Thx. I use both. But I’m not sure you compared the pros and cons of each and when you might prefer one over the other. One thing to consider in tracking is that the longer exposures can more easily include random light sources (satellites, meteriorites, planes, lasers, car lights, etc.) and then they can ruin everything if they are undesired or improve the result if you are intending to capture a meteor shower. If stacking you can choose whether or not to include such frames. It therefore may make sense to do both… stack tracked photos. This is, of course, what is done for nearly all astrophotography.
Hey Tal! This is true! However, I find that a lot of photographers will be happy with a singular stacked image, as the noise isn't too terrible at all on a high end camera. Random light sources are definitely a pain!
yes with star link satellites stacking is necessary even when tracking. I am just starting experimenting with tracking but the extra work blending foregrounds is having me questioning whether it's worth it.
Nicely explained video. I've used both methods and owned various bits of kit over the years. I think it's important to take into account lens quality and focal length and aperture. If shooting with a high-quality, ultra wide angle fast prime lens you'll be able to capture a lot of light at a relatively low ISO, because of the fast aperture and the short focal length. I think tracking only becomes really important when shooting at focal lengths of 28mm or longer, because stacking would limit you to 10 seconds at a stretch so it would become necessary to pushing very high ISOs of 6400 or larger. I've moved away from tracking altogether now. I had sigma's lovely 40mm art lens but found the set up in the field really hard to manage. I was attempting small mosaics of 3x4 tiles and exposures of 2-3 minutes at f/1.4. Don't get me wrong, when it all worked out the results were fantastic. BUT - something would nearly always bug the hell out of me. Gusts of wind causing vibration. A passing car with headlights. Some low cloud moving through. Planes and satellites. A slight bump to the tripod leg. Basically you need the conditions to be favourable and uninterrupted for quite some time (5-10 minutes minimum). 20 minutes plus is a long time to stand around in the cold (I'm in Scotland). And if you have to keep re-attempting, it's easy to push up against twilight or moonrise or sunrise, or find the milky way isn't in the right place for the composition. Also, I wasn't always happy making the composites afterwards. They often looked unnatural in the joining (too clean / harsh a break) and felt unnatural to make. I find tracking produces more authentic images overall. I also find tracking much more user-friendly. Much less gear to carry. The only extra I take is a small power bank and a lens dew heater (with tracking, the dew heater is absolutely necessary in some climates, perhaps less so with stacking because the process in the field is shorter). And with stacking it's really quick to change compositions at the scene, or move on to another location and set up again. Having to keep polar-aligning with tracking can be a pain, and it disincentivises trying different compositions/perspectives. Polar alignment can also drift and it has to be rechecked fairly often. And yes, that's often when there's a cloud over Polaris. Lots to have to manage, and if you're cold and uncomfortable and tired, i think the minor benefits are outweighed by these drawbacks. I'm now using the new Sigma 20mm Art f/1.4 for Sony - I find this to be very high-quality, user-friendly (the MF lock, the space for a dew heater band) and supports stacking over tracking. I've found that using settings of f/1.4, 15 seconds, ISO 2000 and taking 10 shots produces very high quality , noise-low mages, via Starry Landscape Stacker (shooting with the A7IV). I've used 14mm lenses before (great because I could push to 25 seconds and reduce the ISO a bit further to 1600), but i generally find them challenging to work with from a compositional perspective (in the dark). And I like to be able to attach filters to the front as well for general landscape work, and most lenses at around 14-15mm don't support that. Where you live is a really important consideration. In Scotland, we only really get a glimpse of the MW core in August/September and March/April. Factoring in the moon, it only leaves about four 8-night windows per year to capture the MW at its best. And Scotland has a wet, cloudy climate sadly. I think this is important because when you have so few opportunities, it's best to try to nail them productively - tracking is much higher risk for not much more in terms of reward.
Agree your synopsis! I personally love tracking for the insane detail that you can get, and the fact that you can get a great tracked shot with any camera and lens basically, but I hear you on the challenges of carrying, setting up, and using a tracker. It certainly has a learning curve to it and things must be perfect for it to work.
