>>571911It was great fun, just a lot of effort and high hopes so I was pretty disappointed in how it went down.
Well, next time I won't use the cheap fisheye conversion. The quality, focus, chromatic aberrations, etc just aren't that good with it. Also I had no idea the dew was happening as I had the camera set to automatically take exposures for about 3 hours, while I sat and blissfully smoked betts and sipped coffee and enjoyed the view.
With the fisheye I zoomed-in a bit so the pics weren't vignetted... this resulted in a focal length that made the motion blur of the stars worse than it would have been (on top of already aberrated fisheye effects), I also need to close the aperture a bit to keep the fisheye as sharp as possible... this made the exposure dark so I had to crank the ISO to 1600 which was STILL underexposed and also grainy as hell. Plus in retrospect I don't like how it was framed. Next time I use either my wide angle conversion or NO conversions and just deal with my regular lens. That way I can get sharp photos with lower ISO at shorted exposure times and thus very little trailing.
O well. And I took a 320-photo sequence, about 240 of then are useless because the dew blobbed everything out. SO with only ~80 good photos there isn't even enough to make a decent "star trail" composite.
Pic is the only meteor I think actually exposed, and it was aftert he dew started settling blurring the lens.
