What gear do you need to photograph landscapes with the Milky Way? The good news is that you don't need the most expensive, fanciest gear to get amazing Milky Way photos.
This is a beginner's guide on how to photograph the Milky Way. Therefore, I am not going to list star trackers. While they are fantastic, they are not essential for creating beautiful Milky Way images or astro-landscapes. Also, I am writing with single-exposure Milky Way photos in mind, although you certainly can apply many of my suggestions for tracked or stacked photos as well.
Lenses for Milky Way Images
In my opinion, the lens is the most important piece of equipment for taking photos of the Milky Way. Why? For single exposures in particular, you want a lens with a large aperture. This lets in all that faint starlight that you can barely see. Also, in my opinion, if we are assuming reasonably modern equipment made in the past ten years or so, a great lens makes a greater difference in the quality of the image than a great camera.
Compositionally, we typically want to get a lot of the galactic core of the Milky Way as well as the surrounding landscape. To me, the most alluring Milky Way photographs are the ones that marry the earth and the sky. Sure, a photo of the Milky Way by itself is nice. But isn't it the overall context that makes our jaws drop in awe? When we photograph the Milky Way, we still must bear in mind strong composition.
Therefore, an ultra-wide angle lens or a wide angle lens is probably the most useful. Again, you want it to have a wide aperture to let in as much of that dim starlight as possible.
Here is a short list of suggestions (some of these are not mirrorless mounts and are just examples, so be sure to select the correct mount for your camera):
- Irix 15mm f/2.4 lens
- Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 lens (inexpensive, but sharp optics)
- Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 lens (more expensive, but fantastic optics, especially for a zoom)
- Rokinon 12mm f/2.8 fisheye lens
- Nikon NIKKOR Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S Lens (expensive but fantastic optics)
I have been using an Irix 15mm f/2.4 lens for Milky Way photographs since 2017. I was one of the first photographers in the United States to begin using it. I purchased it so early that Irix didn't have distribution in this country. I had to purchase it through eBay. I am recommending it because it has great optics, it's built like a tank, it doesn't have a large, bulbous front element like many ultra-wide angle lenses, and most of all, because it has a detent for "true infinity." Just twist this camera to infinity, and it locks in place. All your stars are super sharp, simply and easily. I say yes!
I use a Pentax 15-30mm f/2.8 lens for my Pentax K-1. I use the Irix 15mm f/2.4 lens or Rokinon 12mm f/2.8 fisheye lens for my Nikon D750 (discontinued) when photographing the Milky Way.
That's right, I did mention a fisheye. These are great fun, giving you an instant dose of creativity and weirdness.
Cameras for Milky Way Images
Almost any reasonably modern DSLR or mirrorless camera with manual controls is capable of photographing the Milky Way astonishingly well. In other words, you don't need the latest and greatest expensive cameras. An older camera such as the ones I use above is more than capable.
DSLR or mirrorless cameras that are, say, ten years old or newer are capable of excellent high-ISO performance. I've seen outstanding photos from many different kinds of cameras, including crop-sensor or full frame.
I purchase cameras used since they cost so much. This certainly hasn't stopped me from creating high-quality photos. I wouldn't get too hung up on the camera, although obviously, if you have the means and can purchase a beautiful new camera, go for it. Truly, just about every major camera manufacturer makes very capable cameras for photographing the Milky Way.
Some suggestions for newer mirrorless cameras include:
As mentioned, I use older DSLRs. This is not because I'm a Luddite. They work well, so I may as well keep using them! I use a Pentax K-1 and a Nikon D750 (discontinued).
Tripods for Milky Way Images
Obviously, you want your camera to stay still while you have the shutter open for 15, 20, or 30 seconds, common exposure times for Milky Way photography. I use two carbon fiber tripods, a Feisol CT-3342 and a larger Feisol CT-3372, which I've had since 2013. These have gone up in price a bit but are still a superb purchase.
While I prefer carbon fiber, it's not necessary unless you are going to do a lot of hiking. There's nothing wrong with an aluminum tripod. The heavier weight can often work to your favor for creating stability, especially in windy areas.
If you want stability and feel like you are going to be using your tripod a fair amount, I would urge you not to buy a cheap, flimsy tripod.