@@AustinJamesJackson the learning curve isn’t too tough to be fair. The only challenge I really found was developing consistency, because the opportunities are quite limited. One of the other benefits of tracking, apart from cleaner images and more detailed images when using longer focal lengths, is that you don’t end up with hundreds of images on your computer, clogging up the Lightroom catalogue. Clear skies for this coming spring!
Two questions: 1. How do you use the laser pointer with the Slik 630? Is it attached, and if yes, how? This is my greatest point of hesitation is the time to align. Could you align using a polar scope rather than just the laser? 2. Have you tried or compared to the new MSM Nomad? There are a lot of things that I like about the Nomad, but hate that you cannot track solar, lunar or just rotate, so it is not as versatile as the Slik 630. Thoughts?
To align the laser pointer, I just hold it as steady as possible through the hole. Kind of a pain but you get a feel for it eventually. I haven't tried the MSM trackers but have helped a few clients on my workshops that have brought them! I like the Slik one for simplicity sake and use a larger tracker for some tighter tracked shots.
I do weddings and landscapes. I took some pictures of the milky way, and my clients appreciate the result, I use starry landscape stacker. I would like to buy the photo tracker, but I live on a beautiful and small island, and many times, where do I take pictures from , I can't see the polar star. I know that in the south, there is a way, but I'm no longer very young. Anyway, thank you very much and many greetings from the island of Capri.
Great video as always! I have the Slik star tracker as well but I have found that it can be extreamy difficult to set up. Any tips for aligning it properly? My biggest problem is that I cant see through the tiny black holes...especially the smallest one!!!!
Hey Trevor! Thanks so much for checking it out. Try using a laser pointer to shine through the hole. I use something similar to this one: amzn.to/3v3x6BQ If you point it through the hole and aim the laser at the north star, it's much easier! Good luck!!
Don't like that word make it look realistic it's just not right I don't like fake images keep it real and do one exposure I say blending photos is just fake
Thx. I use both. But I’m not sure you compared the pros and cons of each and when you might prefer one over the other. One thing to consider in tracking is that the longer exposures can more easily include random light sources (satellites, meteriorites, planes, lasers, car lights, etc.) and then they can ruin everything if they are undesired or improve the result if you are intending to capture a meteor shower. If stacking you can choose whether or not to include such frames. It therefore may make sense to do both… stack tracked photos. This is, of course, what is done for nearly all astrophotography.
Hey Tal! This is true! However, I find that a lot of photographers will be happy with a singular stacked image, as the noise isn't too terrible at all on a high end camera. Random light sources are definitely a pain!
yes with star link satellites stacking is necessary even when tracking. I am just starting experimenting with tracking but the extra work blending foregrounds is having me questioning whether it's worth it.
Nicely explained video. I've used both methods and owned various bits of kit over the years. I think it's important to take into account lens quality and focal length and aperture. If shooting with a high-quality, ultra wide angle fast prime lens you'll be able to capture a lot of light at a relatively low ISO, because of the fast aperture and the short focal length. I think tracking only becomes really important when shooting at focal lengths of 28mm or longer, because stacking would limit you to 10 seconds at a stretch so it would become necessary to pushing very high ISOs of 6400 or larger.
I've moved away from tracking altogether now. I had sigma's lovely 40mm art lens but found the set up in the field really hard to manage. I was attempting small mosaics of 3x4 tiles and exposures of 2-3 minutes at f/1.4. Don't get me wrong, when it all worked out the results were fantastic. BUT - something would nearly always bug the hell out of me. Gusts of wind causing vibration. A passing car with headlights. Some low cloud moving through. Planes and satellites. A slight bump to the tripod leg. Basically you need the conditions to be favourable and uninterrupted for quite some time (5-10 minutes minimum). 20 minutes plus is a long time to stand around in the cold (I'm in Scotland). And if you have to keep re-attempting, it's easy to push up against twilight or moonrise or sunrise, or find the milky way isn't in the right place for the composition. Also, I wasn't always happy making the composites afterwards. They often looked unnatural in the joining (too clean / harsh a break) and felt unnatural to make. I find tracking produces more authentic images overall.
