LOOKING FOR A CAMERA FOR THE AURORA BOREALIS

  • Thread starter Thread starter sut
  • Start date Start date
S

sut

Suspended / Banned
Messages
38
Edit My Images
Yes
HI GUYS,

I am looking to buy a camera as i am going to iceland in november and i want to take some decent photo's of the aurora borealis ( northern lights ). this will be the second time i have gone to view them but the photo's i took the first time didnt come out at all.

i want to find out the best camera for me to buy to take decent photo's of the aurora the issue i have is that i have a very limited budget so i am looking for a second hand camera with a budget of around £70. i hope you guys are able to help me.

thanks
anthony
 
For £70? You're kidding, right?

You might well be able to get a manual 35mm film SLR with 50mm f1.8 lens or possibly even a 28mm f2.8 from a well known auction site and together with some fast film you may get some good shots.
 
sut said:
HI GUYS,

I am looking to buy a camera as i am going to iceland in november and i want to take some decent photo's of the aurora borealis ( northern lights ). this will be the second time i have gone to view them but the photo's i took the first time didnt come out at all.

i want to find out the best camera for me to buy to take decent photo's of the aurora the issue i have is that i have a very limited budget so i am looking for a second hand camera with a budget of around £70. i hope you guys are able to help me.

thanks
anthony
Click to expand...

What camera do you have it may be that you are not getting the best out of your current camera this could save you having to buy a new camera
 
woof woof said:
For £70? You're kidding, right?

You might well be able to get a manual 35mm film SLR with 50mm f1.8 lens or possibly even a 28mm f2.8 from a well known auction site and together with some fast film you may get some good shots.
Click to expand...

Why? If you know how to use it I see no reason that you couldn't get decent pictures with a bridge camera, the key being knowing what. Your doing ;)
 
hi guys

thanks for the information so far, i currently dont have a camera i use my phone but the camera on that is crap.
from what you guys are saying is i would do better to buy a post card,

seems stupid to even start taking half decent photo's you guys are saying you have to spend big to even start, i thought £70 for a second hand camera would do a half decent job, spending more than that for a few days use with someone who has no skill with a camera is mad,

thanks for the help though,
 
StephyB said:
Maybe you could save up a bit more before November and pick up a second hand point and shoot camera?

Something like this? http://r.ebay.com/PNGwwM
Click to expand...

Even something like that is likely to end up at £150 once the auction finishes. Hiring maybe an option but you will likely need a crash course in long exposure photography. You'll also very likely need a tripod.
 
Hi,

A point n shoot will probably do. Have a search on jessops online site to get a flavour of the digital compacts up to 100 ukp.

The pop over to dpreview.com for a comparison, plus review on the cameras.

If you can get it to two or three, next step is to go to jessops, and handle the cameras.


If you check used, then you need an idea of the best picture quality cameras so you can search for those. I found the panasonic tz series ok for the most part. Has a lot of options to tweak. May be not the best iq, but did have a nice optical zoom (That is important - forget digital zoom ok!!)
Canons IXUS (I think they were) HS series... guessing here, but they looked nice. Might be a bit too new. If there is a used camera store near by, pop in and ask them what they have. Might not be much, but at least you could handle them and see whether it would do what you want.

Good hunting!
 
Don't forget to allow for a memory card in your budget, that would take at least £10 for a cheap card out of your budget and more like £20+ for one such as sandisk 32 gig card from my memory company. So that leaves £50 then you need a case for the camera so it doesn't get damage there goes another £10. So now your down to £30/40 which wouldn't even get you a half decent compact point/shoot camera let alone a DSLR and lens.

Realspeed
 
You could get something like a Nikon d50 and a kit lens for about £150. Quite a few on eBay have all the extras like cards thrown in with it.
I suggest you save every penny you can find, then do a hell of a lot of reading to learn how to use it.
 
sut said:
from what you guys are saying is i would do better to buy a post card,
Click to expand...

