>>2696156Yeah, night photos get tricky cheaper gear. DSLRs/mirrorless cameras work best for them, since you can buy specific lens (even lenses from film cameras used with adaptors work great. Just need widest aperture you can find/afford). But even point-and-shoot are capable of taking decent photos if your camera has some manual controls.
As for tips.. You're gonna be wanting to shoot on aperture priority mode (with aperture set wide open) or full manual mode. Also when shooting out (not in city centre full of bright lights) tripod is pretty much a must (or at least something to put camera on). Bear in mind you're gonna want take long exposure shots while keeping ISO set somewhere in the middle (mine makes photos look pretty bad if ISO is higher than 1600, too much digital noise). For those longer exposures it'll be blurry as heck if taken handheld - so tripod or sturdy rock and countdown timer is your friend. As for taking those longer exposure shots - play with camera, check your shutter speed settings. Mine has time limit of 30 seconds, so for anything above that - I need remote shutter release. If your camera allows using remotes then you can set shutter speed to bulb mode, take ~10$ remote release from Amazon and try taking loooong exposures. But anything longer than few minutes and sensor may get hotspots, so don't go overboard. Also depending on the camera/lens you may not need longer shots than 30 seconds.
If you have older mirrorless/DLSR with interchangeable lens on the other hand - as I previously mentioned finding decently priced lens will be your best bet. For example I got F2.0 lens for taking night photos, and it lets 206% more light than F3.5 kit lens I had with my camera. 2x more light - photos are twice as bright/require twice less exposure time to get same result. Can't beat physics.
>>2696179Thanks! Stars hide the fact than most of my photos are just of rivers in the forest. But your /out/int looks stunning even in daylight!