It really is an important piece of gear and can keep your camera safe and stable. After all, I'm not sure if it makes sense to have hundreds or even thousands of dollars invested in a camera and lens, only to perch it on top of a cheap, flimsy tripod.
But also, to give an example, since I purchased my tripods in 2013, I have owned numerous camera bodies. However, I still have the same tripods (and lenses). Hopefully that gives you some perspective on how important lenses and tripods are compared to camera bodies.
On the higher end, Gitzo and Really Right Stuff make outstanding tripods. They're durable, beautifully designed, and well-machined. They're typically more expensive than Feisol. I found that Feisol gave me a perfect balance of ease of use, quality, durability, and value, so I purchased them instead. I've used them extensively since 2013, so I think I chose well.
If you cannot afford the above tripods, check out Manfrotto, Benro, or Leofoto. They make inexpensive tripod models that still seem quite stable.
Regardless, make sure you use a tripod like a pro. Double-check that your legs are locked before proceeding. Then jam it into the ground. Doing this helps with stability. And it's another way of determining that your legs are locked firmly.
Tripod Ball Heads for Milky Way Images
Is a quality ball head more important than the tripod legs? Maybe! In some respects, I feel you could make a strong argument for this. I adjust the ball head more than I do the tripod. And it's responsible for keeping my camera clamped to the tripod.
I have two suggestions for high-quality ball heads. Neither one of them is typically considered inexpensive. There are other tripod ball heads that are quite good, and admittedly, I do have a tendency to "overdo" the sturdiness of tripods and ball heads. Regardless, the general rule of thumb among many night photographers is to get a ball head and tripod legs that hold at least three times the weight they are rated for.
- Acratech GP-s Ball Head (lightweight, has a load capacity of 25 lb / 11.3 kg, doesn't get dirt or grit in the ball)
- Really Right Stuff BH-55 (rather bulky but when clamped down, it feels like your camera is cemented into place, load capacity of 50 lb / 22.7 kg, elegant design. I told you I had a tendency to "overdo" tripods and ball heads!)
Great Accessories to Make Your Milky Way Photography Experience Better
Remote Shutter Release
A remote shutter release fires the camera without you having to actually touch your shutter release button. This is great for reducing vibrations. If you want to keep everything cheap and simple, this is a great choice.
Intervalometer
An intervalometer does more than a simple, cheap remote shutter release. It opens up your camera to a much broader world of possibilities. You have precise control over when your camera fires, how often, for what duration, and how much of a gap (interval) you wish to have between photos. This can be used for star trails, time-lapses, and more. A very sophisticated intervalometer can also do auto ramping and more to compensate for the stars.
With an intervalometer, you can "stack" photos to reduce noise and bring out the stars a little more. You can create star trails. Or you can take the photos you've taken in succession into GlueMotion or another app and create time-lapses of the Milky Way. Well, if you take many, many photos... otherwise, it's going to be a very short time-lapse! Cool, huh?
If a camera does not have an easy-to-use internal intervalometer, I strongly prefer a wired intervalometer. Why? I teach a lot of night photography workshops. I've found that many participants have trouble with wireless intervalometers. They seem to be inconsistent. Participants often feel like they are not sure whether their cameras have begun their sequence.
The Aream intervalometer is an excellent, inexpensive choice because it uses separate detachable cables. If your cable breaks, you can quickly swap it out. You can purchase different cables for different camera brands too—especially useful if you own more than one brand.
Not so with the Aream. It uses separate detachable cables. If your cable breaks, you can quickly swap it out for another. And this also means that you can purchase different cables for your brand of camera. This is especially useful if you own more than one brand of camera. It's more flexible and less expensive!
Headlamps
The common advice that people frequently receive is that you should get a headlamp with a red light so you don't blow out your night vision. And this advice is not wrong.
You should know, however, that if you are in the field with other photographers, the red light can leak into other people's photographs far easier than white light. Or at the very least, it can add an ugly red glow that is more likely to ruin a photo than the glow of white light.
If you choose a headlamp with a red light, just be aware of this when using it.
