If you can fit a tripod to your camera (it's fairly standard), I would really recommend it
. Just a basic inexpensive one will be fine for most purposes. What camera model do you have? It all depends if you can control the exposure time and aperture to any degree (although this is usually automatic on most typical digitals). Once exposure time goes above ~50ms you usually need a tripod for best results.
ISO400 is fine. That's what I always use for my Star shots. My usual routine is to use ISO1600 (ultra sensitive low res mode) to locate the stellar objects and then switch into ISO400 for the shot and focus to infinity manually, although it is difficult to focus properly using an LCD. It is likely to be a little grainy, but it's just background thermal noise that the CCD picks up and records as well as visible radiation. This is why professional level CCD's are cooled by Liquid Nitrogen in telescopes or other high performance applications.
I'm very much a 'see and snap' person as well - though I will try to compose a scene as well as I can if it looks particularly pleasing to the eye.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Muir Woods
Anyways, I love that winterwonderland picture. I love snow, and I love blue. Great capture. I also LOVE those long (hour long exposure) star shots of stars going around the (north or south) Celestial Pole. I've been bothering my friend to take some long star exposure shots and make me a wallpaper of it  . |
Ah, so you like circumpolar stellar shots? Yes, they are very good at showing star colours
- I wish I could take them but you need massive exposure times with low sensitivity, as well as clear skies free of light pollution! Impossible here really unless I vanish up into the Scottish Highlands never to be seen again...