M6 / M5 Astrophotography

i would be interested and appreciative of seeing any astrophotography photos and filter a special set-ups neccesary for the shot

jaadwa wrote:

i would be interested and appreciative of seeing any astrophotography photos and filter a special set-ups neccesary for the shot

A shot taken with the EOSM + EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM lens The Milky Way appears muddy from this lens due to the dim f/4 lens. A longer exposure would have produced star trails and higher ISO settings became too noisy with this lens.

.
WHAT I'M often USING...

* [CAMERA]: EOS M (I'm now using the M6)
* [LENS]: EF-M lens of your choice (some will be more suitable than others).
* [TRIPOD]: One with vertical movement (the more sturdy, the better).

.
The EOS M cameras are well suited to Astrophotography. They have a decent sized APS-C sensor that allows for enough light to generate reasonable images and you don't need to be stacking images or using special software to be able to capture amazing shots. The cheapest lens (EF-M 22mm f/2 STM is one of the best lenses to use unless you want to experiment with more expensive lenses or those manual-focus type lenses from Samyang/Rokinon.
.
FOCUS:
This is something you need to nail. I bring a pair of magnifying glasses with me to look at the LCD of the camera closely. You need to enhage Manual Focus (only) on the camera via the menu. Pick out a bright star and then try to manually forcus the lens on the star. Use the camera's LCD display to see if the star is in focus. Now use the camera's "magnify" feature (*Lower right hand corner of the LCD) to zoom in on that star and try to refine the focus further. Too much one way or the other tends to produce a red or blue shift to the image. If you can't see a star, bump up the ISO until you can. While the ISO is bumped up, use the LCD to frame your shot. If you are happy with the composition, switch to M-Mode and select your ISO (try 1600) and then set your aperture and shutter speed as needed. Be sure to use the self-timer when you're ready to take shots than you want to keep. Check some of your images before continuing - in order to determine that your lens is in focus.
.
FILTERS:
Filters are not necessary. I've experimented with the NiSi Natural Night Filter for some shots although I'm fond of looking for areas with clear skies (which is important) - preferably away from city light pollution. These filters are not essential and they cut out the spectrum of yellow commonly reflected from street lights in the city against particles of pollution overhead. But traveling to a dark-sky location or at least away from "light pollution" always results in the best results.
.

EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens + 77mm NiSi Natural Night Filter with Step-Up rings.

NiSi Natural Night Filter with Step-Up rings. (43mm-55mm and 55-77mm)

.
Exposures - range from 8 seconds to 30 seconds.
ISO can range from ISO 800 to 1600 or up to 3200 (depending on the lens and scene).
.
Good lenses for Astro include EF lenses as well as EF-M lenses. The wider lenses with bright apertures are the best. Some of the lenses I have selected for testing and conducting Astro Photography with the EOS M system include:
.
EF-M lenses for Astrophotography...
___________________________________________
* EF-M 22mm f/2 STM lens. (very impressive results).
* EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM lens. (not ideal - too dim at f/4).
* EF-M 28mm f/3.5 IS Macro STM lens. (promising, only took one shot)
* EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM (suitable but not particularly wide).
.
EF lenses for Astrophotography...
________________________________________
* EF 24mm f/1.4L USM II (very good).
* EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM II (decent results - a little dim).
* EF 50mm f/1.2L USM (very good but narrow FOV).
* EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro USM (not particularly good... too dim).
* EF 135mm f/2 USM (suitable for comets and lunar landscape shots).
* EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM (Very impressive lunar photography).
* EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM + Extenders (suitable for lunar + planet shots).
.
The EF-M 22mm f/2 STM lens is a susprisingly useful lens for Astro Photography and it outperforms the more expensive EF 24mm f/1.4 USM II lens due to less coma and a sharper lens array when shooting at infinity.
.

Setting up the EOS M6 + EF-M 22mm f/2 STM lens for a shot (see image below)

.
METHOD used for Milky Way shots with the EF-M 22mm f/2 STM lens....
* Use a free program like Stellarium or Skywalk to pick the best time to shoot.
* The Milky Way has different areas that are present at different times of the year.
* Watch the weather to eliminate days when the moon is in the sky
* Pick a time when the moon isn't in the sky.
.
* Typically you'll want to be shooting 3 hours after sunset to avoid sky light.
* Bring a spare battery if it's an important event (eg Comet)
* Set up your camera on a tripod.
* Bring at least one flashlight.
* Set White Balance to either Auto (brown) or Tungsten (blue hues)
* Use self timer on camera to eliminate camera shake (2 seconds)
* Try ISO 1600 and then crank up to 2000, 2500 and 3200 as needed.
* Try 1/20 second exposure.
* Be aware of dew and ice formation which may occur on your lens and camera when shooting outside in the dark, depending on the temperature.
.

