Posted by Howard Cihak on July 22, 2013 at 5:34 AM
One of my "bucket list" entries has long been seeing the aurora borealis with my own eyes. Seeing the aurora australis wouldn't be bad either, but that trip's waaaay out of my price range.
Anyway, I'm going on a cruise down the Norwegian coast in the 1st week of November. It sets sail from Kirkenes on the Barents Sea, about 69 degrees North latitude, and eventually makes it way into the Arctic Ocean just above 70 degrees North. I figure that ought to be far enough North.
I'm planning on using a Canon 10-22mm/3.5-4.5 zoom on my 60D. I also have a Canon 35/2 and a 50/1.4.
Can anyone give me their personal recommendations on ISO, aperture, and exposure times for what might well be a once in a lifetime opportunity? I'm thinking that after I freeze my patootie off doing this once, I'm not likely to ever be up for doing it a 2nd time.
Posted by Monika Chace on July 22, 2013 at 6:37 PM
Howard, when I went to Iceland the first time, the recommendation was for wide & fast. Minimum f/2.8 and around 10-something less than 20mm. Canon has a 14mm f/2.8 that you can rent from various vendors e.g. LensProToGo or LensRentals. ISO & apertures are all going to depend on how bright it is, but maybe start around ISO 3200 at f/2.8 for 20 seconds & see what it looks like. And manual focus. Once you've found your focus, it's a good idea to tape your ring so it doesn't shift. Use 10x to check the stars & focus to bring them into a nice, round, discrete point. You may get a lot of condensation, so have a microfiber or other cloth to keep wiping your lens dry. Having some kind of earthly foreground anchors the composition & gives it scale.
Norway is supposed to be a very good place to see the aurora. Good luck & have a trip of a lifetime! Is this a photo cruise?
Posted by David Mayhew on July 23, 2013 at 1:25 AM
I agree, minimum F2.8. I bought a Rokina 14mm F2.8 and the sharpness throughout was outstanding - never using my Canon 16-24 for night photography again. I was surprised on my Iceland trip that I didn't need a huge sensitivity and ended up at ISO 1000 for 13 secs at F2.8 - 1st attempts were way blown out!
I had Tromso as a 2nd choice to Iceland, should be a good location!
Good advice so far. I use the highest ISO I can without blowing anything out. If the aurora is fainter and it's a partial moon or no moon, that could be ISO 6400. If the aurora is really bright and/or the full moon is out, that could be as low as 1000. Just check your histogram often to make sure you're not overexposing. It might look too bright in your LCD but as long you're not clipping the highlights, you can always darken it back up later. f2.8, 14mm, 13-15 seconds is usually what I shoot at. If it's really cold, you can avoid condensation by leaving your camera in the trunk of your car to keep it cold before the shoot. Condensation forms most when you take your camera from a warm location inside to a cold one outside. And when it's really cold, I recommend trying to wear at least 3 layers of cloths everywhere, with merino wool as the base layer.
And, as a warning, I thought that after freezing in northern Alaska for two weeks last March, I would never do it again. But the northern lights are addictive and I'm already planning my 3rd trip to photograph them, this time in Iceland in Sept.
Posted by Howard Cihak on July 23, 2013 at 4:22 PM
Thanks for the feedback. O.K., granted, a 14/2.8 would be very desirable.
However, inasmuch as I already own a 10-22 (equiv. 16-35) f/3.5 (@10mm), will another 1/2 stop and 2mm of focal length really make all that much of a difference?
I missed the part about shooting with the Canon 60D. Since it isn't full frame the 14mm would be equivalent to 22, so the 10-22 is probably going to work better anyway. The aurora can take up the entire sky, so I often find even 14mm isn't wide enough and end up doing stitched images.
F3.5 will let in about 2/3 the light of f2.8, so that will increase noise a little. A bigger issue, unfortunately, is that the 60D just isn't rated well for low-light photography. The signal-to-noise ratio will be about 1/4 of what the best new full-frame cameras can produce.
One thing you can do to decrease noise is try stitched images with your 10-22 or possibly 35, though the 35 probably isn't wide enough even for stitched images. When the aurora is moving fast, it's hard to stitch more than a few images together. When its moving slower, I've been able to stitch up to 20 images.
