot you can see on the pic... M31 nor M101.

I shall try ISO1600 with 400 or 500s. I'm interested. Haven't gotten any startrails yet, since I'm guiding with PHP.

I just need a better scope...

i would expect at 300 secs on M31 to see quite a lot of detail at ISO800

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Russe

Russe

Posted
Posted

that does seem a bit long, the mak is not the best for DSO's (a bit slow) but you should still be getting something

Yeah I'm getting smth, but not an awful lot. LP is pretty bad too.

I'm gonna give it another go tomorrow night and see what a Mak needs to show DSO's.

The camera is fine - with just a simple 50mm lens I'm getting results, but the Mak is so awfully slow... Didn't think it was gonna be THIS bad though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pete Presland

Pete Presland

Posted
Posted

M101 is quite a large faint object with low surface brightness magnitude so not the easiest of targets. your last M31 has some decent detail, i think i can make out some of the dust lanes. imagine what 20 x 300 sec subs would like after stacking and processing, have you got a light pollution filter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Russe

Russe

Posted
Posted

M101 is quite a large faint object with low surface brightness magnitude so not the easiest of targets. your last M31 has some decent detail, i think i can make out some of the dust lanes. imagine what 20 x 300 sec subs would like after stacking and processing, have you got a light pollution filter?

Thanks for your kind words...

Note to self - get a light pollution filter - any you could recommend?

I'm just now getting 20x600s of M33 at 1600 ISO. Will post my result... Still not too great methinks, but the guiding seems good. Could go longer, but the LP is too bad.

Overall, I'd hope with a 130pds I could enter a different territory in imaging terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CC_Japan

CC_Japan

Posted
Posted

A newer full-frame camera like the A99, D600/800 or 5D Mark III should produce great results at ISO 1600 and may be even above. On my APSC-sized Sony A77 I find ISO 1600 already pretty bad, but then again Sony's 24MP APSC sensor is notorious for being comparatively noisy. Unfortunately, great ISO performance usually comes at the cost and weight of a full-frame camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pete Presland

Pete Presland

Posted
Posted

i use the canon eos clip light pollution filter  http://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/astronomik-cls-light-pollution-eos-clip-filter_d3555.html you will probably be able to pick one up 2nd hand, also you can not use them with your standard lens if it is one of the EF-S series.
i would certainly be using the 130pds for DSO'S imaging ahead of the MAK127

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RikM

RikM

Posted
Posted

I would love to see some images from a 130PDS. I reckon it should be cracking scope for deep-sky-on-a-budget AP with a DSLR. If it had been on the market when I bought my 150P, I would have had the 130 PDS instead.

I use a SkyWatcher LPR filter on the end of my coma corrector and it works for me, but the EOS clip-in filter would be more useful, as would also allow for widefield stuff with lenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Daniel-K

Daniel-K

Posted
Posted

I would love to see some images from a 130PDS. I reckon it should be cracking scope for deep-sky-on-a-budget AP with a DSLR. If it had been on the market when I bought my 150P, I would have had the 130 PDS instead.

I use a SkyWatcher LPR filter on the end of my coma corrector and it works for me, but the EOS clip-in filter would be more useful, as would also allow for widefield stuff with lenses.

STARFOX is using a 130pds or AP he reckons its ace :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
dph1nm

dph1nm

Posted
Posted
He would definitely say, NOT to image at ISO 1600.

If you follow the Cloudy Nights discussion of this article you will find that he somewhat retracts this and concedes that ISO1600 should be better at low light levels (i.e. when you are read noise limited).

NigelM

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Russe

Russe

Posted
Posted

If you follow the Cloudy Nights discussion of this article you will find that he somewhat retracts this and concedes that ISO1600 should be better at low light levels (i.e. when you are read noise limited).

NigelM

Interesting! Would you happen to have a link for that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alan potts

alan potts

Posted
Posted

Well I have just read through this thread and even though I have a modded Canon 40D and a Mummut OSC and I have not used them. Stupid, maybe. I am half decent with a camera and have won a good few things down thw years, I know what I am doing with any camera and a Mountain scene or whatever. Astro photography seems like a black art with dark forces at play, with advice on ISO from 400-3200, that 3 full stops difference, I would have thought that all but the very best DSLR's would be very noisy at 3200, or don't that matter a well?

Alan 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RikM

RikM

Posted
Posted

You are not wrong Alan, AP really is the dark side ;) It is quite a difficult concept to grasp, that you don't need to use a very high ISO. With basic daytime photography, typically you increase the ISO setting to get a brighter image, but it simply doesn't need to be that way for AP because of the way you process the images. Even with daylight photography, good photographers would generally prefer to use a sturdy tripod and increase the exposure time rather than up the ISO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alan potts

alan potts

Posted
Posted

Rik,

Spot on, most of my real work was done with positive film where even plus .3 -.5 of a stop was a big step, I always used a tripod and I guess all AP photographer do the same. Though with some of the lenses these days it is difficult to mess up, at a price of course.

I must get out and try my kit some time, I bought it intending to have a go and it's just sitting in thier boxes doing nothing. The Mummut OSC was a waste of money as far as I can see, well for me at least, I thought it was more video than a camera. I was pleased with what it took in 10-20 seconds though when I did try it the one time, but the whole experience didn't tick the right boxes for me, prefer the eyepieces. 

I will tell you the other thing that puts me off the amount of air traffic of all kinds that goes through the FOV, of the larger kind, last week week three aircraft, all while looking at the same object on different nights.

Alan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.