EOS M6 + EF-M 22mm f/2 STM lens - single exposure - processed to enhance the colors and finer details (dust lanes). This is a VERY good lens for Astro work. Tungsten WB was used. Note that ISO 2000 was used (!!) as well as an aperture of f/2.2 for 20 seconds.

.
Son't be afraid to experiment. An ISO setting and shutter speed combo with a particular lens will usually produce nearly identical results if the weather and sky conditions are the same. Higher ISO and a narrower shutter speed can often capture more details than a slower shutter speed and lower ISO settings. The signals-to-noise ratio is often better with higher ISO for astro shots but I draw the line at around ISO 3200 and keep all my shots at this ISO setting or lower.
.
Remember to have either your phone of another flashlight with you. I once dropped my only flashlight in the dark doing a shoot and had to fumble around in pitch black darkness to find it again. I live in Australia so the ground in that area was covered in deadly snakes and spiders (and ants). Bring insect repellent if mosquitoes are a problem where you are. Bring gloves and a jacket, even if you don't think you'll need them.
.

EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM lens - with frost and ice all over it.

.
If you are shooting in the night in months where dew and frost are likely, buy an inexpensive "lend heater" online and a small USB Power Bank to keep it operating. My EOS M was mounted to the EF-M 11-22mm when dew formed on the lens and then froze. I attempted to thaw the lens out in my car with the heater but it didn't really help since the Milky Way had dropped in the sky and fog was beginning to form. I now carry a lens warmer with me in case I need one. It goes around the lens hood and is warm enough to keep moisture and frost from the lens.
.
Good luck and I hope this is of use to you.
.
Below are examples from SOME of the different lenses I've tried on the EOSM cameras.
.

Comparisons showing unedited moon shots to demonstrate how each lens combo with the EF 100-400mmL II lens fills the frame differently.

Mars last month - taken with the EF-M 22mm f/2 STM lens on the EOS M6

EOS M + 135mm f/2 USM lens - moonrise

Comet Lovejoy - EOSM + EF 24mm f/1.4L USM II lens

EOS M + EF 135mm f/2 USM lens - Blood Moon (Lunar Eclipse)

EOS M + EF 24mm f/1.4L USM II lensTwo-shot panorama - Milky Way plus both Magellenic Clouds (Dwarf Galaxies).

Comet Lovejoy with EOS M + EF 135mm f/2 USM lens.

Orion Nebula - EOS M6 + EF 100-400mmL II lens (no extenders) - blurred from the Earth's rotation. Surprisingly this was Hanheld (very carefully) with my back against my car.

Large Magellanic Cloud with EOS M + EF 50mm f/1.2 USM lens

EOS M + EF-M 22mm f/2 STM lens - Milky Way with Tungsten WB

Saturn and Moon taken with the EOS M + 24mm f/1.4L USM II lens on the outside of a Spotting Scope. This is a very tricky method to use. Self timer is essential to prevent wobble.

Milky Way over my car a few weeks ago - EOS M6 + EF-M 22mm f/2 STM lens

EOS M6 + EF 100-400mmL II lens + 1.4x III + 2x III + NiSi Natural Night Filter.

EOS M + EF 24mm f/1.4L USM II lens (my friend about to turn off his phone)

Moon in the aternoon Sky - EOS M + EF 100-400mmL II lens (cropped).

Andromeda taken with the EOS M + EF 24mm f/1.4L USM II lens.

My first deliberate attempt to shoot the Milky Way.
Taken with the EOS M + EF 24mm f/1.4L USM lens.

EOS M6 + EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM - International Space Station + half-Moon.

100% crop of the Moon with Jupiter (and several of Jupiter's moons) - taken with the EOS M6 + EF 100-400mmL II + EF 1.4x III extender + EF12 + EF 2x III extender (1803.2mm equiv).

Mounting the EOS M directly to a spotting scope (Prime Astro) via a Canon T-Ring adapter.

EOS M6 + EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens - Blend of Auto +Tungsten WB - taken last week.

Thank you for your outstanding insights .. I am really liking the 22mm and one 32mm shots. Inspiring ..

Another lens you could consider for astrophotography is the Samyang\Rokinson 12mm/f2. It's a great and sharp manual lens, wide enough to cover a big area of the sky and aperture open enough to gather light. I own one and I liked the results (no good photo to post unfortunately as I was unlucky this year with bad timing and unexpected mist).

The main thing is to think a few weeks/months in advance, scope the locations to find a good area which is dark enough (be sure you don't trepass private property).

Xilikon wrote:

Another lens you could consider for astrophotography is the Samyang\Rokinson 12mm/f2. It's a great and sharp manual lens, wide enough to cover a big area of the sky and aperture open enough to gather light. I own one and I liked the results (no good photo to post unfortunately as I was unlucky this year with bad timing and unexpected mist).

The main thing is to think a few weeks/months in advance, scope the locations to find a good area which is dark enough (be sure you don't trepass private property).