It's very often the case that for holiday landscapes, you're better off with postcards, although they do mean you can't really do bigger prints. Most (though by no means all!) postcards are shot at the right time of day/year to optimise the scene and sometimes even have nobody in them. Of course, with a load of time, a tripod and plenty of self control at the bar, it's usually possible for a decent photographer with a decent camera (sorry, NO £70 [even 2nd hand] qualifies!) etc should be able to replicate the shot.

IMO, the aurora comes under the buy a book or postcards umbrella. At some point, I hope to visit Iceland, which should offer me a decent chance to see and even have a go at photographing the Northern Lights but I have a camera that cost rather more than £70 and lenses to suit.

As I said, forget trying to photograph them, just enjoy the sights and maybe ask someone who IS getting good shots to e-mail you a copy of his pictures - maybe even offer him a beer or two (or more) for them.

Above all, enjoy the trip!

Nod.
 
MWHCVT said:
Why? If you know how to use it I see no reason that you couldn't get decent pictures with a bridge camera, the key being knowing what. Your doing ;)
Click to expand...

Even a decent bridge will very probably bust the budget.

OP. Sorry if I came off as being rude, that wasn't my intention but for £70 I honestly thing the best way forward at this price point would be with a film SLR set up but you'd probably need to Google your way to some information photographing the lights (there are sites devoted to it) and practice with your camera before setting out on your trip.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Even a decent bridge will very probably bust the budget.

OP. Sorry if I came off as being rude, that wasn't my intention but for £70 I honestly thing the best way forward at this price point would be with a film SLR set up but you'd probably need to Google your way to some information photographing the lights (there are sites devoted to it) and practice with your camera before setting out on your trip.
Click to expand...

A film camera isn't a bad call at all although as you say, maybe a baptism of fire in terms of settings etc... It is probably by some margin the cheapest way to get excellent results. Fast film, wide aperture lens, wider angle the better I'd guess, a lockable cable release and a tripod could probably just about be squeezed into budget. You'd then need an internet crash course in long exposure photography. It would be very much jumping in at the deep end but the worst that is going to happen is that the results are unusable which isn't going to be much different to the alternatives anyway. And of course you can probably sell all your kit when you return for not much loss. After that, it's just developing costs.

Sut, where are you based by the way? Maybe somebody local might be able to help you out.
 
I THINK YOU ARE UP FOR A BIG DISAPPOINTMENT IF YOU ARE GOING TO PURSUE £70 ROUTE. THE TRIP MUST COST YOU TENS OF TIMES MORE, SO AT THEN END OF THE DAY YOU NEED TO THINK ABOUT YOUR PRIORITIES. A DECENT GEAR THAT HAS ANY CHANCE OF TAKING SOME DECENT SHOTS OF AURORA IS LIKELY TO RUN INTO THOUSANDS, AFTER ALL IT IS ONE OF THE MOST CHALLENGING SUBJECTS IN LANDSCAPE PHOTOGRAPHY. HOWEVER ALL WILL BE USELESS AND WASTED UNLESS YOU LEARN THE ART AND CRAFT.

/CAPS LOCK
 
My thinking was that it may well be possible to get a SLR+28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8 at worst, within budget. Results could then be put on CD by... whoever develops them and voila... digital files from film.

Going as wide as 28mm with a used DSLR would mean settling for an APS-C + slow aperture kit lens which may be doable.

There are sites that are devoted to shooting the lights and they give recommended settings so whilst SLR or DSLR may be a leap of faith it's probably doable with perhaps just a roll of film / memory card full of shots shot out in the countryside for practice.

If new to cameras the OP may be better served by just enjoying the experience and forgetting shooting and instead going for post cards.
 
daugirdas said:
A DECENT GEAR THAT HAS ANY CHANCE OF TAKING SOME DECENT SHOTS OF AURORA IS LIKELY TO RUN INTO THOUSANDS,
Click to expand...

