Not enough detail in the nebulas - what can I do better? - Forums

Hello everyone,

Pretty new hobbyist here.

I recently got a tracker to start getting better images, however I have to say I am fairly disappointed in my results so far.

My tracking has been accurate, I have been able to get decently long exposures (40-60”) at low ISOs, I’ve kept my stars as sharp as I can, I’ve been taking the recommended amounts of calibration frames, I’ve tried to learn about the processing workflow in Siril - but I’m just not getting the same amount of detail I see in other images with similar integration time.

This is the result of just little under 4 hours of integration of the ever so popular Orion belt and Nebula, under a Bortle 7 sky:

📷 final_01_preview.jpg📷 final_01_preview_crop.jpg
This is the equipment used for the image, which is probably worth mentioning:

Lumix GH5 + Jintu 85mm f/1.8 (shot at f/6 to reduce aberrations)
Sky Watcher Star Adventurer 2i
No filters

I have tried with other photo lenses I own as well, but so far this is the best I was able to get.

I guess my question is, do I have unrealistic expectations in what I can get with this equipment and light pollution? Do I simply need better lenses and a set of decent filters? Could I doing something wrong in the capture/post-processing? Do I simply need even more integration time?
Looking for any pointers here.

Thank you!

1. Lens (should really get something like the Samyang 135mm f/2 which can be shot fully open) but otherwise think about more expensive lenses which means they can be used to f/2.8 or thereabout. This a big difference.

2. Camera. Is it modified for astrophotography. If it is not then think again whether this is a reasonable path in a light polluted environment (it isn't). If your camera can't be modded then a (maybe) cheaper but modded camera should be higher on your priority scale.

3. Filter, or the lack thereof. Shooting at f/6 with a camera lens you need all the help you can get unless you shoot in reasonable dark skies (B<=4). A LP filter is going to given much better results for the same amount of effort.

4. Time. Not enough in your circumstances. think 3x-4x as much with your current setup.

It really depends on the details of what you’re comparing to. Aperture, total integration time, guiding quality, optical quality, filters, processing technique and sky quality all matter. Also keep in mind that at your focal length and chip size, even M42 is a pretty small object. You’ve had to crop in a lot to produce the 2nd image. Rather than doing that, I would look at the whole image and see how you feel about that quality wise. Each setup has strengths and weaknesses, the trick is to make the most of what your setup does well. In your case, it’s wide fields, not extreme closeups.

andrea tasselli · Mar 21, 2026, 06:58 PM
1. Lens (should really get something like the Samyang 135mm f/2 which can be shot fully open) but otherwise think about more expensive lenses which means they can be used to f/2.8 or thereabout. This a big difference.

2. Camera. Is it modified for astrophotography. If it is not then think again whether this is a reasonable path in a light polluted environment (it isn't). If your camera can't be modded then a (maybe) cheaper but modded camera should be higher on your priority scale.

3. Filter, or the lack thereof. Shooting at f/6 with a camera lens you need all the help you can get unless you shoot in reasonable dark skies (B<=4). A LP filter is going to given much better results for the same amount of effort.

4. Time. Not enough in your circumstances. think 3x-4x as much with your current setup.

If shooting at the same ISO and matching exposure, is there a meaningful difference between shooting let’s say f/2 for 10”, or f/4 for 40”? Or is that only a practical difference?
I know there’s a debate on the optimal exposure times, especially in light polluted skies - but my understanding was that until you hit the limit set by light pollution, it’s better to shoot for longer, or am I missing something?
Modding this camera is not an option because I do use it for work as well. Would a modded DSLR be better than a dedicated planetary camera?
Do you recommend something like a dual-band or an UHC filter? Or something narrow-band like an H-alpha filter to add more detail on top of the broadband image?

Thank you for the comprehensive reply by the way!

Tony Gondola · Mar 21, 2026, 07:02 PM
It really depends on the details of what you’re comparing to. Aperture, total integration time, guiding quality, optical quality, filters, processing technique and sky quality all matter. Also keep in mind that at your focal length and chip size, even M42 is a pretty small object. You’ve had to crop in a lot to produce the 2nd image. Rather than doing that, I would look at the whole image and see how you feel about that quality wise. Each setup has strengths and weaknesses, the trick is to make the most of what your setup does well. In your case, it’s wide fields, not extreme closeups.

Sorry if I didn’t clarify, the image is meant to be viewed just as a wide angle image, the crop was only to show the details more clearly given the 1MB limitation for the image uploads (the wide angle image had to be compressed and scaled down a bit to fit).

