Here are my 2 cents.

All lenses will have astigmatism and distortion towards the edges, especially when fully open (the lowest f stop). Wide angles suffer more than long focal lengths and more expensive lenses (optical astrophotography assemblies) are obviously better than cheap(er) lenses. Whether the imperfections are acceptable depends on what the lens is used for (what your "hero" is) and what one does with the image (if you print them large or if you view them just on a screen). For deep space photography (nebulas, galaxies), one probably does not want a wide angle in the first place because these are small objects and long focal lengths are more suitable (and you need a good tracking device). For night landscapes / Milky Way, wide angles are great but you will have some of the distortion and astigmatism, especially with cheaper lenses. It might be ok, depending on who your hero is. Astrophotography has the highest demands on optical quality, much higher than what landscape photographers usually demand, because points need to stay points and because typical landscape content masks imperfections well.

If your "hero" is a landscape in the foreground or aurora in the sky, then the imperfections do not show that much and you will be happy with the result. The stars are secondary to the main subject. If you, however, want both then you have to stop the lens more aggressively and thus lose some light, bump up your ISO and/or exposure and pay in a different way (smudged aurora or motion in the foreground, noisier image, etc.). In the end, you need to decide what is more important to you.

4 hours ago, Samrau said:

@Przemysław @bluedemon25 By the way, I'm waiting for my order for a super wide-angle fixed full-frame lens. According to reviews and overviews, it takes very decent pictures. I hope I'll have time to receive it tomorrow. It's a diagonal fisheye - my favorite format. Take a closer look, maybe you'll like it too. Available for different bayonets.

https://www.ttartisan.com/?full-frame-lenses/62.html

I would definitely be interested to know what you think when you get the lens. Please keep us updated

By the way, is anyone familiar with using a Canon full frame camera with a wide-angle lens that can go about 2 or 2.8 on the f-stop? As to under a class? I think we're five. We're not four bortle sky. What might be approximate settings that are good? This is the first time I'll be using my new camera. I know I can push the iso and not have it be too grainy. Unlike my aps-c which was old and entry level. I no longer exposure is more permittable with these wider lenses now. My 35 which used to be with the aps-c like a 50 is indeed a 35. So then when I was stuck with maybe 8 or 10 or something seconds before streaking stars or Star trails I'm guessing I can do better. I haven't actually got to try it out at night yet. Any advice on approximate settings? And you know, do people usually go higher in ISO? I know it increases noise but it's not terrible to go a little bit. What do people usually do for these Aurora photos to get them nice and show up without being too weak yet? Also not so grainy or noisy. Thanks, for any advice

6 minutes ago, bluedemon25 said:

I would definitely be interested to know what you think when you get the lens. Please keep us updated

By the way, is anyone familiar with using a Canon full frame camera with a wide-angle lens that can go about 2 or 2.8 on the f-stop? As to under a class? I think we're five. We're not four bortle sky. What might be approximate settings that are good? This is the first time I'll be using my new camera. I know I can push the iso and not have it be too grainy. Unlike my aps-c which was old and entry level. I no longer exposure is more permittable with these wider lenses now. My 35 which used to be with the aps-c like a 50 is indeed a 35. So then when I was stuck with maybe 8 or 10 or something seconds before streaking stars or Star trails I'm guessing I can do better. I haven't actually got to try it out at night yet. Any advice on approximate settings? And you know, do people usually go higher in ISO? I know it increases noise but it's not terrible to go a little bit. What do people usually do for these Aurora photos to get them nice and show up without being too weak yet? Also not so grainy or noisy. Thanks, for any advice

remind me what kind of camera is this?

41 minutes ago, Samrau said:

remind me what kind of camera is this?