The sites dedicated to this seem to be suggesting something in the region of 24-35mm (FF equiv) fast aperture and middling ISO's. That should be possible with a budget of much less than "thousands." Certainly there are shots on line taken with entry to mid level DSLR's.

I'd love to take a cruise and do this and would certainly attempt it with the on line recommended kit, hundreds, not thousands I'd have thought. Entry leven APS-C DSLR... £100-150? Fast lens, Siggy 20mm f1.8?... £200+ if lucky but could go down the 18-50mm route... £50?
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
The sites dedicated to this seem to be suggesting something in the region of 24-35mm (FF equiv) fast aperture and middling ISO's. That should be possible with a budget of much less than "thousands." Certainly there are shots on line taken with entry to mid level DSLR's.

I'd love to take a cruise and do this and would certainly attempt it with the on line recommended kit, hundreds, not thousands I'd have thought. Entry leven APS-C DSLR... £100-150? Fast lens, Siggy 20mm f1.8?... £200+ if lucky but could go down the 18-50mm route... £50?
Click to expand...

Good luck with that. You are likely to need pretty clean ISO 3200 (or higher), wider than 24mm on FF (to be fair 14mm is the most striking). Thats the other side of £3000 there. Obviously that's only needed to take a good shot, not just a shot with a bit of aurora smear in it. That sigma 20 is the worst lens they ever made. 18-50? Really?!
 
daugirdas said:
Good luck with that. You are likely to need pretty clean ISO 3200 (or higher), wider than 24mm on FF (to be fair 14mm is the most striking). Thats the other side of £3000 there. Obviously that's only needed to take a good shot, not just a shot with a bit of aurora smear in it. That sigma 20 is the worst lens they ever made. 18-50? Really?!
Click to expand...

I see you've posted your usual reasonable and considered opinion :D

I have that Sigma lens and it's actually quite good. It's not razor sharp at f1.8, not as sharp as their 85mm f1.4 anyway, but sharp enough and sharpens up well in PS and deffo as the aperture is reduced. There are similar 24 and 28mm f1.8's. How sharp do you want a wide angle shot of the lights?

Dunno about 3200 being a necessity. I haven't shot the lights myself but as I said it's something I'd love to do and I've therefore been interested to read the various on line sites and some seem to be saying that ISO 400 may be enough. So 3200 may be a little extreme. 18-50? At the widest focal length and aperture it may be possible.

Here's a site where they mention a 20D and 17-40mm f4 (at kit zoom will probably be wider than f4 at 17/18mm) ISO 400...

http://www.royhooper.ca/articles/aurora.html

YMMV but I do think that you're maybe, possibly, overblowing things a bit with lenses costimg £k's and ISO 3200.

PPS. This is a 100% f1.8 crop from the worst lens Sigma ever made, focus between the eyes, it's via Photobucket so it wont look as good as on my screen but it's ok and I've seen worse from other lenses at smaller apertures...

IMG_4608.jpg


At f2 it's better and at f2.2 you could shave with it.

Anyway we're getting further off track now.
 
Last edited:
Another point worth mentioning is that the display is extremely dynamic, so still photos may not be the best way to capture them. Maybe a 1/2 decent video camera might be a better option?
 
once again thank you for the replies and after reading them all i now have a headache lol.
the people saying my budget is low offset against the cost of the trip to iceland the truth is going to iceland isnt expensive at all this 5 day trip flights and hotel is only costing £350 for 2 people,
as i dont really take photo's outside of my trip to iceland the budget is low as i feel i will just be wasting the money after the trip.

so from reading above it appears im being a tightarse as my wife says lol, so can i ask what ( second hand ) camera would you guys recommend to get good pics of the aurora ( i dont care about other photo's ) please remember though i have a limited budget,

thanks once again guys
 
Just a quick point.. Digital cameras hold value well.
You could buy a semi decent prosumer body and lens, use it for this trip and sell it when you get back.
You won't loose a great deal of money, and if you buy wisely, you may actually make money.
eBay is full of people selling gear because they can't be bothered to figure out how to use it.
You can buy a last generation DSLR that cost £600+ new last year for under £300 today, and you'll sell it for the same amount.

