Nighttime Long Exposure Shots
- Thread starter nfarruggio
- Start date
Mossiback
Well-Known Member
No ND filter needed because there are no city lights or other light pollution to deal with. You can pretend the added noise from a higher ISO setting are just more stars.
But to be serious, I don't think any Mavic is suitable for star shots. Not saying it can't be done, but a DSLR on a tripod would get better results.
But to be serious, I don't think any Mavic is suitable for star shots. Not saying it can't be done, but a DSLR on a tripod would get better results.
Chrislaf
Well-Known Member
I have thought about this too, but I don't think it is practical for a number of reasons:
• the shutter can only stay open to a max of 8 seconds (most of my DSLR shots are 20 seconds or more)
• max gimbal tilt is +30º
• maintaining position to prevent blur would be difficult (wind, vibration from props, etc.)
• sensor size: astrophotography benefits from a full frame sensor
• lens: Although the Hasselblad lens might be good in daylight, star shots demand high quality glass way beyond what the M2P or M2Z has
• unless you are composing a shot that you can't get to on foot, I'm not sure it would be worth it.
• light pollution from the drone lights (front lights can be turned off but I don't think the back ones can)
That being said, it may be possible and it can't hurt to try. I don't have either Mavic 2 but have lots of experience taking astro shots with my DSLRs. I have taken some acceptable shots with my basic DSLR (Nikon D3300, 10-20mm lens, tripod) but my best shots have been with my Full Frame DSLR and good glass (Nikon D750, 14-24mm lens @f2.8, tripod).
Good luck! If you do try it post back with the results you got.
Chris
Lastrexking
Well-Known Member
Your questions & answers make me suspect that you don't know why you use a tool called ND-filter on a camera.
ND filters isn't anything else then sun glasses for your lens. Like when you self use them they will let in less light, they will do nothing about light pollution.
You use ND filters for exact 3 different reasons no more ... 1 for stills, 1 for video & 1 equal for stills & video.
Stills:
*When you during daylight conditions want to have longer shutter speeds (seconds long usually require ND1000) ... to make flowing water buttery smooth for instance (create excessive motion blur).
Video:
*To follow the 180 degree rule ... meaning creating a natural/cinematic motion blur by using the double shutter speed to the chosen frame rate (25fps --> shutter 1/50sec). Over approx 30 meters height this rule regarding motion blur can be disregarded as the blur isn't pronounced anymore.
Stills & video:
*When the light is so strong that the shutter can't be any quicker ... bright sunlit snowy/desert landscape for example.
So taking stills on a motif with very little light will not benefit anything by cutting out even more light ... shooting night time long exposure for instance. Then you should avoid longer shutter speeds then 2 sec. with a drone for stills due to the risk of getting motion blur in the pic due the drone movement. Generally it isn't so easy to shoot stars by just lengthen the shutter speed as the earth rotates (stars will move) ... in 30 sec they have moved enough so you get streaks instead of star "points". This means that to succeed you usually need really high ISO values to keep the shutter shorter to avoid light streaks. Don't think that even the M2P with it's larger sensor will be enough clean from digital noise on those high ISO values to make it worthwhile.
OurAngryBadger
Well-Known Member
You could in theory get a shot with visible stars in it, if you are in a place that has 0 light pollution.
I was at a remote uninhabited island near the Bahamas once and the stars to the naked eye were incredible. It was like being on another planet, or in a fantasy movie. The entire milky way was so bright and clear it was almost blinding.
Check out this app for dark spots near you.
Android:
play.google.com
iOS:
(Full disclosure: I am the maker of this app.)
What others have said though rings true. You really are much better off using a DSLR (or mirrorless) for star shots. You need a tripod and absolute steadiness, as well as a very high ISO. Long exposure instead of ISO is fine if you are going for "star trails". If you want "dotty" stars, you will need a camera that has very good ISO performance at 6400+, unless you are in a very dark area.
I was at a remote uninhabited island near the Bahamas once and the stars to the naked eye were incredible. It was like being on another planet, or in a fantasy movie. The entire milky way was so bright and clear it was almost blinding.
Check out this app for dark spots near you.
Android:
Light Pollution Map - Dark Sky - Apps on Google Play
An accurate light pollution map with more than 100 other astronomy tools.
Light Pollution Map - Dark Sky
Light Pollution Map allows you to easily locate dark sky locations where the sky will not be affected by light pollution, allowing the best observance, star gazing, and photography of the night sky! But it's not just a light pollution map. There's so much more, such as aurora borealis live...
itunes.apple.com
What others have said though rings true. You really are much better off using a DSLR (or mirrorless) for star shots. You need a tripod and absolute steadiness, as well as a very high ISO. Long exposure instead of ISO is fine if you are going for "star trails". If you want "dotty" stars, you will need a camera that has very good ISO performance at 6400+, unless you are in a very dark area.
Not sure what the advantage of actually flying if you want long exposure. Movement doesn’t seem to add anything. Why not just place your craft in some sort if perch and only fire up the camera? Or as mentioned, use a real camera?
Lastrexking
Well-Known Member
I’m just suggesting a method to the original poster. It’s not something I’m interested in trying.
Sorry mate. Haven't had my first cup-o-jo this AM. The reply was for the original poster who clearly, while maybe a pilot, is NOT a photographer. I'm barely a pilot but have 50 years as a cinematographer. I'll be more mindful to whom I respond to in the future.
hiflyer201
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2018
- Messages
- 2,734
- Reactions
- 2,157
Utah's not going to be that much closer than your present position ..but I guess you know that...kidding of course..
GKomar
Active Member
Wow amazing image though not sure I would have had the guts send up my Mavic 2 Pro in a lightening storm.
GKomar
Active Member
ianfinnan,
Thanks for enjoying the image.
The lightning was miles away, no rain on me, and very calm wind. I had to give it a try. I was only about 100ft AGL (30ft above the trees), and I don't think I was being a hazard to aviation.
Thanks for enjoying the image.
The lightning was miles away, no rain on me, and very calm wind. I had to give it a try. I was only about 100ft AGL (30ft above the trees), and I don't think I was being a hazard to aviation.
Toddvg
Member
did you use any ND filter in this shot? also what other setting did you use? Like tripod mode?
GKomar
Active Member
Todd,
I think I may be awarded the longest active comment award...
It's been so long, I MAY have been in Tripod mode, but I don't think it would have made much difference, the air was very calm, and the Mavic was very stable on it's own. No ND filters, absolutely! There wasn't a whole lot of light (except for the lightning bolts), so filtering out more light would not be any advantage.
~~Fly safe, fly often!
I think I may be awarded the longest active comment award...
It's been so long, I MAY have been in Tripod mode, but I don't think it would have made much difference, the air was very calm, and the Mavic was very stable on it's own. No ND filters, absolutely! There wasn't a whole lot of light (except for the lightning bolts), so filtering out more light would not be any advantage.
~~Fly safe, fly often!
Similar threads
