OP may have inspired me for tonight. Have to see if the cloud cover breaks up again.
2)Binoculars will help.
With a good camera and tripod, you get the advantage of taking a long exposure which helps amplify the light and for two reasons this looks like a five second exposure.
For most astrophotography a single "still" shot you're going to be around 5 second maximum exposure before the stars start looking oval-ish instead of perfectly round. Longer exposures with sharply focused stars need either a mount that moves the camera to compensate for the earth's rotation, or requires multiple pictures that are then lined up by a computer.
For practical use, airplane lights flash once per second...but the technical spec is "40 to 100 times per minute" ... so even the group of three lights is within reason for a five second exposure if they're a little on the slow side and the picture was taken a "long" 3 you can have 3/40ths of a minute + 99/400ths of a minute between four flashes which add up to almost 6 seconds.
We have lots of waterplanes here, but those are probably satellites. I've heard lots of stories lately of the new low-orbit satellites for Elon Musk's internet company showing up in astro shots. A quick google doesn't look too far off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zs6OYH875VE
Still shots largely depend on your focal length, and your 5-seconds-rule is from "the 500 rule" for preventing star-trails - the wider-angle your shot, the less the earth's rotation screws with you. Since i'm using a pretty wide angle lens 24mm -- 500/24 = 20.8something, so I can do maximum 20 second exposures without issues (oval stars or tails).
A 100mm lens for example is 500/100=5, so you can do a 5 second exposure on a 100mm lens, 200mm = 2.5second, etc.
I did also do some stacking, so I could make some vibrant forground / star trail stuff -- https://imgur.com/n4x1xsy is my in-camera test stack.
How? I can't see anything when I look.
2)Binoculars will help.
With a good camera and tripod, you get the advantage of taking a long exposure which helps amplify the light and for two reasons this looks like a five second exposure.
For most astrophotography a single "still" shot you're going to be around 5 second maximum exposure before the stars start looking oval-ish instead of perfectly round. Longer exposures with sharply focused stars need either a mount that moves the camera to compensate for the earth's rotation, or requires multiple pictures that are then lined up by a computer.
There's another clue, which is the airplane light flashes in the pic: https://imgur.com/a/Cu0YDyE
For practical use, airplane lights flash once per second...but the technical spec is "40 to 100 times per minute" ... so even the group of three lights is within reason for a five second exposure if they're a little on the slow side and the picture was taken a "long" 3 you can have 3/40ths of a minute + 99/400ths of a minute between four flashes which add up to almost 6 seconds.
yep -- This is a long exposure. it's 20 seconds, iso at 3200.
Well so much for guess work on the airplane lights :D
We have lots of waterplanes here, but those are probably satellites. I've heard lots of stories lately of the new low-orbit satellites for Elon Musk's internet company showing up in astro shots. A quick google doesn't look too far off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zs6OYH875VE
Still shots largely depend on your focal length, and your 5-seconds-rule is from "the 500 rule" for preventing star-trails - the wider-angle your shot, the less the earth's rotation screws with you. Since i'm using a pretty wide angle lens 24mm -- 500/24 = 20.8something, so I can do maximum 20 second exposures without issues (oval stars or tails).
A 100mm lens for example is 500/100=5, so you can do a 5 second exposure on a 100mm lens, 200mm = 2.5second, etc.
I did also do some stacking, so I could make some vibrant forground / star trail stuff -- https://imgur.com/n4x1xsy is my in-camera test stack.