This doesn't help with the huge learning curve you will have, but it seems a far better option than wasting £70 on something that will certainly disappoint you.
 
woof woof said:
The sites dedicated to this seem to be suggesting something in the region of 24-35mm (FF equiv) fast aperture and middling ISO's. That should be possible with a budget of much less than "thousands." Certainly there are shots on line taken with entry to mid level DSLR's.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I have seen decent Aurora shots taken with entry level dslrs and also with mirrorless cameras (micro four thirds, Sony Nex etc). Saw some great ones a while ago taken with a Panasonic GF3 and the 14mm Panasonic lens - total cost of that equipment new around £250, used even less. Plus a tripod of course. :D

Anyway, the OP was looking for better photographs than their phone, not technically perfect professional photos for printing at poster size. You would be unlikely to need an iso as high as 3200 with a tripod and even if you did the Nex sensor has decent enough high iso performance for the purposes of the OP.

Anyway - one option - though still perhaps a bit above budget might be a used GF1 (micro four thirds camera) or Nex 3, an adapter off ebay (£8) and a cheapo legacy lens. Sure it won't give you ultra wide or even wide angle (due to the crop factor) but with good composition will still get you some decent photos. Looking at ebay completed listings for example, a Nex 3 body sold for £90 recently: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Sony-alpha-NEX-3-14-2-MP-Digital-SLR-Camera-Black-Body-only-/221129575907

Plus a bit of reading and practice beforehand using manual mode and an ir remote (£3 for a Nex one or £2 for a cable release for the GF1).

You will still need a tripod, but on an extreme budget you can get the £7 ones from amazon and weigh it down with a carrier bag filled with a few rocks). :) I have taken night photos with this tripod and mirrorless cameras (GF3, Nex) and they came out fine - the main problem with such a cheap tripod will be the danger of shake from wind, but unless it's fairly windy it will do the job.

Would need to double your budget to £150 or so (but you could resell the camera and lens afterwards if you wanted to get most of your money back) for the above options - otherwise if £70 really is your limit then the bridge camera linked to above would be an option.

There is also a native 16mm e-mount lens (24mm equivalent) for the Nex which costs £115 brand new on ebay and could then be resold for not much less than that, a Nex 3 body should also resell for not much less than you paid for it if you get a decent one in the first place and don't damage it. :)

For someone with no dslr experience coming from using a cameraphone, I think something the Nex may be less daunting than a dslr and it's also a lot smaller and lighter to carry around and will use up less of your baggage allowance. ;)
 
Last edited:
hi thank you for that but with saving the money for the trips to iceland and spending money i really cant afford to spend £300. i only have a month before i go so dont have time to save up that kind of money,
thanks for the good point though about the cameras not losing value nice to know i can buy and then sell on for around the same money,
 
Last edited:
The problem here is you are asking very enthusiastic camera people about a trip most would love to do with their 'proper' kit.

There is nothing wrong with spending £75 on a camera, you can get a decent (second hand) point and shoot for that. That will give you all the auto you need, a wide enough lens to capture what you are seeing and small enough to keep in your pocket and forget about on 90% of the trip.

If it was my £75 I would go for one of these (it also does HD video)

http://www.trustedreviews.com/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-FX70_Digital-Camera_review

You can pick one up on Gumtree for around your budget.

Memory card can be obtained from here http://www.mymemory.co.uk/ and a 16GB quite fast card is going to set you back around £10.

