Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:To Infinity and Beyond!.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:To Infinity and Beyond!.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2019 at 21:50:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Well yes. But my gear is still the equivalent of a 18mm f/3.0 in full frame, which is still good option from a light gathering capability (which is what we should be aiming at when considering setup). Then there's sensor technology. The X-T2 is old, but not that much, and Fuji has good reputation for low noise because their sensors have more green photosites. But iso6400 in dark conditions is still iso6400 no matter what, and it was still a dark shot that needs some little +EV. I also choose to go light in NR. There are a lot of more advances techniques for shooting starry skies too. Some people do shoot foreground at low iso, and sky at high ISO, some do stitching (I could), when the sky is clear. But here I wanted me on the foreground, and I didn't have the clear sky anyways. Just to give some context. Remember that these aren't that easy conditions either... I'm constrained by the rotation of the stars (Earth actually, but all is relative), and I have a fixed element to consider. - Benh (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or if you have a small-sensor camera where anything over ISO 1600 looks like crap and you get the milky way barely visible. I also found out that it's totally useless to downsize star photos, even if they are way noisy, since you lose too much of the stars in the NR and that the difference is visible even at small thumb. --Cart (talk) 08:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @W.carter: I'm quite happy with my Sony RX100m4's performance with astrophotography. To illustrate, I've just uploaded two pictures of the Carrouges Castle in Normandy: one taken with my Fuji + Samyang 12mm and another one taken with a 1" Sony RX100m4. Don't know about you, but I would not hesitate to nominate astrophoto shot with a 1" (like yours) here. And I'm glad to know I can travel with just that small camera in remote places and still have the possibility to astro shoot. Your issue comes more from your not dark enough location (you didn't need me to know, but for other readers). Also, from that latitude, it's unlikely you'd see much of the brighter galactic center. - Benh (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that my little Sony RX100 (which I like for the same reason you do; it's always with me) takes ok star photos like this (FP!) shot in only moonlight on the other side of the peninsula. I was just taking the Panasonic with the same sensor size but better lens for a test run, since I wanted to see if it was possible at all to get the Milky Way over the sea. I tested several ISO from 800 to 12800, that's how I came to the conclusion about max 1600. But for some strange reason, the Sony is better for night photos, not sure why. Thanks for the light map!, although it hasn't taken into account all the tankers and cargo ships in the area. I also know I should be a bit patient. In Swedish we call the Milky Way 'The Winter Way' since that is when we see it best. I was just hoping that I could perhaps get something now instead of standing waiting for the camera in the freezing snow. ;) --Cart (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know which sensor Panasonic uses, but I can tell you that not all 1" sensors are alike noise-wise and DR-wise. The one in the Mavic 2 pro sucks (sorry), and I find it to be very noisy in dark areas. Sony is currently far far ahead as far as I can tell. The light map isn't everything. That Sept 17th night, you had a 90% full moon not that far (It rised a few minutes after you took the shot I believe). That really affects milky way visibility from my experience (on my shots, I also had full moon, that's what lits the castle. On other shots I don't show, we barely see the milky way). In fact, my "planner" software (Photopills) rates your night 1/10 for milky way visibility. I'm also surprised about your winter story. In December for instance, at solstice, the galactic center is far under the horizon, especially in your latitudes. I guess the Winter Way is more due to long nights giving you longer windows for gazing at the stars. But that is certainly not a good thing for milky way gazing. - Benh (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes the moon rose a bit later behind my back (got some nice shots), but lots of high cliffs here to shut it out for a good while. I think the Winter Way is because our summer nights are so bright you can hardly see any stars at all, so winter=stars. The good thing about the dark winter is that you can do your night photos before dinner and don't have to stay up all night. :) Thanks for the chat and all your good advice, hope it's been of use to other readers as well. --Cart (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of curiosity, I just made calculation and my Sony RX100m4 @wide end and f/1.8 is the same as 24mm f/5.0 on FF in terme of light gathering capability. So around 3 times less than my Fuji setup. Not that bad (if my calculations are right) - Benh (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik(talk) 09:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy#Sky
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:To_Infinity_and_Beyond!.jpg&oldid=368635120"