Northern Lights camera conundrum

[SonicHedgeHog]

We’re off in search of the Northern Lights next month. My trusty Pentax K3 with 18-135 lens which usually does all the adventure travel photography isn’t up to the job. I need some new kit, BUT…..

1. I would love a much smaller camera that’s easier to travel with.
2. I don’t want to change lenses when travelling and don’t want to buy or even hire a lens specifically for this trip.
3. My iPhone 8 is getting old and the new iPhones have exceptionally good cameras.

So, if my budget is a flexible £1000 (the price of a new iPhone) what do I do? Do I go all in on the iPhone or is there is a really good compact camera with a modest zoom that will take great photos of the Northern lights? I don’t really care about having the latest phone but killing two birds with one stone appeals. Thoughts?

Edited by SonicHedgeHog on Tuesday 3rd September 07:50

[LimaDelta]

I would say a long exposure function more relevant than a zoom for northern lights photos. Newer iPhones have a pseudo-long exposure function which works quite well, though I've never tried it for Aurora.

[SonicHedgeHog]

I agree. It’s a delicate balance, as usual, between exposure time, f stop and ISO. My K3 combo just doesn’t have the low light performance.

[Still Mulling]

You could potentially combine an iPhone camera with ProCam app?

I’m also interested in this thread, but for a slightly different reason: is it worth paying for a Pro iPhone with my next upgrade to gain in picture quality against the standard? I used to hoik a DSLR around, but it’s been in the cupboard for nigh-on 10 years since having kids in tow. Life beginning to open up again, but phone cameras are so good now I’m questioning the need simply for pictures to print for our walls.

[bstb3]

I would have thought newer iPhone too, based on the requirements. I'm not familiar with the Iphone per se, but for portability and aurora it would be enough I would think. My 5 year old phone isn't anywhere near the best against modern ones, but still takes perfectly decent aurora shots when set appropriately.

Just ensure you have control over the exposure length and ISO and preferably aperture - either in the standard camera app or if needed a specialist camera app as mentioned above. It's possible the phone would be smart enough to recognise in nightscape mode anyway and set things appropriately, but full control is always a nice fallback to have.

I'd add though, even though obvious to a degree, for crisp aurora shots you will need a tripod of sorts so dont forget that - plenty of cheaper mobile friendly ones around but make sure they are stable and not some wobbly long column with small legs thing. Would probably be worth taking a mobile powerbank too, nothing worse than the phone being out of battery when the aurora turns up. Also, if possible, shoot in Raw and Jpeg if the option is there. That way if things aren't looking amazing on the in camera processed jpeg you still have the option to recover it from the Raw file later.

[silentbrown]

Remember they're much more clearly visible using a phone camera in night mode, compared to the naked eye.

This was taken from our garden in Herefordshire in May. Google Pixel 6 handheld.

I think Sony RX100 series is one of the best compacts in your budget?

[cirks]

apart from your preference for having a smaller camera easier to travel with, what is it about the K3 which isn't up to the job? It does long exposures, a decent sensor and ISO. You'll need a tripod but other than that, is it you just want new gear? ;-)

[SonicHedgeHog]

A bit more research suggests the new iPhone 16 Pro with the improved wide angle lens may be the way to go. It sounds very impressive indeed. I’d just need a tripod to go with it.

My Pentax K3 is now about ten years old. Its low light performance is a long way behind what is available now and my travel zoom isn’t especially fast either. You are right that it would take a decent picture - heck, how did people photograph the Northern Lights from years ago? I just felt the latest cameras would take a better picture and we won’t be making this trip again so I need to get it right first time. I’ll investigate my camera a little more before pulling the trigger…

[silentbrown]

SonicHedgeHog said:

My Pentax K3 is now about ten years old. Its low light performance is a long way behind what is available now and my travel zoom isn’t especially fast either. You are right that it would take a decent picture - heck, how did people photograph the Northern Lights from years ago? I just felt the latest cameras would take a better picture and we won’t be making this trip again so I need to get it right first time. I’ll investigate my camera a little more before pulling the trigger…

I was amazed how the aurora was much easier to see when looking at a phone screen vs. the naked eye. Even if you're shooting with an SLR, the phone will help you visualize and frame what you're taking. I've no idea if a mirrorless camera viewfinder offers the same advantage.

[lancslad58]

silentbrown said:

Remember they're much more clearly visible using a phone camera in night mode, compared to the naked eye.