I also find tracking much more user-friendly. Much less gear to carry. The only extra I take is a small power bank and a lens dew heater (with tracking, the dew heater is absolutely necessary in some climates, perhaps less so with stacking because the process in the field is shorter). And with stacking it's really quick to change compositions at the scene, or move on to another location and set up again. Having to keep polar-aligning with tracking can be a pain, and it disincentivises trying different compositions/perspectives. Polar alignment can also drift and it has to be rechecked fairly often. And yes, that's often when there's a cloud over Polaris. Lots to have to manage, and if you're cold and uncomfortable and tired, i think the minor benefits are outweighed by these drawbacks.
I'm now using the new Sigma 20mm Art f/1.4 for Sony - I find this to be very high-quality, user-friendly (the MF lock, the space for a dew heater band) and supports stacking over tracking. I've found that using settings of f/1.4, 15 seconds, ISO 2000 and taking 10 shots produces very high quality , noise-low mages, via Starry Landscape Stacker (shooting with the A7IV). I've used 14mm lenses before (great because I could push to 25 seconds and reduce the ISO a bit further to 1600), but i generally find them challenging to work with from a compositional perspective (in the dark). And I like to be able to attach filters to the front as well for general landscape work, and most lenses at around 14-15mm don't support that.
Where you live is a really important consideration. In Scotland, we only really get a glimpse of the MW core in August/September and March/April. Factoring in the moon, it only leaves about four 8-night windows per year to capture the MW at its best. And Scotland has a wet, cloudy climate sadly. I think this is important because when you have so few opportunities, it's best to try to nail them productively - tracking is much higher risk for not much more in terms of reward.
Agree your synopsis! I personally love tracking for the insane detail that you can get, and the fact that you can get a great tracked shot with any camera and lens basically, but I hear you on the challenges of carrying, setting up, and using a tracker. It certainly has a learning curve to it and things must be perfect for it to work.
@@AustinJamesJackson the learning curve isn’t too tough to be fair. The only challenge I really found was developing consistency, because the opportunities are quite limited. One of the other benefits of tracking, apart from cleaner images and more detailed images when using longer focal lengths, is that you don’t end up with hundreds of images on your computer, clogging up the Lightroom catalogue.
Clear skies for this coming spring!
Two questions:
1. How do you use the laser pointer with the Slik 630? Is it attached, and if yes, how? This is my greatest point of hesitation is the time to align. Could you align using a polar scope rather than just the laser?
2. Have you tried or compared to the new MSM Nomad? There are a lot of things that I like about the Nomad, but hate that you cannot track solar, lunar or just rotate, so it is not as versatile as the Slik 630. Thoughts?
To align the laser pointer, I just hold it as steady as possible through the hole. Kind of a pain but you get a feel for it eventually. I haven't tried the MSM trackers but have helped a few clients on my workshops that have brought them! I like the Slik one for simplicity sake and use a larger tracker for some tighter tracked shots.
I do weddings and landscapes. I took some pictures of the milky way, and my clients appreciate the result, I use starry landscape stacker. I would like to buy the photo tracker, but I live on a beautiful and small island, and many times, where do I take pictures from , I can't see the polar star. I know that in the south, there is a way, but I'm no longer very young. Anyway, thank you very much and many greetings from the island of Capri.
Good luck with the project! It sounds amazing, and definitely would love to see the results.
Do you still have a discount code for the silk ECH-630?
Yes! “Jackson15”
@@AustinJamesJackson thanks for the prompt response!
Great video as always! I have the Slik star tracker as well but I have found that it can be extreamy difficult to set up. Any tips for aligning it properly? My biggest problem is that I cant see through the tiny black holes...especially the smallest one!!!!
Hey Trevor! Thanks so much for checking it out. Try using a laser pointer to shine through the hole. I use something similar to this one: amzn.to/3v3x6BQ
If you point it through the hole and aim the laser at the north star, it's much easier! Good luck!!
Don't like that word make it look realistic it's just not right I don't like fake images keep it real and do one exposure I say blending photos is just fake
Thanks for watching!