That's what I would do in your shoes.
 
thank you ( applemint ) i have read your post and looked at the camera you suggested and both the pa lumix gf1 and the nex 3 seem like they may do the job but can i ask you say "an adapter off eBay (£8) and a cheapo legacy lens"
sorry to be a real noob but what are these?

thanks
 
You could get a Fujifilm FinePix S2980 from amazon for about £80 plus say £5-10 for a memory card, pick up some rechargeable AA's (still be of use to you without the camera, maybe consider a cheap tripod

In honesty doing it on the cheap isn't going to get the best results I'd be more than happy to attempt it with my 450D and of course very happy to do it with my 5D3 which is good really as I'm off hunting them myself next spring ;) but I could still capture them with that camera above ;)

If you get a camera like that the next thing you need to do is learn how to use it to the max 8 second exposure, that for me would be the only limiting factor of that camera :(

Where are you based?
 
sut said:
thank you ( applemint ) i have read your post and looked at the camera you suggested and both the pa lumix gf1 and the nex 3 seem like they may do the job but can i ask you say "an adapter off eBay (£8) and a cheapo legacy lens"
sorry to be a real noob but what are these?

thanks
Click to expand...

A legacy lens is an old slr film camera lens (manual focus only). You control the aperture via a ring on the lens and focus using the focus ring on the lens.

You will need the relevant adapter for the lens you buy, so a Minolta MD lens will need a Minolta MD to Nex adapter to use it on a Nex camera. An adapter is just a bit of plastic and metal that goes between the lens and the camera to connect the lens to the camera. You would need to read up on Aperture and practice manually focusing, but it's a lot easier than it sounds and if you set the camera to A mode (aperture priority) and set the aperture to f8 or f11 then you only really need to worry about focusing - which is easier with the Nex as it has 'focus peaking' - coloured outlines appear on an object when it is in focus.

A legacy lens would be something like this:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/170920119603

An adapter to use that lens on a Nex would be: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Adapter-F...EX-7-NEX-3-NEX-5-NEX-VG10-DC104-/261031053615

[You can buy adapters from Hong Kong for about £2 less but it might take a week to get here or it might take a month!]

(24mm or 28mm is best as it's wider (multiply x1.5 so about 40mm on the Nex), 50mm lenses are cheaper and more common but not as wide) Buy from a seller with 100% positive feedback and make sure the lens is described as having no scratches or marks on the glass, no fungus, no oil on aperture blades etc.

Here is a Canon 28mm FD, currently at £10:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canon-FD-28mm-F2-8-wide-angle-lens-for-A1-etc-/280985719803

For that you would need an FD to Nex adapter of course.

Most Canon FD, Minolta MD, Nikon lenses are all good or cheaper lenses like Sigma or Vivitar should also be fit for purpose if in good condition.

Eg: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/OLYMPUS-FIT-28-MM-WIDE-ANGLE-LENS-VIVITAR-/271074501706
Review: http://www.lensporn.net/2011/10/ive-been-updating-more-frequently-but.html

That particular one needs an Olympus OM to Nex adapter as it's an Olympus OM fit, but they come in various fits. Here is one that sold for just £10 including delivery: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/190729181427 (Minolta MD fit) so as you can see they can be picked up very cheap and then resold for what you paid for them. ;)

You can usually Google the name of a lens to see user reviews, sample photos etc.
 
Last edited:
MWHCVT thank you for the information im looking at the comera you guided me to as we speak. im based in birmingham not far from the city center. if you are going to view the aurora i would go as fast as you can unless you have already booked as the sun is currently at it solar maximum and will be untill about feb 2013 so this will be your best time for an expected 100 years to view it,
 
woof woof said:
I see you've posted your usual reasonable and considered opinion :D

I have that Sigma lens and it's actually quite good. It's not razor sharp at f1.8, not as sharp as their 85mm f1.4 anyway, but sharp enough and sharpens up well in PS and deffo as the aperture is reduced. There are similar 24 and 28mm f1.8's. How sharp do you want a wide angle shot of the lights?

Dunno about 3200 being a necessity. I haven't shot the lights myself but as I said it's something I'd love to do and I've therefore been interested to read the various on line sites and some seem to be saying that ISO 400 may be enough. So 3200 may be a little extreme. 18-50? At the widest focal length and aperture it may be possible.