I have an area in mind that is fairly dark ( for New Jersey )..myconcern are ticks and mosquitos . I have heard DEETbased solutions are tough electronic rquipment

jaadwa wrote:

Xilikon wrote:

Another lens you could consider for astrophotography is the Samyang\Rokinson 12mm/f2. It's a great and sharp manual lens, wide enough to cover a big area of the sky and aperture open enough to gather light. I own one and I liked the results (no good photo to post unfortunately as I was unlucky this year with bad timing and unexpected mist).

The main thing is to think a few weeks/months in advance, scope the locations to find a good area which is dark enough (be sure you don't trepass private property).

I have an area in mind that is fairly dark ( for New Jersey )..myconcern are ticks and mosquitos . I have heard DEETbased solutions are tough electronic rquipment

Nothing is as irritating to me than getting bitten by mosquitoes because they carry a horrible virus here (Ross River Fever).  I'm also allergic them... and the species of large jumping ants here.  Which can kill.
.
DEET: This is indeed true.... specifically against plastics and synthetic materials of a certain nature. I'm going to be in an area infested with leeches in the morning with mosquitoes there as well. I will be spraying a light coating off deet on my face as face into the breeze when I get out of my car... and then a ring of it around each leg (below the knees) plus the back on my hands. My EOS M will be on my equipment harness and my gear will be upwind of me when I do this. This will last me the day. But I won't spray it directly onto any plastics. It can cause plastic to turn white. So sunglasses etc and plastic watch parts etc are at risk mostly when the material is liberally applied. The alternative is to be eaten alive by these things without it because regular pesticides seem ineffective here. The thing that scientists recently discovered about deet is that it block ticks, ants, leeches and mosquitoes and flies from being able to detect their favorite food: US. But I have seen flies actively avoid deet by refusing to touch it .

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180926140832.htm
.
Al alternative is not to use deet-based products although I know that sunscreen also poses a risk to lens coatings and rubbers/silicone. It contains both abrasive metal particles as well as an oil that penetrates and lifts optical coatings.
.
Just show some basic cautions and you should be fine. Only use a very light spray so you aren't slick or wet with it. I've been using an ultrasonic mosquito repellent which I clip onto my shirt a the back of my neck. This seems to be effective as I've not been bitten by mosquitoes while wearing it but the high pitched whine can just barely be heard and it can annoy other people if they can also hear it (not everyone can). And since Deet is considered a known carcinogen, it's an alternative.  Try not to get it in your mouth or eyes if you can help it.  I've grown to like the taste - which shows how much I'm used to it.  The biggest problem for my equipment is that it can "frost" up the protective membrane on our metal detector LCDs and those things cost around $6K.
.

Some of the leeches I have to deal with regularly.

I'm going to be right here tomorrow.  Not looking forward to it at all in this respect

jaadwa wrote:

i would be interested and appreciative of seeing any astrophotography photos and filter a special set-ups neccesary for the shot

Do some research in this and the astro forum. Marco (who has already replied) and (I think from memory BMike) are probably the most frequent posters of star photos.

Bmike recently sold his M6 to buy a 6D ii FF, and he also used a tracker.

I have only this year started taking MW photos, and IMO a Canon APS-C is not ideal for astro because it struggles to gather enough light at reasonable ISO speeds.

My thoughts (may well be disputed by others);

• I don't like going over ISO1600 on my M5 or old 70D.
• I don't like going past about Rule of 200 on APS-C and Rule of 300 on FF. With a 8Mp or 12Mp camera the old Rule of 500 was probably OK, but not with 24Mp or higher. I do confess though that I check all of my photos at 100% so the star elongation is more obvious than a relatively small jpeg posted online.
• EArlier this year when I started preparing obviously the fast 32mm f1.4 lens was not available, so the best EF-M lens was the 22mm f2.
• I have a good Sirui N-2204X tripod with Sirui K-20X ball head. This is plenty for my 6D ii, and more than adequate for a mirrorless. I would not cheap out on a tripod for astro though.
• I decided to go with a fast-ish UWA (at least to start) as I did not want the added expense, weight & complexity of a tracker and / or a full pano head for the tripod. Doing panos with slide bar or something is relatively easy in daylight where you can see your subject clearly and see what you are doing. In total darkness it is not as easy as you cannot see the stars properly, and cannot see what you are doing either. Part of the reason for the "simple" approach was that I was going (recently returned) to New Zealand South Island for 3 weeks, and spending several nights in the McKenzie (Lake Tekapo / Mt Cook / Twizel) international dark sky reserve, and since my camera bag already weighed around 12kgs, I did not want any more weight.

So, applying my thoughts above with the gear I had at the time;

M5 at ISO1600 with 22mm at f2.2 (ie not wide open) using Rule of 200 (for APS-C) meant that I was looking at about 10 second exposures.

6D ii at ISO6400 with Samyang 14mm f2.4 XP lens at f2.8 (ie not wide open) using Rule of 300 (for FF) meant that I was looking at about 20-25 second exposures.