I am using a Canon R6 Mark II

Oh also I'm using this lens at least until I can afford to buy another. This is what I got and it's done pretty well. I think it's reasonably fast and I've been doing as I've been advised in the past stopping down just a little bit. Not too much for a little bit more sharpness since I've read. Wide open is usually not quite ideal so I've often gone like 2.8 since it can start at 2

Canon 35mm f/2 IS
Full-Frame EF USM

https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/35mm-is.htm

1 hour ago, bluedemon25 said:

I am using a Canon R6 Mark II

Oh also I'm using this lens at least until I can afford to buy another. This is what I got and it's done pretty well. I think it's reasonably fast and I've been doing as I've been advised in the past stopping down just a little bit. Not too much for a little bit more sharpness since I've read. Wide open is usually not quite ideal so I've often gone like 2.8 since it can start at 2

Canon 35mm f/2 IS
Full-Frame EF USM

https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/35mm-is.htm

Judging by the specs, this is a great camera. Congratulations on your purchase! This camera has RF bayonet, you must have sent the wrong link. Or are you using an adapter? https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/rf473.html

Oh additionally, as there are so many new features I haven't seen before. Could anyone comment on whether it's a good thing or not? A good thing to use the high ISO noise reduction feature? I don't really know what it means by high for high ISO. If this kicks in only say at a certain ISO and above and if it wouldn't matter, unless I went really high more than I'd probably do versus say, let's say I'm shooting up to 3,200 ISO?

I thought I read the high ISO noise reduction feature is sort of like taking dark frames. I don't know if it was better to do that or just try and remember to take dark frames and put it in sky stacker which I'm still learning how to use. If it's a good thing in case I forget to take dark frames maybe I should use it. But I would love to hear any advice from you guys on that feature.

Just now, Samrau said:

Judging by the specs, this is a great camera. Congratulations on your purchase! This camera has RF bayonet, you must have sent the wrong link. Or are you using an adapter? https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/rf473.html

Yes, it is with an RF because it's mirrorless. So I'm using the EF to RF ring adapter. Having played with it a lot, it does seem to work well without problems on the focus as best as I can tell.

Speaking of that, EF to RF adapter, I only have a Canon lens but say we're looking at a wide-angle lens. Like many of you use and recommend. I was unclear if the adapter really only works for attaching a Canon lens because I understand it has something to do with distancing. The lens from the camera body the right amount so it focuses. Would I lose the important capabilities if I used a non-canon lens? I know for Astro stuff we always focus on a star manually anyway, so in that case maybe it doesn't matter. I don't know if there are other factors I'm just unaware of. I'm doing a lot of learning still with this new guy.

Sorry I have a lot of thinking but I think it may be useful to others so it's okay to ask here too. A lot of the newer cameras include in-body image, stabilization Ibis. I'm looking at wider lenses and I noticed that some of them that are fastest and wide do not include image stabilization on the lens. These are for non-zooms when I'm looking at the Ken Rockwell list of Canon wide lenses. I do see that there are some with image stabilization but they are a bit slower. They are 2.8. I'm wondering how much it matters to have the image stabilization in the lens versus just relying on that within the body?

If I'm using an image stabilized lens, that's a 35 mm that starts at f2, which I would probably stop down to 2.8 and no more than four. Would I be helping myself to get a wider lens but which while having image stabilization also starts at 2.8 and I assume then I would be stopping down to something like four? Or would I be better off using my body's image stabilization and getting one of these non-zoom wide lenses that lack image stabilization?

@bluedemon25 Canon doesn't like ultra-wide-angle lenses, that's why we have to look elsewhere. I'll try the TTArtisan 11mm F2.8 Fisheye Lens and I'll definitely report back here. Why do I prefer this lens? It's perfect for shooting the starry sky, the bright and wide polar lights fit completely into the frame.

I've heard that lenses used via an adapter add distortion, but I can't say for sure yet, I'm still learning my new camera. But if you're going to use third-party lenses, you'll need to make sure your camera firmware has a shutter release function without a lens installed. Usually, it's in the additional settings: C.Fn4>Shutter release without lens>ON. Check it, otherwise, your camera won't take pictures with third-party lenses.

Regarding noise reduction. I turn it on when I'm doing timelapses of northern lights, noctilucent clouds, or during normal daytime shooting. But when I'm photographing comets or galaxies, I turn it off. In this case, it's better to turn on noise reduction in programs, for example, DSS or lightroom.