The Coast HX4 clip-on light is a good alternative to a headlamp, as you can clip it to your clothing, hat, or backpack. You can rotate the beam to direct it to where you want to look as well, hopefully keeping the beam out of other people's cameras and eyes. And yes, it has both white and red light.
Coast HX4 80 Lumen Dual Color (White & Red) Magnetic LED Clip Light with Beam Rotation
My Perspective for Photographing the Milky Way
Camera gear is important. We want good tools to do the job.
But photographing the Milky Way is less about gear, and more about wonder and curiosity. We are fortunate to be in a dark, quiet place, observing and photographing the night sky. There's a special connection that comes from looking at light that has been traveling for 100,000 years across part of the universe to be with us right now.
Take your time. Experiment. Relax. You're doing night photography!
You won't nail your compositions or photographs right away. None of us do, even if we know what we're doing. It takes time, patience, and creativity. But you're under the stars. Connect and enjoy the moment, knowing that whether you have modest or top-shelf gear, you'll be able to take photos of the glorious Milky Way—and more importantly, enjoy the starry night sky.
I've always been disappointed in the foreground details of a single shot night sky photo. I realize noise-reduction software has improved a lot the last few years, but I still wish there was more detail in the darkest areas of land. In my case, it's the rocks in the high-desert area of western Colorado and eastern Utah, and with my single shots, the rocks just look like blobs of black goop.
The only decent Milky Way images that I seem to make combine an evening twilight shot of the rocks with a later shot about 11 pm of the sky. Some people say the result looks artificially bright, although I could darken the rocks more if I had wanted. But I like it this way. Does the scene have to be a perfectly literal representation of the light on the rocks as the human eye would see it? If so, the eye can't see much detail at night. What do you think?
Ed, you ask a great question, and it's something that I suspect some of us wrestle with occasionally.
As you might be able to tell from my photos, it's a combination of things, including light painting as well as blending "blue hour" foregrounds with another photo for dark skies. Because otherwise, as you say, you get dark blobs. And I don't want dark blobs. And it doesn't sound like you do either.
With your nice-looking photo and ones similar to it, either a "blue hour" blend (which, as you point out, you can darken to your taste) or a long exposure/low-ISO photo should work. The lead photo in this article of Convict Lake is a long exposure/low-ISO photo, while the Double Arch photo with me standing in the foreground is a late "blue hour" blend (although it has a bit of light from other sources inside the arch as well).
So for me, the scene does not need to be a perfectly literal representation of the light on the rocks as the human eye can see it because I wouldn't like the image. After all, we're creating art. It's not photojournalism, travel or sports photography, or anything else expected to be documentarian in nature.
Another reason is a more practical reason. For example, I have four books published, have been in museum exhibits, and print my images elsewhere as well. If I create images that are as dark as they look to us in person, they're not going to print very well. So for this very reason alone, I want my skies and foregrounds to be brighter and retain some sort of definition and detail.
Not everyone will agree with this, and that's okay. That's part of the reason why it's art. And our art, not someone else's.
I suppose the whole image including the Milky Way itself is rendered a lot more brightly in a photograph than what would be seen with the human eye, in most places. Most people when they see my picture say something like "I didn't know you could see the Milky Way like that around here." Well... you can't. It takes a highly sensitive camera to capture the scene. So the rocks in the foreground naturally follow to be brighter than the eye would see as well. But still, some people can be such pests when it comes to photography, expecting a literal representation of the world as they see it.
P.S. On your page, your Grand Mesa National Forest photo as well as your piano with musical notes over it also look really cool. Nice job. Looks like you know your way around a camera.
Thank you. Claude Monet supposedly said once that he felt like he was only good for two things in life: painting and gardening. Sometimes I feel like I'm only good for photography... and that's open to debate. I hope you continue with playing the piano. There's no greater enjoyment from music, for me, than the piano. However, I certainly can't play any kind of musical instrument. My wife, daughter, and son are all talented musicians. I've never gotten beyond about page six in the "Older Beginner Piano Course" book. Our piano is the nicest piece of furniture in the house, and it's both a pleasure for the eyes and ears... but I am a hopeless case for learning to play myself. Hopefully in my next life, if one comes around, I will get started at a young age.