Bad news I'm afraid Thomas - if you want to get a photo in which you can
see that Mars is more than just a reddish point of light, you really
need very long focal lengths and a drive to track the stars. Mars is 16
arcseconds in size - about as big as a pound coin (or 1 Swiss Franc
coin) 300 metres away. To get an image of Mars even 1mm across on film,
you need a focal length of 12,800mm!! You can't really do anything
without a telescope and eyepiece projection.
That said there are other ways to catch Mars on film. Fixed-tripod
wider angle shots are one possibility - Mars is very very bright, and
should show its color nicely, compared to the stars around it. Try
20-25s exposures with a 50mm lens, or 35-40s with a 28mm. Superia 800
is a good film for this. Fuji MS100/1000 rated at a high speed could
also work.
Another possibility is to take a star trail exposure. Mars would come
out as a particularly bright red streak. Star trails work best under
very dark skies - if you're near a city or town then they probably won't
come out very well. But if the sky is looking nice and black, trails
are very very easy - load up a slow film (I find Sensia 100 works very
well), open your lens to full aperture (28mm is an ideal focal length),
and leave the shutter open for two hours.
I was in the Canary Islands at the weekend, under spectacularly dark
skies at a professional observatory. I wasn't observing Mars with the
telescopes, sadly, but in breaks from my scientific work I took quite a
few fixed-tripod and trail shots including Mars. Will post the results
when I get them back in a few days time.
Roger
Thomas Haegin wrote:
Dear fellow listmembers,
I do have almost zero experience with Astrophotography
(took a few pictures of the Moon only, in my OM dark
ages). But I would like to try to take pictures of
Mars over the next few weeks as it is so "close" by.
I do not have the possibility to mount my OM onto a
telescope.
I'd think of using my OM-4T because of the Auto
exposure. I'd be using a heavy tripod and employ the
self-timer to minimize "shake" (don't know the proper
English word for it).
Couple of questions:
All I have as a long tele is a 5.6/300mm Tamron SP. I
could mount the teleconverter which would give me an
11/600mm. I somehow fear that even 600mm is too short
to get a decent picture of Mars. What do you
experienced astrophotographers think: Is this any
usable? I reckon exposure times will be very long...
Which immediately leads to the second question:
Obviously, the stars are wandering. So how long is
about the maximum aperture time in which the final
magnification of say 6x9 inches prints would appear
sharp?
In terms of film I was thinking of using Kodak Supra
400. It could be pushed to 800 or even 1600 ASA. Maybe
B+W would be another option? What would you suggest I
should use? I don't care if it's print or chrome.
Sorry I my ideas sound like complete rubbish to the
astroexperts here. I will frankly admit to my complete
ignorance in this field. You can tell me if I should
better forget about it alltogether :-) Any
suggestions gladly appreciated.
Many thanks,
Thomas
__________________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Logos und Klingeltvne f|rs Handy bei http://sms.yahoo.de
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|