No idea where to start with the equipment..

[mlkey]

Hello everyone,

So last Christmas, my family purchased a new camera for me, a Panasonic Lumix FZ48 bridge. My initial thoughts were it was a pretty capable all round camera. Then... I found myself taking photo's of the moon on a clear night and, while I have had a couple of result I am personally quite pleased with, I appreciate the camera is possibly completely the wrong choice for AP. For starters there is no RAW format, no remote release (although I use the timer) and I am sure many other things.

I really enjoy the photography, not sure I will get as far into AP as most of you here appear to be, I guess I am wanting to get good moon, milky way and aurora images. If I can do that with a bridge camera I will be quite happy.

I have been scouring the forum and the internet looking for answers to my questions but struggling to find answers that are in plain English. 

Any help with the following would be appreciated.

1. Are there any budget cameras out there which will get me started in AP and give reasonable results, are there any bridge camera's capable of this type of photography or do I have to take the plunge with a DSLR?

2. What filters do I need if any when trying to capture images of the milky way?

3. Do I need a telescope to get results?

Thanks in advance.

[Alien 13]

Hi there, I am new to astrophotography and have a few recomendations to get you started.

I dont know much about the camera you are using but if it has a manual focus option on it then you are good to go, focusing celestial objects is one of the harder aspects of astrophotography.#

You will need a good camera tripod which is allways useful for any photography.

With that basic equipment you should be able to take pictures of the moon, milky way and constalations but exposure times will be limited to the 5-30 second range depending on the zoom setting (trial and error will tell you what works best).

If you want to progress to a DLSR then the canon 1100D is a very good entry level camera.

You dont need a telescope to get good images but it helps.

[PorkyB]

Even the entry level SLR cameras are very capable for astrophotography.  A Canon 1100D is a popular choice (I realise it's still not cheap, but it certainly won't be the most expensive bit of astrophotography kit you'll buy).  Live View is very important, it's a pain to focus without it as you won't be able to see anything though the viewfinder.  Two accessories that are very useful are a remote shutter release timer (less than £20 from Amazon, Ebay, etc.) and a red-dot finder (get a cheap plastic one and hacksaw it until it fits in the camera's flash hotshoe).

I don't know about filters.  I've used an Astronomik light pollution filter but most of the time I don't need anything.

The important bit with any AP is the mount.  You will need a motorised EQ mount to do any exposures over a few seconds.  What you buy will depend on your future intentions.  If you plan to get a big scope then a minumum of an EQ5 but preferably something beefier (so already costing way more than the camera).  Your mount will need at least an RA motor and polarscope.  As it's not easy to find objects with a camera the an EQ-goto mount may be preferable (and more expensive).  Some people go the other way and buy simple lightweight mounts if they plan to stick with wide-field shots with just the camera.

You certainly don't need a telescope, but in time you might find that you want one.  I have had some good results with a 70-300 zoom lens.  These were all taken with one: http://www.flickr.com/photos/porkyb/sets/72157634353235461/

[mlkey]

Apologies for the delay responding, thanks for the information.

I have been considering a Canon 1100D, the problem is I would prefer a good all round camera that will take good daytime photos and ok night time. In contrast to the 1100D, I am still quite keen on the Panasonic Lumix FZ200. The sensor size though is a tiny 6.17 x 4.55mm compared to the 1100D being 22.2 x 14.8mm. Having compared the specifications of the two, the FZ200 does really well against the 1100D in general use. The new CMOS sensor claims to have a much reduced noise level. As you have probably guessed by now, I am totally clueless and not sure what to go for. I guess I might get a scope in the future and would like to connect the camera to it, does that mean it would have to be a DSLR? The FZ200 has a threaded body which could take an adaptor tube providing the lens can move within it.

I feel more inclined to purchase the FZ200, if I did, where would the limitations of my night photography be?

Any further advice gratefully received.

Thanks.

