MBAR said:

---

BMo said:

---

MBAR said:

---

Its Milky Way season y'all.

---

Where was this taken if you don't mind saying?

---

NNW of Calvert FM 1373 makes a sharp north turn. At that run,there's some tracks. That is where it was taken. Had some fun there on a few nights earlier this summer.

---

Thanks, I need to start doing more star stuff again.

Any suggestions on good places in the DFW area to just get out and go shoot?

BMo said:

---

MBAR said:

---

BMo said:

---

MBAR said:

---

Its Milky Way season y'all.

---

Where was this taken if you don't mind saying?

---

NNW of Calvert FM 1373 makes a sharp north turn. At that run,there's some tracks. That is where it was taken. Had some fun there on a few nights earlier this summer.

---

Thanks, I need to start doing more star stuff again.

---

I prefer to landscape and storm stuff but neither is really much of an option around here so I'll take what I can get.

MBAR said:

---

Been battling clouds all week but I've kept at it and I finally got some images this morning that I am happy with!

---

Very nice! Yeah the clouds have been brutal in my neck of the woods.

Anyone getting the Canon R5?

What time did you get that? My Nikon was being stubborn as hell this morning

MBAR said:

---

Been battling clouds all week but I've kept at it and I finally got some images this morning that I am happy with!

---

Excellent! I agree with Sid on the clouds. Checked this AM and covered again.

This was the best I could do this morning of the comet. Almost ashamed to post it.

wangus12 said:

---

What time did you get that? My Nikon was being stubborn as hell this morning

---

It was about 5:20. I got out to the spot at about 5, and snapped away till about 5:40. 5:20 seemed to be about the time when the height was ok enough but the twilight still wasn't overwhelming.

The first couple of days earlier this week I drove south from BCS to try to get away from the clouds. Was a stupid choice as going south is just going closer to the Gulf and more moisture so the low clouds and fog ruined each attempt. Yesterday I decided to go north, and went close to Mart and still had low clouds move in. I did see these Windmills on the horizon on my shots though, and this morning I just went to where they were and was lucky enough to stay cloud free. Didn't have to drive very far on my way back into town to drive into the cloud deck.

The good news is that in the next couple of days you will be able to see it in the evening when we should have much better skies. You MIGHT be able to glimpse it on the 13th, but the 14th and 15th in the NW sky will be much better.

Excellent shot! Can you give more details? Like what program you used for stacking, how many shots, focal length, etc? I was going to try again last night, but clouds looked to be just enough here to be menacing.

labmansid said:

---

Excellent shot! Can you give more details? Like what program you used for stacking, how many shots, focal length, etc? I was going to try again last night, but clouds looked to be just enough here to be menacing.

---

This was on my D750 2 nights ago at between 945-955. I took a series of 200 shots at 4 seconds at 135mm. My lens will only do F5 at that focal length sadly (Tamron 100-400). That's still in twilight which is why the sky isn't black yet and the light pollution from Waco is a light dome on the horizon and you can see it at the bottom of the image.

I loaded all 200 in Deep Sky Stacker and registered them, then removed a certain number of them below a threshold, but I don't remember how many. Safe to say I stacked over half so probably 125-130 of the images. I also did take dark, flat, and bias calibration frames. I didn't know much about this prior to last week and I was intimidated by it but it was actually not too. I used the comet stacking mode with the empahsis on keeping the comet sharp but not the stars.

After that I worked on the image file in Photoshop but its pretty different than normal photo editing. A lot of stretching the histogram and curves adjustments.

Clouds kept my home last night too. Hoping the cirrus off the storms near Houston aren't an issue tonight, but tonight looks great. 2 nights ago the comet was clearly naked eye visible and was pretty huge. Its even higher now, so this is pretty much the sweet spot for good images. I'll start fading faster this week and the moon will also make a return to the evening sky so get out there the next couple of days!

Thanks for the info. I tried Sequator to stack some of mine and it worked pretty well, but the weird color banding was still a problem. I will have to try again using my other camera. I had heard that Deep Sky Stacker might be better for this, so I will use it next time. Astrophotography can be a whole 'nother animal and rabbit hole for sure. I have dabbled in it some before, and the advances in recent years has been incredible.