Thank you! Those are very helpful tips. I'll have to look into it. My there are so many new features than what I'm used to. It's going to take a while to learn. I guess I'm also trying to see just how much increase in the wide aspect of being a wide lens I need. Are the guys that go 20 mm focal length sufficient? If I did want to go with Canon? I'm not married to definitely doing Canon and I'm just looking at it as a starting point.

I see they also have zooms that are approximately 15 to 35 or 16 to 28, etc. I'm just looking to get something that's at least fast. If nothing else and an improvement on the width. I'll definitely take yours and anyone else's suggestions for lenses to look into and that feature you mentioned to see if it can be compatible

Edited August 31Aug 31 by bluedemon25

Just now, bluedemon25 said:

Thank you! Those are very helpful tips. I'll have to look into it. My there are so many new features than what I'm used to. It's going to take a while to learn. I guess I'm also trying to see just how much increase in the wide aspect of being a wide lens I need. Are the guys that go 20 mm focal length sufficient? If I did want to go with Canon? I'm not married to definitely doing can and I'm just looking at it as a starting point. I see they also have zooms that are approximately 15 to 35 or 16 to 28, etc. I'm just looking to get something that's at least fast. If nothing else and an improvement on the width. I'll definitely take yours and anyone else's suggestions for lenses to look into and that feature you mentioned to see if it can be compatible

If I knew more about Canon with RF bayonets before my purchase, I would have recommended Sony to you 😅.

I would find 20mm, 35mm and 50mm useful. There are enough situations when you need to change the focal length to get the desired shot. As an option, I would prefer to have 11mm for G3 and higher level Polar Lights and for shooting the starry sky. Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens would be ideal as a universal one, you can use it to shoot weak and moderate polar lights, noctilucent clouds, focus on some part of the sky, and also for shooting comets. ZhongYi Mitakon APO 200mm F4 https://zyoptics.net/product/mitakon-200mm-f-4-1x-macro-lens/ would be suitable for shooting galaxies, nebulae and weak comets. I have seen decent shots from photographers.

24 minutes ago, bluedemon25 said:

Oh additionally, as there are so many new features I haven't seen before. Could anyone comment on whether it's a good thing or not? A good thing to use the high ISO noise reduction feature? I don't really know what it means by high for high ISO. If this kicks in only say at a certain ISO and above and if it wouldn't matter, unless I went really high more than I'd probably do versus say, let's say I'm shooting up to 3,200 ISO?

I thought I read the high ISO noise reduction feature is sort of like taking dark frames. I don't know if it was better to do that or just try and remember to take dark frames and put it in sky stacker which I'm still learning how to use. If it's a good thing in case I forget to take dark frames maybe I should use it. But I would love to hear any advice from you guys on that feature.

Yes, it is with an RF because it's mirrorless. So I'm using the EF to RF ring adapter. Having played with it a lot, it does seem to work well without problems on the focus as best as I can tell.

Speaking of that, EF to RF adapter, I only have a Canon lens but say we're looking at a wide-angle lens. Like many of you use and recommend. I was unclear if the adapter really only works for attaching a Canon lens because I understand it has something to do with distancing. The lens from the camera body the right amount so it focuses. Would I lose the important capabilities if I used a non-canon lens? I know for Astro stuff we always focus on a star manually anyway, so in that case maybe it doesn't matter. I don't know if there are other factors I'm just unaware of. I'm doing a lot of learning still with this new guy.

Sorry I have a lot of thinking but I think it may be useful to others so it's okay to ask here too. A lot of the newer cameras include in-body image, stabilization Ibis. I'm looking at wider lenses and I noticed that some of them that are fastest and wide do not include image stabilization on the lens. These are for non-zooms when I'm looking at the Ken Rockwell list of Canon wide lenses. I do see that there are some with image stabilization but they are a bit slower. They are 2.8. I'm wondering how much it matters to have the image stabilization in the lens versus just relying on that within the body?

If I'm using an image stabilized lens, that's a 35 mm that starts at f2, which I would probably stop down to 2.8 and no more than four. Would I be helping myself to get a wider lens but which while having image stabilization also starts at 2.8 and I assume then I would be stopping down to something like four? Or would I be better off using my body's image stabilization and getting one of these non-zoom wide lenses that lack image stabilization?