[m37]

The moon and Milky Way are very different types of target. Perhaps have a look at the oft-recommended Making Every Photon Count book before you spend anything. Very wise use of twenty quid to save wasted cash in future.

cheers and good luck

[wxsatuser]

If it were me I would go for the 1100D, even modded ones will take good daytime photos.

[happy-kat]

My thought is dip toe in with the camera you have, get a tripod for it.

Learn the affects of zoom and star trails, understand iso settings and take photos.

See what you get if it is your thing you will have an idea of what direction you want to go in so can choose kit for it.

I have seen some amazing milkway shots with no telescope involved.

[EDL]

Hello,

  New here and learning as I have an interest in getting a scope, but photography is a hobby and I know a little, maybe I can help. 

One of the "killers" (for lack of better term) of digital sensors for long exposures is noise.  Noise is generated by the heating of the photosites (pixels) on the sensor.  Typically, a physically larger photosite is better for 2 basic reasons; 1) it takes longer to heat up 2) It captures more photons so exposure times can be shorter for a given amount of light.

One thing that is unavoidable, quality digital photography is not cheap, especially for long exposures, or low light.

It is common from what i've seen so far for AP to use mutliple, short exposures and then stacked.   This helps avoid a couple thiings; 1) noise 2) atmospherics

The typical "point-and-shoot" type cameras, as you have noted, have very small sensors.  This is not condusive to longer exposures, nor image quality.

Photography is every bit the same game as it is with scopes...you get what you pay for.  Cheap cameras perform poorly.

Modern DLSR's have moved from CCD sensors to CMOS sensors primarily for one reason; the data bus on a CCD is limited by design, so moving the data off chip to storage, at high megapixel counts is very slow.

I have read only a limited amount on AP, but purpose built AP devices still use CCD's as they are typically used on long exposures and fast data rates aren't required.  A CCD typically is better at noise control and generally are considered to offer better dynamic range and image quality.   They seem to be the best choice for AP.  That said, since CCD's have now moved into a relative niche market, they aren't cheap.

Since you're requirement is for good day time photos in addition to AP you are more or less limited to a CMOS sensor based camera.  The1100D is not a bad camera, but if you intend to shoot longer exposures I'd tend to steer you toward Nikon over Canon (and I'm a Canon owner/shooter).  Nikons tend to do a bit better on noise control for long exposures.

Now, about that sensor size.  Upper end DSLR's have what's known as "Full Frame" (FF) sensors.  This refers to the physical size of the sensor itself.  FF sensors are, or are very close in physical dimensions to a 35mm film frame.  The entry level to mid level DSLR's are known as "Crop Sensor" cameras.  The sensor is smaller physically than the 35mm film frame.  They are noted with a "crop factor".  Canon crop sensors are typically a "1.6x" and Nikons are "1.5x".

There are newer formats out like 4/3 which are smaller yet.  The point-and-shoot type cameras typicaly have the smallest sensors, very tiny.

The number of pixels on the sensor is typically within similar ranges, regardless of sensor size, so to achieve that, the individual photosites have to be physically smaller on the smaller sensors. 

A FF DSLR would provide the best long exposures, but you are talking a few thousand dollars just for the camera body.

If you are considering the Canon 1100D, I'd recommend you take a look at a comparable Nikon instead simply for the better low light/exposure capability. 

One other thing to keep in mind, once you invest in a DSLR you'll most likely move into acquiring lenses if you intend to do any other photography.  Lenses are not cheap, but are usable basically forever.  Once invested in one brand it is hard to move off to another without significant cost.

[rowan46]

Hello,

  New here and learning as I have an interest in getting a scope, but photography is a hobby and I know a little, maybe I can help. 

One of the "killers" (for lack of better term) of digital sensors for long exposures is noise.  Noise is generated by the heating of the photosites (pixels) on the sensor.  Typically, a physically larger photosite is better for 2 basic reasons; 1) it takes longer to heat up 2) It captures more photons so exposure times can be shorter for a given amount of light.

