15sunrises

<p>Thanks a lot for the help all. I think I've narrowed my choices down to the:</p>

<p>Ferrino Alpax 50: <a href="http://www.scoutdoor.cz/ferrino-alpax-50/">http://www.scoutdoor.cz/ferrino-alpax-50/</a></p>

<p>Ferrino Haute 60 (2009 version): <a href="http://www.sportbart.cz/batoh-ferrino-haute-route-60-2009-p-4273.html">http://www.sportbart.cz/batoh-ferrino-haute-route-60-2009-p-4273.html</a></p>

<p>Although I'm not sure how I'd be able to strap my tripod to either of them...</p>

<p>Both of them look like they'll help me keep a bit more organized. Unfortunately all of the bags you listed Walt aren't available in my country.</p>

<p>Thanks a lot for the answers Daniel, I'll have to try this technique sometime soon, if it ever clears up. I recently got a tracking mount, and am wondering how I will be able to combine the shots, as there will be a blurry foreground from the tracked shot, and star trails from the non tracked shot. Thanks for the tips. Here's a couple of the shots that I put together with the old method:</p>

<p><img src="http://www.15sunrises.com/images/blog/krivoklat.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.15sunrises.com/images/blog/karlstejn_foggy_star_trails.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I know what you're saying about the wide aperture vs foreground sacrifices. I think both of these were shot at F/8, which with wide angle lenses at least keeps the foreground relatively sharp.</p>

<p>Great shots, hopefully you keep getting some clear skies!</p>

<p>Great shots Daniel. I've done some star trails the normal way before, but this looks like a better way to get a few more shots a night from the same set of batteries. You mention above "select and copy the foreground", I'm wondering how exactly you do this. Is this just painstaking photoshop work cutting out the foreground elements? The shots that you've posted have really crisp edges around the foreground elements, just wondering how you achieve that. Especially the fact that the trails appear through the trees.</p>

<p>What size can you print up to without noticing the gaps in the trails?</p>

<p>Thanks a lot, those inserts look handy in general as well.</p>

<p>I just like the camera bags because it separates the camping stuff from the camera stuff. I have a decent pack, which *can* store everything, but it's still not the easiest to access.</p>

<p>I just meant any kind of images whatsoever, even from the D2x, it interests me to see what kind of shots people are taking with these kinds of cameras, especially as a fellow landscaper.</p>

<p>I've been trying to find a bag that would be good for longer trips. I find the problem with normal backpacks is there there's no real good way to store all of the camera equipment and I end up spending more time hunting for my stuff than taking pictures. The problem that I find with camera bags is that there isn't enough room for all of the camping equipment and food, etc.</p>

<p>I'm looking for a reasonably sized bag which would be able to store a 40D w/ battery pack as well as some (or all) of the following:</p>

<p>- tripod<br>

- tent (or tarp)<br>

- sleeping bag<br>

- food<br>

- extra clothing<br>

- camping suppliles (stove, axe, etc.)</p>

<p>Something that would be good for a trip of about a week, keeping in mind that I would be able to stop for food, so I'd have to store 2 days of food maximum. I really haven't been able to find something that could meet these requirements, while having some kind of compartment system for camera equipment. Maybe the tamrac adventure 10 comes close?</p>

<p>Thank you for the review Kuryan, although this camera is likely something that I'll never buy, it's still nice to read about it!</p>

<p>I was hoping that you could share some examples of your work, or point me to your website? I can't find anything under your profile.</p>

<p>I'd say just get a 40D for now and the best lens you can get with what's leftover. No need to upgrade all the way to the 50D at the moment in my opinion.</p>

<p>Douglas also has a good point, there's still a lot of film users out there (which I hope never changes).</p>

<p>I wish I could delete this post now, ohwell.</p>

<p>I just ordered 2 of the 2000mah batteries from sterlingtek, they seem to be reliable, and are about as far away as I'd like to go from the canon orginal batteries.</p>

<p>I've found some 2200mah batteries locally for a pretty good price (3rd party of course). I'm just wondering if anybody has any experience with these, as they seem to be close to double the capacity of the stock batteries. Should I expect any kind of increase in battery life using something like these, or should I just stick on the safe side and get something closer to the range of the Canon batteries?</p>

<p>Thanks again for all the help people. I ended up going with the astrotrac, everybody who owns one (online) seems to be more than happy with its tracking accuracy and portability, my two main criteria. I literally couldn't find somebody who actually used the unit who had a problem with it (unless it was defective) and everybody talked about its ease of use and the fact that they are taking far more astro shots because of it. It was an easy sell for me, even with the fairly high sticker price.</p>

<p>Once I start getting some use out of it, I'll post more of my thoughts on it here as well as hopefully some workarounds that I'll find for the star trails vs blurry foreground sacrifice. May turn out that I'll end up blending images, which really sucks, because I'd much rather spend less time in front of a screen and more time outside.</p>

<p>You pictures are fantastic. </p>

<p>Unfortunately, as mentioned above, there's a few problems with your site that make it very difficult to navigate. Not only that, but the logo is a blatant rip-off as stated above, and you should get the legal issues sorted out surrounding what you use on your site. </p>

