Ben Hattenbach

Lives in United States Los Angeles, United States
Has a website at http://www.benhattenbach.com
Joined on Oct 25, 2005

Comments

Total: 4, showing: 1 – 4

Hey Dan, sorry for the delay in responding to your question. The short answer is that's not going to be an ideal camera for multiple reasons -- primarily that it has a relatively small sensor and thus suboptimal high ISO performance, and secondarily that (assuming you're going to the arctic where the aurora will hopefully occupy a large part of the sky) the lens isn't going to give you as wide a field of view as you'll probably want. You'd certainly be better off with a full frame sensor and a wide angle lens that let in more light. That said, if your expectations aren't too high then you could definitely have some fun with the Canon and if the conditions are right, return with some nice shots. On your second question, it appears that Canon has an app that allows your smartphone to work as a remote but I've never tried it. Good luck!

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2016 at 06:05 UTC as 1st comment

gerritgroot: the subject of camera settings is addressed on page 2 of the article, in section 6. Had you read the full article before commenting, you would have learned (i) what ranges of settings are recommended as a starting point, and (ii) that optimal settings depend on factors including the strength of the particular aurora you are photographing, such that EXIF data from images of aurorae you did not photograph would be "pretty useless."

That said, if you still want EXIF data (and additional photos) you can find it here:
http://www.pbase.com/hattenbach/alaska

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2013 at 16:28 UTC as 4th comment

Boorrris- you raise a good question about the 24 f/1.4. I have both that lens and the 14-24, but strongly prefer the 14-24 when I'm in a location with arourae regularly appearing overhead (such as Iceland, where you're going). If you want to include some foreground as well as a large portion of the sky, a 14mm field of view makes an enormous difference -- one that more than compensates for its narrower aperture, in my opinion.

When the aurora can be seen significantly south of the arctic (e.g., in Minnesota, or even Mexico, where it reportedly appeared in 1859!), it will more often be hovering near the horizon. In those situations, a 24mm view may work better from a compositional perspective and the wider aperature of the prime would be a plus.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2011 at 16:44 UTC as 22nd comment

Hi Folks. Thanks very much for all the positive feedback. It will help keep me warm on my next photoshoot. Poul, with respect to your comment on the science, the scientific portion of the article (Section 1) was provided by a Ph.D. astrophysicist who, as a professor and researcher, has studied aurorae not only on earth but on other planets. It was intended to be understandable by lay people, not a comprehensive dissertation; nonetheless, I believe (and sure hope) it is entierly accurate from a scientific perspective.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2011 at 23:33 UTC as 53rd comment | 1 reply
Total: 4, showing: 1 – 4