One thing that is unavoidable, quality digital photography is not cheap, especially for long exposures, or low light.

It is common from what i've seen so far for AP to use mutliple, short exposures and then stacked.   This helps avoid a couple thiings; 1) noise 2) atmospherics

The typical "point-and-shoot" type cameras, as you have noted, have very small sensors.  This is not condusive to longer exposures, nor image quality.

Photography is every bit the same game as it is with scopes...you get what you pay for.  Cheap cameras perform poorly.

Modern DLSR's have moved from CCD sensors to CMOS sensors primarily for one reason; the data bus on a CCD is limited by design, so moving the data off chip to storage, at high megapixel counts is very slow.

I have read only a limited amount on AP, but purpose built AP devices still use CCD's as they are typically used on long exposures and fast data rates aren't required.  A CCD typically is better at noise control and generally are considered to offer better dynamic range and image quality.   They seem to be the best choice for AP.  That said, since CCD's have now moved into a relative niche market, they aren't cheap.

Since you're requirement is for good day time photos in addition to AP you are more or less limited to a CMOS sensor based camera.  The1100D is not a bad camera, but if you intend to shoot longer exposures I'd tend to steer you toward Nikon over Canon (and I'm a Canon owner/shooter).  Nikons tend to do a bit better on noise control for long exposures.

Now, about that sensor size.  Upper end DSLR's have what's known as "Full Frame" (FF) sensors.  This refers to the physical size of the sensor itself.  FF sensors are, or are very close in physical dimensions to a 35mm film frame.  The entry level to mid level DSLR's are known as "Crop Sensor" cameras.  The sensor is smaller physically than the 35mm film frame.  They are noted with a "crop factor".  Canon crop sensors are typically a "1.6x" and Nikons are "1.5x".

There are newer formats out like 4/3 which are smaller yet.  The point-and-shoot type cameras typicaly have the smallest sensors, very tiny.

The number of pixels on the sensor is typically within similar ranges, regardless of sensor size, so to achieve that, the individual photosites have to be physically smaller on the smaller sensors. 

A FF DSLR would provide the best long exposures, but you are talking a few thousand dollars just for the camera body.

If you are considering the Canon 1100D, I'd recommend you take a look at a comparable Nikon instead simply for the better low light/exposure capability. 

One other thing to keep in mind, once you invest in a DSLR you'll most likely move into acquiring lenses if you intend to do any other photography.  Lenses are not cheap, but are usable basically forever.  Once invested in one brand it is hard to move off to another without significant cost.

Welcome to you I hope you had a good thanksgiving

[rowan46]

As mentioned by EDL A bridge camera is not great because of the smaller sensor and noise.

Milky way shots can be taken without a telescope and even without a dedicated astro mount provided you use short exposures up to about 20-30 secs and stack them. However you would be better using a tracking eq mount and taking longer exposures and stacking.

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/books/making-every-photon-count-steve-richards.html

this book tells you the sort of equipment you need and more importantly why you need it.  read it before you buy anything for astrophotography it may save you from making some costly mistakes

[66mikeg]

Hi, I don't know if your Panasonic has video capability, I have a Panasonic FZ30 bridge and I've found the best solution is to video in .avi format and use Registax (freeware) to optimize the image, it has worked fine for the moon, Saturn and Jupiter.

[mlkey]

Thanks everyone for your advice, the book has arrived but it has somehow turned into a Christmas present so no reading until then. 

The information provided so far has been great, thanks. I am not sure I will ever go to the depths that many of you here do, having searched Flicker some people do seem to be getting acceptable (to me) results with the FZ200. It does have a CMOS sensor (albeit a very small one) and, according to the reviews has pretty reasonable noise control compared to the FZ48 which has a CCD sensor. I hear what you are all saying and, as such will postpone any camera purchase until after Christmas. I still want a "one camera fits all" solution, accepting it will do well in daylight and "ok" in darkness.

Thanks again.