That one comment about star stacking that made me ditch my single exposures

I was posting my Milky Way shots in here for months and someone finally pointed out that my stars looked like tiny blobs. They said I needed to stack at least 10 frames to get sharp pinpoint stars. I tried it with my next shoot in the Rockies and the difference was night and day. Do you guys usually go for 10 frames or do you push for more like 20 or 30?

3 comments

3 Comments

logan5251mo ago

Does your tracking mount let you push 30 frames or are you cramming them all into like 30 seconds?

michael_green441mo agoMost Upvoted

My buddy Dave tried one of those tracking mounts last deer season. He set it up on a little ridge he'd scouted, and the thing just locked onto a buck moving through the brush at about 150 yards. He said it tracked the animal smooth as could be for a solid 4 or 5 seconds, but then the battery died on him mid-shot. He wasn't trying to jam 30 frames into 30 seconds or anything, just kept a steady pace. Your question about cramming them in, @logan525, got me thinking about how he ended up with a bunch of blurry frames because his cheap tripod couldn't handle the load. He's since bought a heavier setup, but he still talks about that one buck that got away.

michael_green441mo agoMost Upvoted

Dave's story is rough man, but that battery dying mid-shot is exactly why I'm still gun-shy about going full tracking mount. You think a higher end tripod would have helped those blurry frames or was that more about the mount itself being shaky? I'm trying to figure out if I should drop money on a good tripod first or just save up for a better mount that has its own stabilizer built in. Seems like Dave learned the hard way that cheaping out on the base makes the whole setup useless. What kind of legs did he switch to after that mess? I'm about ready to pull the trigger on something but every story like this has me second guessing which piece to upgrade first.