Tripping the Zodiacal Light Fantastic!

[OzEclipse (Joe Cali)]

I've been camping off grid, in and around Kati Thanda Lake Eyre, for the past 2 weeks enjoying among other things, some excellent skies.

This is the zodiacal light. I have photographed it a number of times over the years, never as sharp, clear, nor long as this. It's taken with a 14mm lens on full frame. The light cone extends about 60 degrees from the horizon.

Joe

[Leo.G (Leo)]

Again that's a stunning photo Joe and I've recently read up on the Pentax star tracer system (or whatever it's called). Is that why your images are always so sharp?
Regardless of whether it is or it isn't used, it's an interesting concept.

[Pierre_C]

Nice one, Joe.

[OzEclipse (Joe Cali)]

Originally Posted by Leo.G

Again that's a stunning photo Joe and I've recently read up on the Pentax star tracer system (or whatever it's called). Is that why your images are always so sharp?
Regardless of whether it is or it isn't used, it's an interesting concept.

Thanks Leo.

I did use ASTROTRACER when capturing this photo. However it alone is not a one-stop solution. ASTROTRACER has some limitations and it's important to understand them so that you don't use it when inappropriate.

At least four factors contribute to sharpness in no particular order of importance: -

1. Quality of the lens.
Some of my lenses are excellent, some are middle of the road. Many of my nightscapes are taken with a Samyang 14mm which is middle of the road in quality.

2. Focus
This is where many fall down. I use the live view method I described in your smartphone post to get best possible focus.

3. Camera support
I use a Manfrotto 475B legs with a 161C head. Tripod weight 7kgs. Payload capacity (12kg - conservative). It is rock solid.

4. Star movement
I do use the Pentax ASTROTRACER sometimes but I also use the CSS formula when not using ASTROTRACER. The ASTROTRACER moves the sensor using the in-camera 5-axis image stabiliser actuators to track the stars, it blurs the foreground.

The CSS (Cali's Stationary Stars) is a formula I derived mathematically about 13 years ago to work out how long the maximum exposure can be for any given combination of camera sensor and lens. The original thread is still available in this forum.

https://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/...67&postcount=7

It is much better than the old 600 rule because it takes account of the pixel size in the camera sensor, the focal length AND the image display scale.

Cheers

Joe

[Leo.G (Leo)]

Thanks Joe!
I'd only read a little on the Pentax star tracer but could still see it's benefits at times but quality lens, solid tripod and clean sensor are right at the top of my list. I still have an 80-200 ED f2.8 16 element -11 groups Nikkor lens I bought new (and far from a cheap lens at the time but I was working and had the money (tax return actually))when I bought a new Nikon SLR back in 90 or 91 (I still have both), it's a beautiful lens, unfortunately getting a little heavy now without a tripod but I got some sharp sports shots with it when I was younger. The trick with it as with a lot of photography was manual focus because it had a horrid reputation for seeking when focusing. The newer model came with a tripod foot but only 12 elements in less groups. This I know can be both a bonus and a curse because of extra reflections off the extra elements but in the right moments it's a very nice lens.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ..._8D.html/specs

I tend to use the 500 rule (which I'm sure is what you were typing) then shorten it, with my 14mm Samyang while theoretically I can shoot around 30 seconds using the 500 rule I did some weird calculation I can not remember and came up with 16 seconds for sharper images but I'm very interested in seeing your formula.

I'm very keen on reading that thread and looking at the numbers!