<p>I'm not sure if this is your fault, or the web designers, regardless it should be addressed. I would also take some more time to spell and grammar check any kind of correspondence you distribute, although it doesn't seem to be having an effect on your business so far, it could turn some people off. Like it or not, spelling and grammar are sometimes the basis of judgement for professionalism. The tone of your original post is also a giant put-off, maybe that's why people are reacting in the way they are.</p>

<p>Colleen Donovan: why is it that when people take the time to point out blatant and unacceptable faults some people jump to the conclusion that they are jealous? Almost everybody in the thread pointed out that they thought the photos are fantastic, but there is a lot more to to being a professional than simply snapping a good photo.</p>

<p>Hi Kyle,</p>

<p>I've done a lot (a lot) of research since I started this thread and might be able to help out now. The problem that I had was that I needed something portable and light, for longer trips, but finding something under $500 without these requirements should be fairly easy.</p>

<p>The orion EQ1 has gotten some fair reviews and might be enough for what you're looking for, and is very inexpensive. For something a bit more sturdy, the EQ2, EQ3-2 and EQ5 all fall within your budget, even when adding motors and scopes, so they could be worth checking out. </p>

<p>What lenses are you planning on using?</p>

<p>Thanks again everybody for the responses.</p>

<p>@Chris: yeah, I've thought a lot about how much preserving foreground detail would actually mean to me. But I think that with a dark foreground, even if I track for about 3 minutes or something, the detail that would come out in the sky would be worth some blurriness in the dark foreground. If I get ultimately disappointed, I guess I could start stitching exposures, but this is something that I hope to avoid.</p>

<p>I'm still undecided on the mount. The astrotrac has fantastic reviews everywhere, fits within my budget, is portable, and their online deal right now which includes a tripod + 2 heads would actually address another problem that I'm currently having and would like to address (changing tripods). Still no decisions made though as I'd like to see if I can push my current setup a bit further, and am also considering just changing from a 30d to a 40d so that I could maybe get some extra ISO stops without the noise exploding.</p>

<p>There seems to be a really fine line in night landscape photography between images that look good, and images that look 'fake' in my opinion. Wally's images don't seem to have that balance that photos from other night landscapists have between the foreground and sky. It looks like the foreground is just pasted over it, when compared to something like this:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.pixheaven.net/grand/080701_8603-12.jpg">http://www.pixheaven.net/grand/080701_8603-12.jpg</a></p>

<p>By Laurent Laveder.</p>

<p>Thank you all for the replies so far. The reason that I was looking at the astrotrac is because it's something that would take advantage of the fact that I would likely have a tripod with me anyways. I'm thinking about slightly longer trips (something like a week), where portability would be necessary, so even some kind of mount that could potentially double as a tripod, while being relatively durable and somewhat portable would be crucial. Here are some examples of what I've managed to do with a stationary mount. A few of these were shot at ISO640 on a 30D, with the last one being at ISO1600 (the 10-20 lens that I have has a max aperture of F/4). I think that a tracking mount would allow me to get the same kind of detail without trailing and I would have less noise to deal with.

 

Photos removed by moderator.

<p>Hi Jerry,</p>

<p>I'll definitely be using whatever I choose well outside of the city. Does your point #2 apply only to if I would be trying to polar align within the city, or near a light polluted area?</p>

<p>I've been looking for ways to improve my astro photos and it looks like investing in an equatorial mount in order to track the stars looks like a great way to get some deep sky objects at the clarity that I'm looking for. I've done quite a bit of research, but still haven't found exactly what I'm looking for. The closest I have come to finding what I'm looking for is the astrotrac TT320X mount, but it seems as though there are a few questions about the quality of this mount, especially for longer exposures at longer focal lengths.</p>

<p>What I'm looking for is essentially some kind of mount that I could attach directly to my tripod which I would already be using for other photographs. This is primarily because I'd need something fairly portable. Living in a city means that I have to hike fairly far (without a car) to get somewhere where the shots would work out, so I'd like something fairly lightweight and portable (as much as is possible).</p>

<p>My budget is ~$800, although recommendations below that would be really appreciated. Also, if there's something that would essentially be a tripod/mount in one, that would also be great as it would save sapce.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Bibble.</p>

<p>This is a good point. I use 2 monitors to prep my shots for prints, both calibrated well enough, but everytime I see my shots on somebody elses screen, they're definitely a lot brighter. I basically just realize that I'm too lazy to make 2 sets of images, and just deal with it, but it might actually be something worth considering in the end.</p>

<p>This may not be a Canon specific question, but I know that on the vast majority of Canon models there is only 2 stops of exposure compensation. I'm caught wondering why this is so? It would be so much easier, in situations where the meter is truly fooled, to be able to dial in as much compensation as necessary, rather than having to go into manual mode. Is there a technical reason we are limited to 2 stops of exposure comp? Or is it because in the vast majority of situations this is enough?</p>

<p>Curve adjustments are crucial when trying to emulate film in post processing. I'd suggest looking up velvia/provia/potra curves in google for photoshop and it might help you out as well.</p>

<p>Tre, it is nearly impossible to diagnose these kinds of problems without some examples.</p>