Nature Photography

Thanks, Keith. I’ll see if I can get that fixed.

I did, I no longer do. I use a setup with scope rings, which I’ll be sharing in picture form when I write the KC articles.

Hi Mike. First off, regarding a mount. You can basically get an upgraded Atlas EQ-G with belts and everything just by buying the Atlas Pro EQ-G. The Pro is an enhanced version, comes from the factory with belt drives for the worm shaft, and includes Alt/Az control. It’s about $500 more expensive than the Atlas (which, after upgrades, is another $400 over and above the list price of $1499, so only really a difference of about $100 or so in the end.) I would recommend the Atlas Pro for anyone who doesn’t want to have to do any tinkering with their mount to get it working optimally. The Pro won’t get you more capacity, but it’ll handle standard camera equipment fine.

I have meant to do a knowledge center article on my equipment setup and all that. I’ll try to get that done soon, so keep a peeled eye on my site for that. It’ll cover everything from an equipment standpoint.

For processing software, I use Photoshop CC and PixInsight. PS is a staple, you should have it regardless, and for your first AP images, you can easily find tutorials online for processing in PS with layers and adjustment layers. PixInsight is a tool designed specifically for astrophotographers, and it is WELL worth the $250 or so (depends on exchange rate). PI is the most powerful editing package on the market right now, and I don’t think I could live without it. It’ is a very DIFFERENT kind of program…but if you allow yourself to get past that, it is actually very natural and flexible the way it works and is designed. Best money you will spend on software in the astro world, IMO.

Anyway, good to meet you, Mike! Colorado seems to be a hotspot for astrophotographers, lot of us here. At some point we should all meet up somewhere and chat about our new (incredibly expensive) hobby. 😉

Oh, regarding lenses…erase any standard camera zoom lens from your mind. Totally NOT worth it…they just don’t have the IQ. Thing to learn about astrophotography…it is a hundred times more demanding of everything, particularly your optics. You want the 300mm f/2.8 L II, if you still have it…that would actually make a PHENOMENAL astrograph. I would recommend any Canon “Great White” telephoto lens (200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 800) for astro, they all have the necessary quality. I think the new 16-35mm f/4 (the new one, not the older f/2.8 versions) or the new 24-70mm lenses, can make for decent ultra wide field (milky way/full sky) lenses, but outside of that, I can’t recommend any zoom for use as an astrophotography lens…zooms have to make too many compromises.

Anyway…keep your eye on my site. I’ll post some new pages soon with more info on astrophotography. Also keep an eye on the blog, as I’ll be publishing a new astrophotography site at a new domain name, where I’ll be publishing my astrophotography in much larger sizes, as well as doing much richer tutorials. That might still take a couple months, I keep redesigning it as I keep coming up with new ideas, so it’s lagging. 😛 But ultimately, that will be the place to go for all the astrophotography (and maybe even some astronomy) knowledge I will be sharing.

Can’t say about the 7D II. It may have more MP, but that will hurt SNR that much more unless Canon makes some fairly significant leaps in sensor fabrication. The 7D II is likely to have around 25,000e- FWC, in comparison to the 5D III’s ~68,000e-. That is more than twice the SNR, so even when the 5D III is used at f/8, it’s larger pixels mean lower noise.

But, you would have to be able to use a 1200mm f/8 lens. If that isn’t an option, then the 5D III can’t really beat the 7D II, regardless of whether it’s 20.2mp or 24mp.

Hi Kris,

I’m happy to help! First off, about aperture. Depth of field is relative to focal length, f-number, subject distance and magnification. Assuming we are using the same camera, and photographing something at the same distance, that reduces the variables to f-number and focal length.

So, if you have two lenses, one is a 300 f/2.8 + 2x TC and the other is a 600 f/5.6, both will have an identical depth of field. In terms of how much of your scene, from the focal plane forward and backward, that is in focus, there will be no difference.

There is a catch, however. If you are comparing the EF 300/2.8 to the Tamron 150-600, there is a QUALITY difference to your boke. Boke blur circle size is ultimately determined by the entrance pupil size. Even if you attach a 2x TC to the 300 f/2.8, that only changes the exit pupil…the entrance pupil remains unchanged. Therefor, you will get much creamier, smoother boke with the 300/2.8 + 2x TC than you would with a lens at 600/5.6.

Regarding the 7D II. When I said it wouldn’t be better than the 5D III, I meant for me specifically. I have the 600mm lens, so I can get a lot of light on a lot more pixels. I can drop on the 2x TC for 1200mm f/8 with the 5D III…which negates the reach benefit of the 7D line. Because the 5D III has more total pixels, even though per-pixel noise with the 5D III would be similar to the 7D or 7D II, it would still have more total pixels. At any given output magnification, that greater total number of pixels means more detail, less noise.

For anyone who does not have the option of spending that kind of money on a lens, the 7D II would still the best option for birding. The body is likely to be around half the cost of the 5D III, and either the Tamron 150-600 or Canon 100-400mm lenses are ideal for birders, and also cost a tiny fraction of the 600mm lens.

I don’t know what kind of AF system the 7D II will have, but I suspect, given the fact that it’s a crop sensor, it won’t be capable of using the 5D III 61pt AF system. I truly hope it will get something better, but even if Canon makes an AF system as good as they possibly can for the 7D II, it’ll be tough to beat the 61pt system they already have. The larger frame, greater pixel count, larger (less noisy) pixels, and the 61pt AF system make the 5D III a pretty formidable camera, for pretty much any kind of photography. The key advantage of the 7D II will be it’s reach and it’s frame rate, and those will still be very valuable for budget birders who want to get the most quality possible while spending less money than just the cost of a 5D III body.

If that’s your goal, I’d say the 7D II + Tamron 150-600mm lens is the way to go.

Certainly! I’d be glad to help. 🙂