Hi there. You have a good camera and a good lens. This combo of a full frame sensor plus an f2 lens should give you wonderful aurora pictures. The focal length is a bit long (35 mm) and will not allow you to scoop up bigger auroral displays. If you want to capture a wider swath, you would need to ramp up ISO to shorten the exposure and then merge into a panorama. A tripod with a leveling head is best way about this. I often do short panos when I shoot landscapes---the merged images look like you had a super-wide angle on.

As for the settings, the best is to explore how the lens renders on a night that does not necessarily have aurora to get a sense if you really need to stop it at 2.8. My guess is that you will be happy with the lens wide open at f2. Try shooting the Milky Way, for example, to see what ISO settings gives you the best images. The MW is roughly the brightness of a typical auroral display (scratch that on Oct 10), so this will give you a good idea on what to expect when you go aurora hunting.

To give you a more specific idea for the ISO, let's say you expose 4-8 seconds just to be specific (if the aurora is distant [and most will be distant in the US NE] and does not change fast, 8 secs is fine, if it is a dynamic display, you may go with 4 secs or even shorter). If you shoot at f2, you might be happy with ISO between 1000-2000. I would go on the low end if you have a lot of light pollution around you or near full Moon, and higher if you have darker skies.

I shoot with a full frame Nikon Z7 and either a 24-70mm f2.8 or a wide angle 14-30mm f4 and I shoot at the maximal aperture always. My typical ISO settings vary between 1600 and 4000 (for the f4 lens) and 500-800 if full Moon. I would stay away from any built-in noise reduction features. You want to snap images quickly without any delays, plus you can take care of the noise in post-pro.

Pro tip 1: when checking the images on the LCD monitor, add the image histogram to it. Sometimes, we may get caught in a great and bright aurora display and if this happens (we all pray for it), you may be unknowingly overexposing the highlights in the aurora display, which you will see on the histogram (too much mass of the histogram pushed to the right). Then, drop the ISO.

Pro tip 2: Bring a lens cleaning cloth with you!!!!! We are getting into fall and with it more damp conditions. At night your lens may be fogging up profusely. It is easy to NOT notice this and wonder why the images look "weird". The last thing you want is wiping your lens with your shirt, scratching the glass, and have smudges on the surface.

Pro tip 3: Stick with your location. It is sometimes tempting to chase clouds at the last second or look for a better spot that has less obstruction on the horizon, but in my own experience, you will just end up driving around like a lunatic and miss out on something good.

Pro tip 4: Tomorrow, you are about to witness something that may take your breath away, so pack a bottle of compressed oxygen with you! :)

Thank you so much! This is very helpful and I'm going to read it again and mull it over.

If I, as I may, in the excitement forget to take dark frames. Would it still be all right to have the long exposure NR off? I'm thinking that might be ideal so I don't miss shots even if they're not very dynamic here in CT.

May I also ask about the white balance. I'm not very used to this setting and usually I've just had it on auto for lack of knowledge of what else to do. I have had as I believe someone said above the odd occurrence of sometimes the whole color of the sky changes and I know that's not reality, but in my camera it might even look a yellow green and then at other times it looks more properly exposed and closer to what I expect. I wasn't understanding what was happening but it sounds like this could be a white balance issue.

Is auto WB still okay? I've read some people who do Astro photography. Sometimes set it to daylight or sometimes pick a particular Kelvin value?

I know there's also something called custom WB, that you take a picture and it supposedly does something by setting the white balance afterwards but I was unclear on if I'm supposed to focus on a particular thing to take said picture?

and if it does that for all images then on or if I have to do this every time?

If I can't figure out the custom white balance, is there a second best choice between the Kelvin, the daylight, the auto, or something else?

I'm making notes based on what you've told me to take with me so thank you so very very much

Edited August 31Aug 31 by bluedemon25

1 hour ago, bluedemon25 said:

Thank you so much! This is very helpful and I'm going to read it again and mull it over.