This was taken from our garden in Herefordshire in May. Google Pixel 6 handheld.

I think Sony RX100 series is one of the best compacts in your budget?

They are very good cameras, there might be some other competitors on the market.
If it were me I'd take something designed to take photos rarther than a mobile phone.

https://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/cyber-shot-comp...

Edited by lancslad58 on Wednesday 4th September 07:53

[Simpo Two]

lancslad58 said:

If it were me I'd take something designed to take photos rarther than a mobile phone.

One issue that hasn't been mentioned is how realistic you want your photos to look. Photos of auroras taken with phones often seem far more 'zappo wowee' than they looked in real life thanks to all the software trickery going on. So maybe decide whether you want an accurate record of the event or something to get likes on Facebook.

[GravelBen]

It also depends what you plan to do with the photos - heavily auto-processed images from phones may look good on phone screens, but are often still very disappointing on a larger screen or if you want to print.

[silentbrown]

Simpo Two said:

One issue that hasn't been mentioned is how realistic you want your photos to look. Photos of auroras taken with phones often seem far more 'zappo wowee' than they looked in real life thanks to all the software trickery going on. So maybe decide whether you want an accurate record of the event or something to get likes on Facebook.

The "software trickery" that's going on here is basically long exposure. Any decent photo of the northern lights will be much more impressive than it looks with the naked eye. Same is true of any astrophotography.

The neat thing with phones/(and, I assume mirrorless?) is that you see this 'long exposure' live in the "viewfinder". The phone acts as a kind of night vision/image intensifier device.

Some phones do some ridiculous trickery with astrophotography, though. Samsung phone cameras will "recognize" the moon and then add detail based on how they know the moon actually looks, rather than what you were able to photograph.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/11nzrb0/...

[Tony1963]

silentbrown said:

.Samsung phone cameras will "recognize" the moon and then add detail based on how they know the moon actually looks, rather than what you were able to photograph.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/11nzrb0/...

So absolutely no point whatsoever taking the photo. Just do an image search and use that.

[SonicHedgeHog]

Having the photo how I remember it is important to me so I’m not bothered about creating something to impress others. Arguably any photo won’t be how I remember it as my eyes don’t have a 30 second exposure, but that’s another conversation.

I’ve been giving some thoughts to comments made. First thing is to wait for the first proper reviews of the new iPhone camera which will be out this month. I’ve decided against a new small camera as it’s neither one thing nor the other - I still have carry a camera and a phone. So the alternative is to buy a second hand wide, fast zoom for my Pentax (they’re really good value now everyone has gone mirrorless).

I’m leaning towards the new lens as the K3 is really rugged and I have all the batteries and memory cards already.

[silentbrown]

Tony1963 said:

So absolutely no point whatsoever taking the photo. Just do an image search and use that.

Quite.

[Craikeybaby]

SonicHedgeHog said:

So the alternative is to buy a second hand wide, fast zoom for my Pentax (they’re really good value now everyone has gone mirrorless).

I’m leaning towards the new lens as the K3 is really rugged and I have all the batteries and memory cards already.

This sounds like the best option to me.

[silentbrown]

Craikeybaby said:

SonicHedgeHog said:

So the alternative is to buy a second hand wide, fast zoom for my Pentax (they’re really good value now everyone has gone mirrorless).

I’m leaning towards the new lens as the K3 is really rugged and I have all the batteries and memory cards already.

This sounds like the best option to me.

Seconded. And once-in-a-lifetime trip is not a good time to learn the foibles of a new camera!

Make sure you know where infinity focus actually is on any new lens. Autofocus won't be much use.

[Simpo Two]

silentbrown said:

Tony1963 said:

So absolutely no point whatsoever taking the photo. Just do an image search and use that.

Quite.

Ditto for photos of the moon. A technical challenge by all means but you're not going to see or find anything that hasn't already been done a million times.

silentbrown said:

Make sure you know where infinity focus actually is on any new lens. Autofocus won't be much use.

Infinity can be further than you think. Doesn't matter for an aurora 'cos the whole thing is a blur anyway, but for the moon you may get better results by focusing to infinity then coming back a bit.

[VTECMatt]

For simplicity and speed you can’t beat a modern phone, took this one in the Lakes. iPhone 14 pro.

Yes with time I could get a better picture on my DLSR but need a bit more time and patience.

Edited by VTECMatt on Monday 9th September 22:16