So, comparing exposures (light gathering) - FF has 2 stop advantage on ISO, at least 1 stop advantage on shutter speed, and a 2/3 stop disadvantage on aperture, so overall the FF is still more than 2 stops "faster".

Also, the 22mm x 1.6 has FF equivalent FoV of 35mm, so the 14mm covers vastly more sky than the 22mm on M5. With the 14mm, I can get a large chuck of sky (most of the MW) in a single frame, whereas even with 22mm the focus would be on a smaller portion of the MW (like galactic centre).

Now that the 32mm is out, things sort of better and worse. The 32mm is obviously a lot faster, much larger aperture wide open, so light gathering is good, but the FoV is now 51mm (FF equivalent), so an even smaller portion of the sky is seen.

In general, the astro "gurus" tend to recommend very fast lenses in the 24mm to 35mm range, generally on FF. The ting is that they also often have either trackers or pano heads or both, and usually recommend mosaics.

So, really it depends on how far you want to go and how much you want to spend. If you want to do "simple" MW and nightscapes, IMO you need a fast UWA, ideally on FF. If you want to go further and do deep space objects then you need longer lenses and a tracker is essential. If you want to use the Canon APS-C with something like 32mm for MW and nightscapes, then you need a really good pano head (like RRS) and preferably a tracker and be prepared to do a lot of PP and stitching.

As regards "cheap" MF lenses like Samyang, Irix etc, buyer beware. Get it from a shop with an excellent (no cost to you) returns policy because you are likely to need it. I first bought an Irix 15mm f2.4 - it was very badly decentred, so I sent it back. The replacement was better but still soft due to the infinity point being poorly adjusted (it did not have enough travel). I then went to a local shop and tried several similar lenses (shooting out the shop door across a wide road and open area of shops, park etc). The Irix 15mm f2.4 Blackstone was the same as my Firefly. The Samyang 14mm f2.8 MF was just awful like it couldn't attain focus at any point. The Samyang 14mm f2.8 AF was slightly better, but still not good. The Samyang 14mm f2.4 XP (premium) lens was much better, and the Sigma 14mm f1.8 was arguably the best, but it is a beast - big, heavy and much more $. I bought the Samyang 14mm f2.4 XP.

I don't use any filters on my Samyang 14mm - mainly because the big bulbous front doesn't lend itself to filters easily.

Here are a couple of examples from my recent trip. I have not even finished looking at the 13,000 photos yet, so no PP. These have only been converted from RAW to jpeg so that I could post them here. Usually with my limited astro experience there is a lot of PP (light pollution reduction using curves etc) to be done to get a decent looking image, but these look reasonable straight out of the camera (literally a straight conversion in DPP - no noise reduction, enhancing etc) - most likely due to the very dark skies (this area has some of the darkest skies in the populated world apparently).

Mt Cook Village behind hotel in carpark

Due to the different direction (towards Mt Cook peak), this only shows the tail end of the MW.

Mt Cook Village - from top floor of hotel, looking up the valley at Mt Cook peak in the middle

Punakaiki village on the west coast, Greymouth lights in bottom left. From hotel balcony

These two were taken from a boat that we spent the night on in Milford Sound. It was very calm, but the boat was swinging slightly at anchor, so I was trying to use shorter shutter speeds to avoid blur. Most were still blurred, but these were reasonable.

Milford Sound village (tiny) and the mountains (incl. Mitre Peak) in the background

Worth noting how less prominent the Milky Way galactic centre is here compared to the shots above from Mt Cook etc due to the shorter exposure.

Slightly different view. Moon had just set behind mountains

Colin

Marco Nero wrote:

jaadwa wrote:

Xilikon wrote:

Another lens you could consider for astrophotography is the Samyang\Rokinson 12mm/f2. It's a great and sharp manual lens, wide enough to cover a big area of the sky and aperture open enough to gather light. I own one and I liked the results (no good photo to post unfortunately as I was unlucky this year with bad timing and unexpected mist).

The main thing is to think a few weeks/months in advance, scope the locations to find a good area which is dark enough (be sure you don't trepass private property).

I have an area in mind that is fairly dark ( for New Jersey )..myconcern are ticks and mosquitos . I have heard DEETbased solutions are tough electronic rquipment

Nothing is as irritating to me than getting bitten by mosquitoes because they carry a horrible virus here (Ross River Fever). I'm also allergic them... and the species of large jumping ants here. Which can kill.
.
DEET: This is indeed true.... specifically against plastics and synthetic materials of a certain nature. I'm going to be in an area infested with leeches in the morning with mosquitoes there as well. I will be spraying a light coating off deet on my face as face into the breeze when I get out of my car... and then a ring of it around each leg (below the knees) plus the back on my hands. My EOS M will be on my equipment harness and my gear will be upwind of me when I do this. This will last me the day. But I won't spray it directly onto any plastics. It can cause plastic to turn white. So sunglasses etc and plastic watch parts etc are at risk mostly when the material is liberally applied. The alternative is to be eaten alive by these things without it because regular pesticides seem ineffective here. The thing that scientists recently discovered about deet is that it block ticks, ants, leeches and mosquitoes and flies from being able to detect their favorite food: US. But I have seen flies actively avoid deet by refusing to touch it .