If I, as I may, in the excitement forget to take dark frames. Would it still be all right to have the long exposure NR off? I'm thinking that might be ideal so I don't miss shots even if they're not very dynamic here in CT.

May I also ask about the white balance. I'm not very used to this setting and usually I've just had it on auto for lack of knowledge of what else to do. I have had as I believe someone said above the odd occurrence of sometimes the whole color of the sky changes and I know that's not reality, but in my camera it might even look a yellow green and then at other times it looks more properly exposed and closer to what I expect. I wasn't understanding what was happening but it sounds like this could be a white balance issue.

Is auto WB still okay? I've read some people who do Astro photography. Sometimes set it to daylight or sometimes pick a particular Kelvin value?

I know there's also something called custom WB, that you take a picture and it supposedly does something by setting the white balance afterwards but I was unclear on if I'm supposed to focus on a particular thing to take said picture?

and if it does that for all images then on or if I have to do this every time?

If I can't figure out the custom white balance, is there a second best choice between the Kelvin, the daylight, the auto, or something else?

I'm making notes based on what you've told me to take with me so thank you so very very much

WB is important and also it is not. If you do not do panos or sequences / movies, then having auto might be ok but the aurora may be inconsistent from picture to picture and may fluctuate depending on what else is in the picture (lamps, Moon, cars).

WB is a personal choice. Some like the aurora very cold and others prefer warm hues. I used to develop the images very warm but have since switched to a little colder tones. I shot the June 1 display at 4000K and liked the color gamut. I might start at 4000K this time, too, and see. The June storm was very fast, and it definitely affected the spectrum of colors.

Another reason that speaks for fixing the WB is if you ever display your images in a gallery or put them in your portfolio, they should be consistent across.

Try setting to 4000K, take shots, and decide for yourself. You can always bump it up to 4500 or bring down, depending on what you like. WB can be corrected for in post pro to your liking as well.

@bluedemon25 I forgot to comment on the dark frames. Most noise will be the ISO noise also known as the photonic noise or shot noise, which is random in nature (due to quantum properties of light) and thus cannot be suppressed in any other means than via denoising. The dark current is an accumulative type of fixed pattern noise that shows up in long exposures and is stronger the longer the exposure and the higher the ambient temperature. Because it is fixed, it can be subtracted if you acquire a dark frame of the same exposure and under the same conditions. Taking a dark frame after every exposure will rob you of precious time though during which you could be taking another shot. I would not worry about the dark frame and keep on shooting.

The last type of noise is the PRNU (photo response non-uniformity), which is also a fixed pattern noise that is multiplicative with respect to the noise-free image. This can get suppressed by flat fielding = dividing by a flat field image. This one is orders of magnitude weaker than the ISO noise and I would not worry about it at all. Astronomers worry about everything and will do both flat fielding and dark current subtraction. But most folks shooting auroras and astrophotography landscapes in general just denoise their images in post pro.

Pro fact 1: The PRNU is unique to the sensor and can be used for identifying the camera. You can think of it as "scratches on a bullet" which are also unique and are used in ballistics to prove that a bullet was fired from a specific gun. PRNU can serve the same purpose - it can be used to prove than a given image was taken with a specific camera or to prove that two images were taken by the same device or to detect if something has been added / removed from a picture. It has a number of forensic uses. If you have time, rent the movie "Beyond the Reasonable Doubt" by Peter Hyams. This movie, which stars Michael Douglas as a corrupted DA, features this technology. Fun to watch. They mention some researchers from Binghamton, NY who invented this technology :)

Thank you! This definitely helps me plan a bit better. I won't bother with those noise reduction corrections since it'll remove precious time from me taking photos. Do what I can in post. I never even figured out how to take flats so I usually don't worry about it. For my purposes. I'm going to try what you suggested at starting at 4000 Kelvin for WB. Thank you again

This might be a stupid question, but it's my first time experiencing this with photography. Using the advice above, I went out to test my camera for the first time doing nighttime photography. I'm familiar with the lens but on an aps-c body. Until now. I also usually was using a different more zoomed in lens for any astrophotography I did.