Here's a site where they mention a 20D and 17-40mm f4 (at kit zoom will probably be wider than f4 at 17/18mm) ISO 400...

http://www.royhooper.ca/articles/aurora.html

YMMV but I do think that you're maybe, possibly, overblowing things a bit with lenses costimg £k's and ISO 3200.

PPS. This is a 100% f1.8 crop from the worst lens Sigma ever made, focus between the eyes, it's via Photobucket so it wont look as good as on my screen but it's ok and I've seen worse from other lenses at smaller apertures...

IMG_4608.jpg


At f2 it's better and at f2.2 you could shave with it.

Anyway we're getting further off track now.
Click to expand...

Well, until I have 5DIII with a very sharp f/2.8 or faster <24mm lens in the bag I am not going to Iceland. That's about as serious as I can be.

Remember that landscapes do require some very sharp lenses from corner to corner. Your sample of non-detailed toy right in the centre will tell nothing at all about overall performance but even then it looks a bit soft.

ISO 400 you say? That will either give a pretty uniform green in the sky or require a particularly powerful display. That's a lot more realistic example of what usually shows up http://www.flickr.com/photos/icelandaurora/8007584761/in/photostream

P.s. It also makes a lot of sense to use a video function or some form of timelapse on that 5dIII. I would expect some really dramatic results
 
Last edited:
I'm already booked in but in march 2013 so hopefully still get some good action :) you not far from me then so if you want some guidance on night time photography give me a shout, I've not done AB before but the skills of my night photography are somewhat transferable :thumbs:
 
MWHCVT thank you for that once i get the camera i will let you know as im sure i will need a mass of advice,

how long you in iceland for? if you have not been to iceland before you will love it the whole country is fantastic and with the aurora being hit and miss make sure you book more than 1 trip to view it. the 1 trip that you may like not sure how good it will be for photo's of the AB though is a trip where you are taken out on a ship in the night to chase the AB, the trip is only about £30 view discount codes that can be found on google and as you are out to see they can find the holes in the cloud cover that cant be found on land. http://www.viator.com/tours/Reykjav...ewing-Cruise-from-Reykjavik/d905-5477NORTHERN so much stuff in that country to take great photo's of the crack in the island where the tectonic plates are pulling apart, the whale and dolphin watching, the volcano and glaciers. blue lagoon is great as well. and just the scenery itself. this is our second trip iceland really is a must see for anyone,
 
sut said:
MWHCVT thank you for that once i get the camera i will let you know as im sure i will need a mass of advice,

how long you in iceland for? if you have not been to iceland before you will love it the whole country is fantastic and with the aurora being hit and miss make sure you book more than 1 trip to view it. the 1 trip that you may like not sure how good it will be for photo's of the AB though is a trip where you are taken out on a ship in the night to chase the AB, the trip is only about £30 view discount codes that can be found on google and as you are out to see they can find the holes in the cloud cover that cant be found on land. http://www.viator.com/tours/Reykjavik/Northern-Lights-Viewing-Cruise-from-Reykjavik/d905-5477NORTHERN so much stuff in that country to take great photo's of the crack in the island where the tectonic plates are pulling apart, the whale and dolphin watching, the volcano and glaciers. blue lagoon is great as well. and just the scenery itself. this is our second trip iceland really is a must see for anyone,
Click to expand...

I'm actually heading to Arctic Norway :D
 
swing by iceland if you can its a real must see,
 
You know if it were me in the OP's shoes I would probably not bother with a camera at all.

Not wishing to rain on anyones parade (and I can understand the mindset of wanting to take your own photos on a journey like this) but unless you start now, do a crash course on photography to learn the basics as well getting to know & understand the camera inside out not forgetting to budget for a tripod I fear it could all end in tears.

Why?

Well I am guessing there are many people that have loads of gear and some knowledge but stick them in front of a photographic opportunity like the Aurora and the chances are they might make a pigs ear of it.