Oh, one more quick question, what ISO were you using?

Oh those were at 6400. I did some at 3200 earlier in the night which are fine but the ion tail is washed out due to the twilight and i did another series at 12800 but that one seems to be poor cause of light pollution.

I tried sequator as well but found DSS to be better with the comet. DSS does have a larger learning curve, however.

I have 2 questions:

1) I have a Canon EOS Rebel T1i and the zoom lens I use is a Canon EFS 55-250. Any recommendations for a zoom lens with longer distance that won't break the bank? Using it for sporting events...

2) What should I use to create movies that incorporate pics and videos? I"m not an Apple guy, so I would prefer not to use iMovie.

Thanks!

380Ag said:

---

I have 2 questions:

1) I have a Canon EOS Rebel T1i and the zoom lens I use is a Canon EFS 55-250. Any recommendations for a zoom lens with longer distance that won't break the bank? Using it for sporting events...

2) What should I use to create movies that incorporate pics and videos? I"m not an Apple guy, so I would prefer not to use iMovie.

Thanks!

---

As to your first question, Tamron and Sigma have zoom lenses in the 150-600mm range that get good reviews. If you shoot sports at night, they may not be optimal due to the fairly high f-ratio of these lenses, although almost any zoom lens would be similar. They run in the $900-1500 or so range.
Canon also has their 100-400mm zoom, which I use a lot, but it is a bit pricier at around $2200. Not sure what your range for breaking the bank is. Tamron and Sigma both also have 100-400mm versions for around $800.

Tamron 150-600

Sigma 150-600

Canon 100-400

For video, DaVinci Resolve is highly recommended by many, and free. I have used it in limited capacity, so can't offer a full review. It seems to have lots of features.

Yep. If you are trying to do sports at night, all those variable aperture lenses are going to suck.

There isn't a decently priced lens that is great for field sports at night.

Most sports events will be during the day, with a few at night. If that helps...

A used 135mm f/2 prime could probably be found for $650 to 700. Canon also had a 200mm f/2.8 prime for a decent price at one point. The 300mm f/4 prime is also around $600 to 700 used

380Ag said:

---

Most sports events will be during the day, with a few at night. If that helps...

---

You will get close as possible with all those lenses. You won't get a super blurry background like you see in the professional sports stuff. But Not having the player look super tiny makes a big difference.

Thanks for the info! I'm not sure I want to spend around $1K for a fledgling hobby. So, I'll just stick with my current lens.

bthotugigem05 said:

---

Anyone getting the Canon R5?

---

I wasn't really looking for something new when you posed the question, but I've been looking at reviews since it's limited release. I've gotta say, I'm really impressed and tempted by what I'm seeing and reading. Looks like Canon has really knocked it out of the park with this one, I just may have to switch to mirrorless. The autofocus, especially on animal eyes, seems like just what I need! The low light capabilities also seem to be on par with just about anything else out there. Wondering if I can sneak this one past the wife!

labmansid said:

---

As to your first question, Tamron and Sigma have zoom lenses in the 150-600mm range that get good reviews. If you shoot sports at night, they may not be optimal due to the fairly high f-ratio stop of these lenses, although almost any zoom lens would be similar. They run in the $900-1500 or so range.
Canon also has their 100-400mm zoom, which I use a lot, but it is a bit pricier at around $2200. Not sure what your range for breaking the bank is. Tamron and Sigma both also have 100-400mm versions for around $800.

Tamron 150-600

Sigma 150-600

Canon 100-400

For video, DaVinci Resolve is highly recommended by many, and free. I have used it in limited capacity, so can't offer a full review. It seems to have lots of features.

---

agracer said:

---

labmansid said:

---

As to your first question, Tamron and Sigma have zoom lenses in the 150-600mm range that get good reviews. If you shoot sports at night, they may not be optimal due to the fairly high f-ratio stop of these lenses, although almost any zoom lens would be similar. They run in the $900-1500 or so range.

---

---

I say potato, you say puhtawto.