I'm seeing what I believe is called barrel distortion on the edges or the outside periphery of my photos unless I stop down a bit. For example, if I were at f2 like you suggested, it's nice and bright. I see the stars it's I don't think dark enough where I am no matter what to get any sort of settings to let me see milky Way structure but I see a hell of a lot of stars on the camera that I can't see with my eye. If I stop down to F. 2.8, there is a definite improvement in this distortion, although it's not all gone and then at F4 it's mostly gone.

What I'm wondering is does post-processing with the camera lens profile usually take care of this very well so that I don't have to worry about it at all and I can shoot wide open?

Or do I want to compromise by stopping down to f 2.8 , because maybe it's not perfect distortion correction post-processing?

I'm not really sure not being familiar with having to deal with any sort of correction of this, in which case the moderate barrel distortion was at F 2.8 and most of it was gone at F4. But also of course a lot of my light.

I'm used to using Adobe camera raw for preprocessing including adding the camera lens profiles just because that's what I have on my computer. I'm tending to use very old versions as I have a very old laptop so I'm on Photoshop CS6. It uses camera profiles. I don't know if there's any limits with the older version profiles or if I need some alternate software to account for this.

Can you advise please if it'll (Photoshop CS6 with Adobe camera raw and the lens profile correction) take care of the barrel distortion sufficiently that I can shoot wide open at f2 or if I must stop down to make sure I don't have a periphery distorted image?

Also, does this sound about right:

I was finding I see a bunch of stars nice and clear in the image with it not looking too dark nor too bright if I was shooting:

F 2 or 2.8

8 seconds either ISO 1600 or 3200

That seemed to work well to see a bunch of density of stars.

There was no moon out. It's a bortle 5 sky area but amongst what I have a darker site in it. So there's no neighbor's house lights but there are Town, City, dome, lights, etc. I was generally shooting at F. 2.8 but tested f2 as well. Zooming in on my camera LCD, I didn't see too much footballing on the stars compared to when I was using more zoom lenses, so I think that aspect is okay.

I think those sound like settings approximately like you were talking about above. I just wasn't able to pick up the actual Milky Way in anything I could recognize to test. So the best I could do was when do I see a large density of stars appearing and the above worked. Just sort of sanity checking that I was going at least roughly along what you meant and if not please correct me.

Thank you

Edited September 1Sep 1 by bluedemon25

15 hours ago, bluedemon25 said:

Oh additionally, as there are so many new features I haven't seen before. Could anyone comment on whether it's a good thing or not? A good thing to use the high ISO noise reduction feature? I don't really know what it means by high for high ISO. If this kicks in only say at a certain ISO and above and if it wouldn't matter, unless I went really high more than I'd probably do versus say, let's say I'm shooting up to 3,200 ISO?

I thought I read the high ISO noise reduction feature is sort of like taking dark frames. I don't know if it was better to do that or just try and remember to take dark frames and put it in sky stacker which I'm still learning how to use. If it's a good thing in case I forget to take dark frames maybe I should use it. But I would love to hear any advice from you guys on that feature.

Had to do a bit of digging after the different manuals for my Z6 didn't specify this at all, Google answered a bit and a Canon article answered the rest.

https://www.canon.no/pro/stories/noise-reduction-low-light/

If you're shooting in RAW it doesn't matter, the inbuilt ISO NR only applies to jpeg. I'm guessing it's the same across all manufacturers in that the way NR works is based on the average across sensors for the camera you have, meaning it's effective in eliminating most of the noise due to crosstalk(electronic noise) but does poorly for random noise. Canon apparently has Multi-shot NR as well (Also not in RAW) which sounds interesting for low light landscape photography conditions but is useless for sky, DSS already does this in post-processing.

These aren't recommended for sky even if you're shooting in jpeg.

Long exposure NR however works for RAW, is able to greatly reduce all types of noise dark current pattern noise, and works in the same way as dark frame subtraction in DSS. The camera takes a second image with a closed shutter, compares the noise in the dark frame to the original image and subtracts noise. The only issue here is heat, and in the article linked above Canon recommends folding out the screen when shooting and letting the camera rest for at least a few seconds between shots.