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180926140832.htm
.
Al alternative is not to use deet-based products although I know that sunscreen also poses a risk to lens coatings and rubbers/silicone. It contains both abrasive metal particles as well as an oil that penetrates and lifts optical coatings.
.
Just show some basic cautions and you should be fine. Only use a very light spray so you aren't slick or wet with it. I've been using an ultrasonic mosquito repellent which I clip onto my shirt a the back of my neck. This seems to be effective as I've not been bitten by mosquitoes while wearing it but the high pitched whine can just barely be heard and it can annoy other people if they can also hear it (not everyone can). And since Deet is considered a known carcinogen, it's an alternative. Try not to get it in your mouth or eyes if you can help it. I've grown to like the taste - which shows how much I'm used to it. The biggest problem for my equipment is that it can "frost" up the protective membrane on our metal detector LCDs and those things cost around $6K.
.

Some of the leeches I have to deal with regularly.

I'm going to be right here tomorrow. Not looking forward to it at all in this respect

I don’t like leeches (nor mosquitos and ticks) .. besides full body netting I guess DEETin moderation is the only choice if you want to be out in the field . If anyone has other ideas, I would be interested, I want to preserve my camera equipment .

DEET is fine if used in moderation, and wipe the palms & fingers after application. I find that (in Australia) I don't have to coat every square inch of skin to keep bugs at bay, but rather a light spray over exposed leg and arm skin, and behind my neck usually keeps the worse of it under control.

I actually don't think that DEET is any more damaging to plastics than sunscreen, which can also affect plastics.

Living in sub-tropical Africa and Australia for the past 50 years and I don't remember ever noticing something damaged after me using DEET, but I did have a Toyota Rav4 gear lever knob start peeling twice. Neither I nor Toyota could work it out - months later I was talking to a mate and the penny dropped - I had spend an extended period at a beach (in mid summer, so regular applications of sunscreen)  immediately before occasions and with no fresh water available to wash my hands, I had almost certainly climbed in the (manual) car and fondled the gear knob for the 2 hour drive back home. After that I make a point of very carefully wiping my hands after applying sunscreen.

Colin

bmike wrote:

Marco’s posts helped pushed me to get an M6, but please set your WB to ‘Daylight’ and read up on the color of the night sky:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/color.of.the.night.sky/

Thanks for the link.

bmike wrote:

Marco’s posts helped pushed me to get an M6, but please set your WB to ‘Daylight’ and read up on the color of the night sky:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/color.of.the.night.sky/

You see, this is where I'm going to draw the line.  Not at your comment bmike, but at the belief that there's only one way to view the Milky Way with a camera sensor.  I like Roger's webpages and often send people there when they ask for tips.  He's a bit of a' WB-snob' though... he really hates Tungsten WB and any form of 'color processing'... And yet all his pictures are false representations of what they human eye can never perceive in the first place.  The colors of the Milky Way are viewed differently depending on reflected lightsources from the moon, the sun, the manmade street lights and elements in our atmosphere.   The human eye can't perceive the colors of the milky way although this is mostly a reference to the colors from the backlit dustlanes etc.  The Milky Way appears WHITE to the human eye... and the light is quite faint so we perceive it as a grey color when we look up.  By allowing the camera sensor to present colors the human eye can't even perceive, we're immediately permitting a "standard".   Recently scientists confirmed that the color of our Milky Way is as "white as snow"... which is interesting.  Color emission nebula and color reflectant nebulae give us splashed of reds, yellows, blues, violet and green but those pinpoints of color can't be detected by the human eye.  The same applied to the green curtains of airglow due to oxygen. Of course, whenever we see a photograph of the Milky Way portraying purple stars, we know the WB was tweaked or a filter may have been used.  It's doesn't affect the merit of the image and one such picture (with purple stars) won a major award here that I read about in the newspapers.
.
"Pitt Astronomers Determine Color of the Milky Way Galaxy
At national meeting today, Pitt researchers say Milky Way is “white as snow”

"The light from the Milky Way closely matches the light from a D48.4 standard illuminant, or a light bulb with a color temperature of 4700-5000K."

http://www.news.pitt.edu/milkywaycolor

.

The Milky Way to o the unaided human eye.   Anything more than this is simply creative license... even if the colors are "accurate".  And the defense of anything more than this is akin to religious zealotry.  If you can't see it with your eyes, and you need to expose longer, then you're cheating nature.
.

