Some of those recent images are poor mistakes by my end. For the one you mentioned with the clouds, I had left the ISO way too high from a previous shot when it was much darker (and the clouds were much lower so that's why I attempted to shoot it). I'd say the last six images I've put on there were all messed up. The last star trail I did was a single exposure around an hour, and I've tried that before but messed up too badly, and learned that too much light was getting into the sensor..
Then why are you publishing images that, in your own words, are "messed up?" Sure, it is getting favorites, but that doesn't really say anything besides you have some buddies on flickr.
And the image you posted I like a lot actually. The only thing I don't like is the fact it was on a fish-eyed lens. I just can't seem to think it looks good (it does don't get me wrong but the overall concept of these lenses) with the corners clipped. Although you probably can't get the same effect of the trees, I just think that you are loosing space (the scene whatever) with the corners clipped.
Well, area of projection on a lens that wide is going to clip corners. You simply aren't going to get a field of view that wide with anything but a fisheye. Sure, the Nikon 11-22 F/2.8 is good if you want rectilinear, but it costs about ten times as much. The main point was to demonstrate F/3.5 being effective for capturing detail at night.
I hope this doesn't come back as arrogance because I noted all you points, but I've done a lot of research especially what is the most cost effective for me. I'd go out and buy the Nikon option if I had that much, but I don't.... And my most recent images don't really justify me lately as they are full of mistakes. I would have posted an image today too of the sky last night but it has been raining lately so it was overcast. After I get the lens somtime around Christmas I'll be upgrading my tripod from a pan to a ball-head too, so if you have a recomendation their I'll take it.
It just comes off as a blend of excuses and knowing-it-all. You claim to know what you are doing yet excuse away your recent images while still claiming gear will fix things.
Practice. And don't just practice random pictures of the stars - get context and actually create compositions. Learn to check your exposure before shooting, even if it means reviewing images more often in the field. Evaluate your editing as your contrast and saturation are pretty wild in many shots, to the extent of being distracting; study up astrophotographic editing methods too, because you aren't getting the most out of your raw files I suspect.
Oddly enough, I learned on a Minolta X-700 about a decade ago, and grew up on a local airport in 172s and a Skymaster for cross country travel. With a strong interest in astronomy. But the learning curve to astrophotography, and photography in general, isn't nearly as steep because sensors out perform film in high ISO and you can check exposures instantly.
And another shot, this time 30s, F/4.5, ISO-4000, at 28mm on the 5Dii.
Note context and framing. And that you could easily produce a similar image at 18mm, F/3.5, ISO-2500ish, with your setup.
Or this one with the Fisheye again, which you couldn't produce without an 8mm...
I have no idea how you guys do it, I tried shooting pictures of the milky way but with the aperture set to 15-20 the earth spin makes the stars appear elongated and the shifting layers of air in the atmosphere ruins the sharpness.
I assume when you say aperture you mean shutter? Your aperture should be the smallest number possible, with your ISO on the camera as high as it can go before noise becomes an issue. You'll have to focus manually on something in the distance, as auto-focus won't focus on stars - use liveview if your camera has it.
DSC_1240
DSC_1239
Cold as Hell
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
011
012
013
014
015
016
017
018
019
020
021
022
023
024
025
026
DSC_0014
DSC_0023
Singled Out
Bright Nights