Edited September 1Sep 1 by Rudolph
Strikethrough

@bluedemon25 Lightroom will use a profile for the lens and apply correction for chromatic aberration, geometric distortion (barrel, pincushion, etc.), and will also adjust for vignetting. Astigmatism is not possible to correct for.

Stopping the lens should have no effect on geometric distortion but should help with astigmatism. I do not know your lens but for auroras I would still use the max aperture to have less noisy images. You are shooting the aurora, not the stars, really, right?

@Rudolph When we shoot auroras at high ISO and 4-8 secs, the dominant noise is the shot noise not the dark current. Shot noise cannot be subtracted. Dark current is an issue for astronomers who use very long exposures but for aurora when we expose at 4-8 seconds, it makes no sense to bother with the dark frame.

53 minutes ago, JessicaF said:

@Rudolph When we shoot auroras at high ISO and 4-8 secs, the dominant noise is the shot noise not the dark current. Shot noise cannot be subtracted. Dark current is an issue for astronomers who use very long exposures but for aurora when we expose at 4-8 seconds, it makes no sense to bother with the dark frame.

You've told me this before, that sky and aurora shooting isn't the same, perhaps it'll sink in this time? 👀

When You Don't Get the Aurora Borealis... Single frame of the Orion Nebula. I'm getting the hang of it, and I think I'm getting the hang of it.

I noticed vignetting. I don't know what kind of lens it is, but the camera is good, and it's unlikely to have a cheap lens. Do all lenses for full-frame cameras have vignetting? Its norm?

@Samrau The lens is very good. It is me being sloppy. I should fix it. All lenses will have some vignetting at the wide end that can be enhanced by editing if one is not careful.

On 9/1/2025 at 10:37 PM, Samrau said:

When You Don't Get the Aurora Borealis... Single frame of the Orion Nebula. I'm getting the hang of it, and I think I'm getting the hang of it.

How did you acquire this? Through your Schmidt-Cassegrain and your new Canon? Settings?

@JessicaF You're shooting great. Just by buying a better camera, I discovered a new world for myself, which I am mastering from scratch)))

Celestron 5SE (125mm, SC, F10), AZ-GTi mount in equatorial mode, Canon RP, 6400, 1x30s.

The conditions were not the best due to the fact that Orion is not yet climbing high, also due to haze and gusty winds, so the shutter speed was limited to 30 seconds, and the ISO was raised to 6400. Although the mount is not designed for astrophotography, when there is no wind and I adjust the stars as precisely as possible, I was able to take exposures of up to 5 minutes. But it's better to buy something better for astrophotography, at least you can only buy an astrotracker for the camera, it costs about 500-700 $. The mounts with the installation of the guide's camera will already be an order of magnitude more expensive.

Beautiful shot!!! Last time I saw that was a 12.5”” reflector in 1973! Awesome. Edit: I even remember my remarks. Looks like a stellar nursery. Haha. Very cool Samrau!

Edited September 3Sep 3 by hamateur 1953
Remarks

On 9/3/2025 at 6:49 PM, JessicaF said:

@Samrau The lens is very good. It is me being sloppy. I should fix it. All lenses will have some vignetting at the wide end that can be enhanced by editing if one is not careful.

So, I've encountered the fact that I also have vignetting. How to deal with it?

I tried different settings, but it's still there.

3 minutes ago, Samrau said:

So, I've encountered the fact that I also have vignetting. How to deal with it?

I tried different settings, but it's still there.

I assume you shoot in RAW, right? How do you develop the RAW file? Adobe Lighroom corrects for it based on the lens profile. I should say though that it does not completely correct but makes it less visible. When we further process, such as contrast enhancement and especially clarity, the residual vignetting becomes much more severe. If the vignette is introduced by say clarity adjustment, then try applying the clarity only locally using a brush. You can also attempt to correct for it with a radial filter but it can be tricky to do right without introducing other artifacts. The radial filter works better than vignetting adjustment in the main adjustment panel.

Another possibility is to crop it away but then one needs to compose with this in mind. Last but not least, vignette in a landscape shot is not necessarily viewed as undesirable if it is not overdone.