"In optics, the f-number of an optical system such as a camera lens is the ratio of the system's focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil ("clear aperture"). It is also known as the focal ratio, f-ratio, or f-stop, and is very important in photography. It is a dimensionless number that is a quantitative measure of lens speed; increasing the f-number is referred to as stopping down."

From Wikipedia

I probably went with f-ratio since I have been doing some astrophotography lately. In telescopes, f-ratio is the gold standard since there is no diaphragm in the optical train to alter the f-number for exposure, as there is in most camera lenses.

agracer said:

---

labmansid said:

---

As to your first question, Tamron and Sigma have zoom lenses in the 150-600mm range that get good reviews. If you shoot sports at night, they may not be optimal due to the fairly high f-ratio stop of these lenses, although almost any zoom lens would be similar. They run in the $900-1500 or so range.
Canon also has their 100-400mm zoom, which I use a lot, but it is a bit pricier at around $2200. Not sure what your range for breaking the bank is. Tamron and Sigma both also have 100-400mm versions for around $800.

Tamron 150-600

Sigma 150-600

Canon 100-400

For video, DaVinci Resolve is highly recommended by many, and free. I have used it in limited capacity, so can't offer a full review. It seems to have lots of features.

---

---

you do realize that each "stop" is based upon the ratio of the lens opening (aperture) to the focal length?

f22 is really 1/22 or 1:22.

I'm actually considering selling my Z6.

It's a great camera, and I've gotten some good shots with it, but the kids have left the house and I have no more sports to shoot.

I originally bought it to upgrade my D7000 with something more compact/light and get full frame. I know it's not a 'sports camera' but I got it to work just fine.

But now I just don't have anything to photograph. 90% of my photography has been family events and kids' sports. I got into this in 1998 because I wanted better photos of the kids, and I've gotten that over the years (N65, D50, D7000, Z6). But their will likely not be any grand kids in the next 5-8 years (at the earliest) and by then the Z6 will be a dinosaur.

Never been a nature photography guy (wildlife and landscapes). I've kinda tried, but it just does not interest me at all. I can take my D7000 & 18-200VRi with me on vacation and get plenty of good photos. Or at least I don't see the Z6 getting a shot I'd otherwise miss with the old camera.....

I still use my Nikon D4 bodies that were released over 8 years ago. Both have over half a million clicks on them and have been abused pretty well in some rough situations. These cameras will stay great longer than you think. I doubt we are going to have ridiculously better sensors in 8 years than what you have now.

Guitarsoup said:

---

I still use my Nikon D4 bodies that were released over 8 years ago. Both have over half a million clicks on them and have been abused pretty well in some rough situations. These cameras will stay great longer than you think. I doubt we are going to have ridiculously better sensors in 8 years than what you have now.

---

. I guess it's more if I t's just going to sit on the shelf for the next several years and I can just use the one I've got when I need it

agracer said:

---

I'm actually considering selling my Z6.

It's a great camera, and I've gotten some good shots with it, but the kids have left the house and I have no more sports to shoot.

I originally bought it to upgrade my D7000 with something more compact/light and get full frame. I know it's not a 'sports camera' but I got it to work just fine.

But now I just don't have anything to photograph. 90% of my photography has been family events and kids' sports. I got into this in 1998 because I wanted better photos of the kids, and I've gotten that over the years (N65, D50, D7000, Z6). But their will likely not be any grand kids in the next 5-8 years (at the earliest) and by then the Z6 will be a dinosaur.

Never been a nature photography guy (wildlife and landscapes). I've kinda tried, but it just does not interest me at all. I can take my D7000 & 18-200VRi with me on vacation and get plenty of good photos. Or at least I don't see the Z6 getting a shot I'd otherwise miss with the old camera.....

---

I am in the market for a camera for the main purpose of shooting my kiddos sporting events. If you are really considering selling your Z6 I may be interested.

For kid sporting events, a used D500 would be a better choice.

Thanks for the suggestion, I will definitely look into it.

Is there a place or website you would recommend to find used cameras that have been inspected/checked to make sure they're in good shape?