Roger Clarke's work is very good and his research is comprehensive.  But he and I have disagreed before (on another forum) in relation to purism and coloring the Milky Way with specific White Balance settings. I believe we can shoot the Milky Way in any manner that appeals to us and there should be no criticism on the subject unless a photographer makes a false claim about the method the image was captured.  I have often noted my choice of White Balance when Tungsten setting is used to avoid confusion.  But his shots of brown skies with green airglow are creative enhancements of what nature teases us with.
.
I think it's interesting that even though the natural color of our sky is blue during daylight hours due to the Argon in our atmosphere, there's an immediate demand to portray the night sky as being "brown".  What happened to "Blue Hour"?  Sue, this is caused by "Rayleigh scattering" but people don't usually realize this.  And what about modified Astrograph Cameras which have had their sensors altered or replaced to detect and record stronger Hydrogen Alpha emission channels in the nebulous regions of the Milky Way?  It turns out you don't need to modify your camera sensor because with careful color processing you ought to be able to generate these colors during PP.
.
I could have altered my WB to record the same old boring brown skies but I'm interested in capturing something more compelling.   I didn't artificially color the images during processing.  And, if I had captured the Milky Way in any other light spectrum the image would be no less valid.  I don't hear anyone complaining that Black and White photography is an abomination.  The same argument can be made against high speed photography or even long exposure photography.  I state that any image that doesn't reflect what the human eye can see is "creative artistry".  This applies to the Milky Way.  If it doesn't look like the image above, then any argument against that image is akin to 'religious zealotry'.
.
In many ways, the Tungsten WB shot at the bottom here (third image down) is closer to what the human eye can perceive than ANY "naturally brown" Milky Way shot taken. Lower the luminosity and drop the saturation accordingly... and you'll get a shot similar to what the human eye can perceive.

.EOS 6D + EF 24mm f/1.4L USM II lens (3x vertical image panorama) - Tungsten WB
Sapphire Colors in the Milky Way were the result of careful but creative processing during editing.  The terrestrial colors of the land are closer to accurate but the Milky Way is a sapphire blue.

EOS 6D + EF 24mm f/1.4L USM II - Taken with a NiSi Natural Night Filter and a 3500 Kelvin WB.
This was taken just seconds before removing the filter and rotating the camera 180 degrees to capture the shot below...

EOS 6D + EF 24mm f/1.4L USM II (singe image) - Tungsten White Balance
Tracking Saturn across the Milky Way ... taken just after taking the shot above it.  Lower the luminosity and vibrancy of this image and you get a shot that looks identical to what the human eye can perceive.

Marco

I am not having a go, and as I said previously, MW colours are a personal preference thing.

I would ask, however, why, as per your quote above which lists the natural MW colours as between 4700K and 5000K (which almost exactly coincides with a Canon Daylight WB of 5050, from memory), do you use a Tungsten WB with a much cooler colour temp of mid-3000K ?

Are you saying that you do like the natural colours as mentioned in your quote, or you don't like the natural colours and prefer a more "artistic" approach with a cool blue colour.

I agree with you that a human eye on the short exposure that we "snapshot" cannot see the MW in the same brightness and vibrant colour that we can capture in a long exposure on a camera. Even when in South Island on a cloudless winter night which is probably between Bortle 1 and 2 (ie. almost as dark (light pollution free) as we would ever see on earth), my camera revealed much more detail than I could see by eye (even though it was very impressive by eye). I think that this is the major difference between what we see in many astro shots and by eye - due to magnification and exposure times. I would guess that with a decent telescope and very dark skies, we may see a lot of the colours etc as shown in many astro shots, so it may not be as "false" as some might think.

I don't agree that the MW is blue though - at least not when viewed with almost zero outside influences like light pollution, heat haze etc. I have to say that what I could see by eye was mostly white stars with the galactic centre as a darkened area of the sky and some orange-yellow stars. I don't remember seeing any blue stars, so I would be inclined to agree with the people you quoted above.

I would also say that the images my camera captured (see above for completely unedited shots) at about 5050K (Canon 6D ii Daylight WB) seemed to fairly represent what I saw, and the WB temperature also seems to align well with the source you quoted above.

As for which variations individuals like, that is up to them as a personal choice. I do agree that Roger can be quite scathing in his criticism and completely intolerant of any deviation from his view. Is he wrong is his assessment of what gives the most natural depiction of the MW / star colours ? Not sure, I am inclined to agree that he is probably not far off the mark. Do I criticise others for their preferences - not at all - each to their own.

Colin

Andy01 wrote:

Marco

I am not having a go, and as I said previously, MW colours are a personal preference thing.

Hi Andy01.  I agree that the colors of the Milky Way hard for most people to accurately reproduce because they're not visible to the human eye so most photographers are looking at the photographs of other photographers for reference as they edit their own. But there are numerous reasons to consider alternative WB settings...

