PDA

View Full Version : Need help taking a pic of the space station



Suprpntr
08-01-2007, 11:26 PM
Help!
I have the d50, 70-300, tripod, I know how to use the remote. I'm not much good with the manual settings ( have tried )

Just want to snap a pic of the station as it cruises overhead. Don't really expect to see detail. But, from the experts here, what would be the best settings on the camera to use?


Thanks

K1W1
08-02-2007, 04:27 AM
Manual focus.

Rooz
08-02-2007, 04:50 AM
the space station ? :eek: would you even see it without a super telescope ? :confused: keep in mind that moon shots at 300mm are close to 100% crops.

Suprpntr
08-02-2007, 08:58 AM
Yes, you can see it from the ground with the naked eye. There is a schedule posted on their site. Looks much like a plane, no detail.

I was hoping to snap a pic but have not been able to. Was hoping that someone here might be able to suggest which manual settings to use.

herc182
08-02-2007, 09:59 AM
manual focus, and real off a load of shots (continous shooting). Giving that the station is moving you will want fairly fast shutter speeds, which will mean high ISO settings. Shutter speeds around 1/250? No idea how fast relative to us the station would be moving. D50 fairs well with high iso so take it to 800-1000?

Any one else chip in or discount my advice :)

The 70-300 lens, how fast is that one? Is it the f2.8?
Remember to turn of the VR when its on the tripod.

coldrain
08-02-2007, 02:01 PM
Help!
I have the d50, 70-300, tripod, I know how to use the remote. I'm not much good with the manual settings ( have tried )

Just want to snap a pic of the station as it cruises overhead. Don't really expect to see detail. But, from the experts here, what would be the best settings on the camera to use?


Thanks
Forget it, you will not see anything. The lens you have (70-300 G) does not resolve much at 300mm, and you just will not at all get enough light to even see the brightest star well exposed.

If you can see a very small high flying plane at night, then you have good eyes... You really will need better equipment.

Suprpntr
08-02-2007, 05:35 PM
I think I'll give it a try anyway, thanks to those who gave helpful hints. I'm willing to bet one can at least get blurred pic where you can tell it is not a natural object. Just have to figure out my equipment better. Good practice as I see it.


Oh, here is the link to see it pass over your city. Interesting in my opinion. Last night it was right on time.

http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/realdata/sightings/

DonSchap
08-02-2007, 05:50 PM
Well ... as Coldrain has pointed out ... the chances are slim to none and Slim's out of town.

Some combinations that may work ... but probably just a waste of sensor time ....

Tripod mount the camera ...
Zoom to 300mm ...

Manual Settings
f/5.6 ...
ISO-1600 (if you've got it) ...
try a 1/10 sec ... if you see anything ... try and determine movement.
Yes, try 1/30 sec.
No, try 1/2 sec ... any better? Can you even see it in the viewfinder?



This is just an educated guess. Astronomy shots are tough. Recommendation: Get a faster lens ... like a 200mm f/3.5 or 70-200 f/2.8 ... and one hell of a floodlight.

Vich
08-02-2007, 05:56 PM
Yes, you can see it from the ground with the naked eye. There is a schedule posted on their site. Looks much like a plane, no detail.

I was hoping to snap a pic but have not been able to. Was hoping that someone here might be able to suggest which manual settings to use.

Wow really? !!!

You got a link? I'd love to see it.

Suprpntr
08-02-2007, 06:44 PM
Well ... as Coldrain has pointed out ... the chances are slim to none and Slim's out of town.

Some combinations that may work ... but probably just a waste of sensor time ....

Tripod mount the camera ...
Zoom to 300mm ...

Manual Settings
f/5.6 ...
ISO-1600 (if you've got it) ...
try a 1/10 sec ... if you see anything ... try and determine movement.
Yes, try 1/30 sec.
No, try 1/2 sec ... any better? Can you even see it in the viewfinder?



This is just an educated guess. Astronomy shots are tough. Recommendation: Get a faster lens ... like a 200mm f/3.5 or 70-200 f/2.8 ... and one hell of a floodlight.

Yes, I can see it in the viewfinder. It looks like a big plane. I know this is possible. If I can't, I bet someone here can.

Rhys
08-02-2007, 07:05 PM
I have seen the space station. It moves very quickly across the sky. You'll need a fast shutter to freeze it unless you plan to track it somehow.

DonSchap
08-02-2007, 07:19 PM
Well ... I just happen to have a tracking telescope ... well, I do ... but it's not programmed for this kind of tracking. It does common stars and planets ... even the moon ... but satellites ... BUZZ! :p

That would be cool, though ... instead of the telescope ... mounting the EOS 20D & SP AF200-500 f/5-6.3 Di LD on there and letting her rip ... as I toggle the release. Maybe ... when I'm so not busy ... I could concentrate on it. Ah, such is life. :o

Look, I'll take a crack at it ... it's supposed to be over for a full five minutes at about 56-degrees up in the sky ... travelling from SW to ENE ... probably the best time yet. 9:32PM.

DonSchap
08-02-2007, 08:53 PM
Okay, I got the shot! :D

But if it weren't for the timing, I could not identify it. Oh, it was arcing across the sky, alright. Either the sun reflecting off it is so intense, there is no way to get any clear definition ... or the atmospherics are so hazy ... it just sucks taking these kind of images from Des Plaines. It definitely has a shape, though. At 500mm, it was stretching the pixels to keep the resolution. These three images were at CPA ... I figure they're the best of the bunch. You can kind of see the division between the two massive solar panel rows. It's a tough shot ... with <3% of my available pixels describing the image.