With your equipment, a nearly-full moon would be ideal to increase the light and decrease noise. But it looks like you'll be shooting under a new moon or no moon. But you'll be in a prime viewing area, so the aurora could get very bright and help reduce noise.
Ultimately, I think it just depends on what you'll be doing with the images. I'm sure you'll able to get some great images for the web. If you want large stunning prints with low noise, that could be difficult without renting or buying new equipment. The Nikon D600 with a Rokinon 14mm f2.8 is about the least expensive option to get the best quality images. It will produce about 1/6 the noise of your current setup. You could even buy it used and sell it after your trip.
Posted by Howard Cihak on July 23, 2013 at 8:08 PM
Grant, how does the S/N ratio of a 60D compare to a 5D mkii?
The 5D MKII is rated quite a bit better by dxomark.com - It's low light ISO rating is 1815 vs 813 for the 60D, so essentially the S/N is over twice as high for the MKII. I shot with the MKII and the Canon 14-24 f2.8 in Alaska and when the aurora was really bright I was able to get high quality shots with one image. When it wasn't as bright, I was able to get high-quality shots with stitched images. The Nikon D800e I shot with in Canada produced better results, especially with a fainter aurora, but not by a huge margin.
Howard, if considering a full frame for this trip I would highly recommend looking at the Canon 6d. I'm close to picking one up for low light stuff. I already have the 5dII.
Howard, when I was in Iceland, I was actually surprised at the numbers I got. I did have a nearly full moon to contend with though. This particular shot was F3.2, 5 seconds, and ISO800 on my D800. Good luck with your trip!
Posted by David Kingham on July 28, 2013 at 12:28 PM
You're looking at a new moon the first week of November, so the 60d isn't going to be the greatest option, although it's not terrible. I would recommend renting a 6D and a 14mm, you will be really happy with what you come back with
Posted by Howard Cihak on July 29, 2013 at 8:43 PM
Thanks, one and all, for the advice. Looks like I'm going to have to take a long look at investing in a 6D when I get back from Montana.
Discussion
11 repliesAnyway, I'm going on a cruise down the Norwegian coast in the 1st week of November. It sets sail from Kirkenes on the Barents Sea, about 69 degrees North latitude, and eventually makes it way into the Arctic Ocean just above 70 degrees North. I figure that ought to be far enough North.
I'm planning on using a Canon 10-22mm/3.5-4.5 zoom on my 60D. I also have a Canon 35/2 and a 50/1.4.
Can anyone give me their personal recommendations on ISO, aperture, and exposure times for what might well be a once in a lifetime opportunity? I'm thinking that after I freeze my patootie off doing this once, I'm not likely to ever be up for doing it a 2nd time.
Norway is supposed to be a very good place to see the aurora. Good luck & have a trip of a lifetime! Is this a photo cruise?
I had Tromso as a 2nd choice to Iceland, should be a good location!
And, as a warning, I thought that after freezing in northern Alaska for two weeks last March, I would never do it again. But the northern lights are addictive and I'm already planning my 3rd trip to photograph them, this time in Iceland in Sept.
However, inasmuch as I already own a 10-22 (equiv. 16-35) f/3.5 (@10mm), will another 1/2 stop and 2mm of focal length really make all that much of a difference?
F3.5 will let in about 2/3 the light of f2.8, so that will increase noise a little. A bigger issue, unfortunately, is that the 60D just isn't rated well for low-light photography. The signal-to-noise ratio will be about 1/4 of what the best new full-frame cameras can produce.
One thing you can do to decrease noise is try stitched images with your 10-22 or possibly 35, though the 35 probably isn't wide enough even for stitched images. When the aurora is moving fast, it's hard to stitch more than a few images together. When its moving slower, I've been able to stitch up to 20 images.
With your equipment, a nearly-full moon would be ideal to increase the light and decrease noise. But it looks like you'll be shooting under a new moon or no moon. But you'll be in a prime viewing area, so the aurora could get very bright and help reduce noise.
Ultimately, I think it just depends on what you'll be doing with the images. I'm sure you'll able to get some great images for the web. If you want large stunning prints with low noise, that could be difficult without renting or buying new equipment. The Nikon D600 with a Rokinon 14mm f2.8 is about the least expensive option to get the best quality images. It will produce about 1/6 the noise of your current setup. You could even buy it used and sell it after your trip.