I would ask, however, why, as per your quote above which lists the natural MW colours as between 4700K and 5000K (which almost exactly coincides with a Canon Daylight WB of 5050, from memory), do you use a Tungsten WB with a much cooler colour temp of mid-3000K ?

One of Roger Clark's amazing photographs titled: " Summer Milky Way Nightscape with the San Juan Mountains of Colorado in natural color".  http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/color-of-stars/  Note the bold emphasis he used in the words "natural color".

.
I haven't really noticed what the color temp of my own Tungsten settings are.  I have recently experimented with other Kelvin settings due to experiments with the NiSi Natural Night Filters.  There's no set rule for color balance unless you wish to produce a "faithful representation".  Red is one of the colors that registers weakly on the human eye in low light.  The Milky Way appears colorless to our eyes so immediately when we take an "accurately colored" Milky Way shot, it's false (in a sense) because no human has ever seen such colors, even with a telescope. 
.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23110-dung-beetles-navigate-using-the-milky-way/
.
https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2013/01/24/dung-beetles-navigate-via-the-milky-way-first-known-in-animal-kingdom/  - check out the Tungsten WB used in one of the featured Milky Way shots on this page.
.
Recently they discovered that Glow Worms (which glow an eerie white-blue color) are mimicking the Milky Way and its stars at night to lure moths into their sticky threads when they feed.  It appears that many moths use the stars and the Milky Way to navigate the skies at night.  So even the animal kingdom likes to mimic the Milky Way with shades of faint white-teal bio-luminescence.
.

Glow Worms imitating the Milky Way with white-teal colored bio-luminescence... in order to lure in night-flying moths that navigate by the stars.
.
Looking at the richly colored image above, we can see just how bold Roger has made his image and he was very careful to capture the colors as they appeared.  So we can assume that this image was created with a "correct" white balance.  This is a very good example of what most photographers would deem to be "overly processed and "too artificial" ... and yet it's not.  Roger has accurately portrayed the night sky with correct colors.  Who else thinks this looks "unnatural"?  It is (technically) and yet it doesn't meet the expectations of the public eye because nobody has seen the night sky look like this.
.
https://aeon.co/videos/glow-worms-mimic-stars-creating-a-stunning-faux-night-sky-in-a-new-zealand-cave 
.
Now look at the image below.  At a glance you can tell it's a night shot.  The warmer backlit areas of dust across the Galactic Core are there.  The cooler teal glow of the core can be seen.  Its the sort of thing Roger hates.  But I like it and that's really all that matters to me.  This was one of my first tests to photograph the Milky Way with the original EOSM camera. I still like the colors.
.

EOSM + EF 24mm f/1.4L USM II lens - Tungsten WB used.
.
See here: http://www.nationalparksatnight.com/blog/2017/6/14/how-to-choose-the-right-white-balance-for-night-skies

Are you saying that you do like the natural colours as mentioned in your quote, or you don't like the natural colours and prefer a more "artistic" approach with a cool blue colour.

.

Different results with the 6D - Personally, I didn't run with the NiSi filtered shots on that occasion but I took this test sample for my own comparisons.

.
I think every shot has its own requirements. The human brain immediately perceived blue colors as the "color of Night" and warmer Reds as "Daylight colors". So part of his is how you wish to portray your image to other people. One of the reasons I use Tungsten WB for some of my Night shots is because I like the way the image is presented and because I seem to be able to capture more subtle details using this WB setting. The most detailed shot of the Milky Way that I have ever taken is the one I caught with the M6 and the EF-M 22mm f/2 STM lens ...and that was captured with a Tungsten setting. There was a very fine network of spider-vein dust lanes in that image that I haven't quite captures in other photographs.
.

Tungsten WB - with moonlight on the clouds during a lightning storm. Clearly a night scene bu the colors.

Using a NiSi NN Filter to capture realistic color hues at night with Tungsten WB. The city-glow has been rendered with a blue/lavender tint.

.

I agree with you that a human eye on the short exposure that we "snapshot" cannot see the MW in the same brightness and vibrant colour that we can capture in a long exposure on a camera. Even when in South Island on a cloudless winter night which is probably between Bortle 1 and 2 (ie. almost as dark (light pollution free) as we would ever see on earth), my camera revealed much more detail than I could see by eye (even though it was very impressive by eye). I think that this is the major difference between what we see in many astro shots and by eye - due to magnification and exposure times. I would guess that with a decent telescope and very dark skies, we may see a lot of the colours etc as shown in many astro shots, so it may not be as "false" as some might think.

The longer the focal length, the darker the sky gets due the increase in contrast and various other factors - this also applies when it comes to telescopes. The same applies to my Canon lenses. Bright aperture telescopes just suck in so much light that your long-exposures need to be carefully planned or you'll wash out your images with each exposure... which is what happened when I was shooting with the 32mm f/1.4L lens the other night: My first shot was overexposed for this reason.