Canon EOS 20D w/ TAMRON SP AF200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD

These are 100% crops ... as close to 800x535 as I could get them:


27134

27135

27136
All taken with the following settings:
500mm - f/6.3 - 1/60 sec. - ISO-1600 - Infinity focus - tripod w/ release - Manual Mode - WB=5500K

DonSchap
08-02-2007, 09:26 PM
And here is an image of Venus, just 15 minutes earlier.


27137


You can tell it is much more spherical, that the station images. I used Venus to calibrate my settings to catch the Space Station. I figured that if I got a decent exposure of the planet ... the station should come in just fine.

Like I said, hazy night ... clouding up for some late night rain.

Anyway, that's my shot at it ... NEXT!

Stoller
08-02-2007, 10:40 PM
Don I was able to clean your shot up in photo shop. :D

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/assembly/lores/sts104-332-026.jpg

Sorry I wish I was that good in photo shop. :D:D:D

K1W1
08-02-2007, 11:09 PM
Don I was able to clean your shot up in photo shop. :D



What version?
How much?
Where did you get it?
I only have CS2 and I MUST get whatever version you have. When I combine that with Ken Rockwell's favourite helium filled Nikkor lens I'm going to be able to shoot clear pics of the next moon landing from here in Melbourne.

Vich
08-03-2007, 12:06 AM
No Don, not the Gas Station down the street. ... :p

DonSchap
08-03-2007, 07:06 AM
Like I said ... it was a crappy, hazy sky ... it will be clearer, tonight near 10 PM and I'll give it another go. Wish I had a deeper level of glass, although given the lousy atmospherics ... probably would not have made much difference. Maybe something like an EF 600mm f/4L IS USM and a two Canon EF 2x. Crank that baby in with 1200mm of optical firepower. ... hmmm, CW... where are ya, buddy?

Anyway, I'll know better when I snap Venus ... see whether I can clear that up a little. The "Evening Star" is always there for a shot.

I might just use the SONY A100 with the TAMRON Adaptall 2 MF 200-500mm f/6.9 LD lens ... its infinity focus is mechanically just a little bit tighter. I already know that the Adaptec 2 2x T/C will not add to that, as it destroys infinity focus altogether. It'll look worse than last night's attempt. If I could get 1000mm, it would only double the size of an already crappy looking shot. :rolleyes:

Truly, what I need is some way of defeating the mechanical stop that is on the focus ring and be able to crank it further ... to infinity and BEYOND! Just like ... a telescope. Now that's a thought .. a more manual lens ... something with some length and a variable, uncalibrated manual focus.

Let's face it, a 22MP or 33MP sensor couldn't hurt, either.

Until then ... this is actually the configuration of the station, as it looks today. Kind of a mishapened, hodge podge:

27150

tekriter
08-03-2007, 11:07 AM
What version?
How much?
Where did you get it?
I only have CS2 and I MUST get whatever version you have. When I combine that with Ken Rockwell's favourite helium filled Nikkor lens I'm going to be able to shoot clear pics of the next moon landing from here in Melbourne.


Ken Rockwell can shoot the next moon landing RIGHT NOW - he doesn't have to wait for it. His helium-filled lenses see into the future.

In fact, NASA has asked him to do just that so that they know where to land when they go there.

DonSchap
08-03-2007, 01:04 PM
I took a few minutes to look at the "Meade" site and determine what it would cost to throw together a decent, but lower-end rig for astrophotography that won't bust your wallet to infinity.


27158

The ETX 125PE telescope provides a 1900mm f/15 lens to the camera, through a T-mount screw in adapter, which goes right into the rear of the telescope.


27159 . . . 27160


Now, I'll be the first to admit that f/15 is not the brightest bulb in the box, but obviously they feel it is adequate enough to make this possible, or they probably would not have done it. It should be sharp, though. It also has a 90-degree eye tube on the telescope for aim ... so with a simple release ... it could be truly uncomplicated. With AUTOSTAR, this rig also tracks celestial bodies without issue. So ... there you have it. All the work is practically done for you.

Roughly $1100 ... and you'll be seeing stars.

Suprpntr
08-03-2007, 07:42 PM
I knew someone here could figure this out. In fact I own a Meads 8" SC. Forgot all about it in relation to this. Havent used it in years, just dawned on me that if I bought the adapter.... perhaps I could snap the pic. Doesnt' solve the tracking problem thought. Of course I would just settle for a blurred, homemade pic that you could tell might be the station.

DonSchap
08-03-2007, 09:48 PM
I did as I proposed ... but the clouds were just too heavy. When the Station finally appeared, it was nearly across the sky and the camera found it ... but it was far smaller than the previous night. Sharper, with the f/6.9 lens, but out of range. 500mm just is not enough lens for this effort.

It was worth a try ... but the weather is not cooperating. I guess it could be worse. I could be down in Texas ... were there is so much rain ... they've got new lakes to name.

Ah well ... enough is enough. Your really do need a telescope for this ... and I saw that the Meade ETX 125PE is a 1900mm focal length. That's 4x what I'm trying to use! Still, you need decent weather to even have a shot and do this properly ... maybe in Utah or Arizona. And if you are truly serious and have money to ignite ... Meade does have the new RCX400 (http://www.meade.com/rcx400/index.html) series of telescopes, that have no coma-effect. "Most impressive." - Darth Vader

On the Meade site (http://www.meade.com/photogallery/etx_gallery.html), I noted that some of the shots piggyback the telescopes together. I wonder how they do that?

Good luck to anyone willing to take the shot.