It could just pay to travel light, enjoy what you see without lugging whatever it is that you might buy and stopping every 5 minutes to setup, press the shutter button and hope for the best. Then there's the stress of wondering if the pictures will come out and the added worry of selling the kit when you get back home...

The alternative might be to buy a nice book or DVD from wherever you are visiting...you might pay a little more than buying online but at least the book is genuine & actually comes from the place you are visiting!

This will usually be stuffed with top quality pictures and detailed information on the subject and passed around when you get back home will be far more informative & entertaining than displaying some out of focus shots taken with flash or something!

An alternative viewpoint especially for a photography forum I know but rather than face the financial outlay and possible disappointment it could still be a valid alternative IMHO.

Just my 2c worth of course...but enjoy the trip whatever you decide to do!

Kind regards,
-=Glyn=-
 
thank you for you view GlynHugh but i really would like to take some photo's just so i can then tell people that is what i saw personally not show then photos from other people experience that would be like losing and a game show and the host showing you what you could of won, great to see but a hollow experience, although i do understand where you are coming from with your view,
 
No worries sut...like I said this is a photography forum after all :D

I have been known to take the easy way out sometimes! ;)

Don't forget to let us know what you decide to do and maybe post some shots when you get back!

Good luck :thumbs:

The price you quoted including flights, hotel for 5 nights for 2 people seems like a bargain but then again I haven't looked around at holiday prices for ages...probably because I spend all of my money on equipment.

I'm nothing if not a gear whore! :lol:

Would be tempted myself at that price...can I ask with who you booked?

-=Glyn=-
 
GlynHugh said:
You know if it were me in the OP's shoes I would probably not bother with a camera at all.

Not wishing to rain on anyones parade (and I can understand the mindset of wanting to take your own photos on a journey like this) but unless you start now, do a crash course on photography to learn the basics as well getting to know & understand the camera inside out not forgetting to budget for a tripod I fear it could all end in tears.

Why?

Well I am guessing there are many people that have loads of gear and some knowledge but stick them in front of a photographic opportunity like the Aurora and the chances are they might make a pigs ear of it.

It could just pay to travel light, enjoy what you see without lugging whatever it is that you might buy and stopping every 5 minutes to setup, press the shutter button and hope for the best. Then there's the stress of wondering if the pictures will come out and the added worry of selling the kit when you get back home...

The alternative might be to buy a nice book or DVD from wherever you are visiting...you might pay a little more than buying online but at least the book is genuine & actually comes from the place you are visiting!

This will usually be stuffed with top quality pictures and detailed information on the subject and passed around when you get back home will be far more informative & entertaining than displaying some out of focus shots taken with flash or something!

An alternative viewpoint especially for a photography forum I know but rather than face the financial outlay and possible disappointment it could still be a valid alternative IMHO.

Just my 2c worth of course...but enjoy the trip whatever you decide to do!

Kind regards,
-=Glyn=-
Click to expand...

Welcome to TP :wave:

Just to say I would rather try and fail than not try at all :thumbs: and in relation to the OP, there are some of the best night time photographers in the UK on this forum, so I'm sure that the OP would have some great guidance :thumbs:
 
daugirdas said:
A DECENT GEAR THAT HAS ANY CHANCE OF TAKING SOME DECENT SHOTS OF AURORA IS LIKELY TO RUN INTO THOUSANDS
Click to expand...

Ballcocks!

I won Picture of the Month in Astronomy Now magazine in 2004 with a shot of the aurora taken with a Nikon bridge camera which cost 500 quid. You can pick a used one up for about a hundred quid.
 
daugirdas said:
A DECENT GEAR THAT HAS ANY CHANCE OF TAKING SOME DECENT SHOTS OF AURORA IS LIKELY TO RUN INTO THOUSANDS
Click to expand...

Ballcocks!

I won Picture of the Month in Astronomy Now magazine in 2004 with a shot of the aurora taken with a Nikon 5400 bridge camera which cost £500. You can pick a used one up for about a hundred quid.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top