I don't agree that the MW is blue though - at least not when viewed with almost zero outside influences like light pollution, heat haze etc. I have to say that what I could see by eye was mostly white stars with the galactic centre as a darkened area of the sky and some orange-yellow stars. I don't remember seeing any blue stars, so I would be inclined to agree with the people you quoted above.

The glow Milky Way is literally white if we could view it from above or below. And we can't see ANY of the color with our eyes at all... only a faint grey smudge in the night sky. The red hues aren't as visible to the human eye, which is why we tend to imagine the night sky as blue (which is a more visible wavelength). If you look at the image below, you can see how the stars are colored... and there are indeed plenty of Blue stars...

.

EOS 6D + EF 24mm f/1.4L USM II - the colors stars when the lens is defocused- Auto WB.This scene was captures in the mountains with "zero" light pollution.

EOS 6D + EF 24mm f/1.4L USM II lens - Perseid meteors (from memory) with Auto WB

I would also say that the images my camera captured (see above for completely unedited shots) at about 5050K (Canon 6D ii Daylight WB) seemed to fairly represent what I saw, and the WB temperature also seems to align well with the source you quoted above.

Using a NiSi Natural Night Filter, we can "eliminate" a lot of light pollution... (which is a yellow frequency from sodium and mercury vapor lamps used for street-lighting) - which reflects on the particles in the air.... producing false color. The violet hues of the NiSi Natural Night Filter cancels out much of the yellow, producing more flattering greens with grass and plants in the absence of sunlight.
.
But whilst the NiSi NN Filter is capable of producing flattering terrestrial colors, it was designed also to be used by astrophotographers. It requires a Kelvin WB setting of between 5000K and 3500K for Milky Way shots although there's no set rules here either. The resulting images will be pretty but purists will still argue that they're not ideal because we're introducing a frequency of color to replace or block an undesirable one.

As for which variations individuals like, that is up to them as a personal choice. I do agree that Roger can be quite scathing in his criticism and completely intolerant of any deviation from his view. Is he wrong is his assessment of what gives the most natural depiction of the MW / star colours ? Not sure, I am inclined to agree that he is probably not far off the mark. Do I criticise others for their preferences - not at all - each to their own.

I don't agree with everything Roger has to proclaim but his knowledge is extensive and his testing and samples are varied. Imagine telling photographers that they couldn't take pictures in Black & White? As far as I'm concerned, every RAW image is a creative journey of personal preferences when it comes to color, tone, contrast, vibrancy and hue. To answer your question: He is both right and wrong at the same time on the color of the Milky Way. As you would have noted on my link in my previous reply, the Milky Way is literally as "white as snow". This is the agreement of astrophysicists. The brown hues that people are reproducing are coming from the dust that is backlit. Some of that dust is in our atmosphere and some of it makes up the debris and nebulous matter in the spiral arms of our Milky Way.
.

The yellow from the city street lights reflecting off the particles in the air over the city,

.
The true colors of the Moon...
The Moon is colored. Most people don't bother to try to even come close to reproducing it in correct color. It has blues and reds and yellows and various cool and warm hues of grey as well as white and blacks. I don't see any astro-photography groups pushing for "realistic lunar colors". Why do you suppose this is? The moon appears colorful when rising or setting but that's because of the Earth's atmosphere as it filters the moonlight. But higher in the sky it's a stark silvery white with "oceans" that are volcanic in nature and these lavaflows are the only features we tend to see with our eyes. But despite this monochrome appearance, the moon is very colorful. Yet photographers rarely bother to portray the moon as anything other than monochrome. So every picture of a monochromatic moon is taken with a level of creative license by the photographer... who is either unable or unwilling to capture it in the correct colors.
.

https://www.skyandtelescope.com/online-gallery/true-colors-moon/

.

Not my picture - but an excellent real-life example of the colors of the moon...

.
I don't have an issue with people shooting the Milky Way with whatever White Balance gives them satisfying results. I do object to faking an image by dropping a moon into a scene where it doesn't belong or to shoot a landscape in daylight and then throw in a Milky Way later to create a composite that looks like it was the result of careful exposures and pre-planning.
.
I like the blue hues from certain Tungsten WB shots of the Milky Way because sometimes they're far more aesthetically pleasing to the eye and the creative thinking of the viewer. It tends to remind people of their childhood books on space travel, all of which features blue skies, not brown ones. The dust lanes across the Galactic Core may yield yellow and reds from the backlight... but what about the empty void of space above and below? Why would that be brown? It should be black, right?. When you think about that, it dawns on you that even the Auto WB shots are telling you lies. And this is why I have no particular desire to stick with "rules" that are not set in stone and hamper creative exercise.

ScottPeach wrote:

This is the first time I’ve ever commented on a review. I just had to let you know how useful this is to me. After a lot of searching I finally know why lens I need!! Thank you!!

Which lens have you decided to go with?  My personal preference for Milky Way shots is the EF-M 22mm f/2 STM lens at present (for the EOS M cameras).