I have tried shooting with longer lenses as well but results have not been great, so I’m sticking to the wide for now, but my goal really is to go much closer. From what I can gather, my ideal range would be something around 500mm, which is quite bold for my tracker without autoguiding.

giogargiulo · Mar 21, 2026, 07:24 PM
andrea tasselli · Mar 21, 2026, 06:58 PM
1. Lens (should really get something like the Samyang 135mm f/2 which can be shot fully open) but otherwise think about more expensive lenses which means they can be used to f/2.8 or thereabout. This a big difference.

2. Camera. Is it modified for astrophotography. If it is not then think again whether this is a reasonable path in a light polluted environment (it isn't). If your camera can't be modded then a (maybe) cheaper but modded camera should be higher on your priority scale.

3. Filter, or the lack thereof. Shooting at f/6 with a camera lens you need all the help you can get unless you shoot in reasonable dark skies (B<=4). A LP filter is going to given much better results for the same amount of effort.

4. Time. Not enough in your circumstances. think 3x-4x as much with your current setup.
If shooting at the same ISO and matching exposure, is there a meaningful difference between shooting let’s say f/2 for 10”, or f/4 for 40”? Or is that only a practical difference?
I know there’s a debate on the optimal exposure times, especially in light polluted skies - but my understanding was that until you hit the limit set by light pollution, it’s better to shoot for longer, or am I missing something?
Modding this camera is not an option because I do use it for work as well. Would a modded DSLR be better than a dedicated planetary camera?
Do you recommend something like a dual-band or an UHC filter? Or something narrow-band like an H-alpha filter to add more detail on top of the broadband image?

Thank you for the comprehensive reply by the way!

Hi,

A modded DSLR would definitely be better than a dedicated planetary camera in terms of field of view, so it’s a better option for deep-sky work than a planetary camera.

That said, in my opinion, if you ever decide to go with a cooled astro camera, it would outperform a DSLR overall — mainly because of lower noise, better sensitivity, and more consistent results.

Hope this helps. 😀

If shooting at the same ISO and matching exposure, is there a meaningful difference between shooting let’s say f/2 for 10”, or f/4 for 40”? Or is that only a practical difference?
I know there’s a debate on the optimal exposure times, especially in light polluted skies - but my understanding was that until you hit the limit set by light pollution, it’s better to shoot for longer, or am I missing something?

Modding this camera is not an option because I do use it for work as well. Would a modded DSLR be better than a dedicated planetary camera?

Do you recommend something like a dual-band or an UHC filter? Or something narrow-band like an H-alpha filter to add more detail on top of the broadband image?

Thank you for the comprehensive reply by the way!

I think that your first point has the order of priorities reversed; you shoot for as long as necessary with the largest possible aperture you can get. There is simple no upper limit to exposures' total integration time. But I can concede the point in purely numerical way but it is not as how the things go in this hobby I'm afraid. Once your integration time is above the read noise floor of the camera the only limit in integration duration is in clipping the stars but on a wide field setup this is almost a given that you'll end up clipping the brightest stars. In exceedingly LP environment the limit might be set by the sky background noise though.

A modded DSLR or mirrorless is definitely the right step forward unless you shoot under pristine skies but I believe you don't. A dedicated planetary camera is definitely a step forward from you current kit but it usually comes with very narrow FOV given the size of the sensor. If you are willing to trade FOV against better performances (even compared to the average modded DSLR) then yes, that is the way it can go.

If you're shooting emission nebulae then a dual band filter is very very recommended. Otherwise a LP filter helps quite a bit for broadband (e.g. reflection nebulae) targets.

giogargiulo · Mar 21, 2026, 07:28 PM
Tony Gondola · Mar 21, 2026, 07:02 PM
It really depends on the details of what you’re comparing to. Aperture, total integration time, guiding quality, optical quality, filters, processing technique and sky quality all matter. Also keep in mind that at your focal length and chip size, even M42 is a pretty small object. You’ve had to crop in a lot to produce the 2nd image. Rather than doing that, I would look at the whole image and see how you feel about that quality wise. Each setup has strengths and weaknesses, the trick is to make the most of what your setup does well. In your case, it’s wide fields, not extreme closeups.
Sorry if I didn’t clarify, the image is meant to be viewed just as a wide angle image, the crop was only to show the details more clearly given the 1MB limitation for the image uploads (the wide angle image had to be compressed and scaled down a bit to fit).

I have tried shooting with longer lenses as well but results have not been great, so I’m sticking to the wide for now, but my goal really is to go much closer. From what I can gather, my ideal range would be something around 500mm, which is quite bold for my tracker without autoguiding.

You can do that but depending on the mount your exposures will need to be very short, just a few seconds. That’s not as bad as it sounds though. It’s total integration time that matters the most.

Tony Gondola · Mar 21, 2026, 08:16 PM
giogargiulo · Mar 21, 2026, 07:28 PM
Tony Gondola · Mar 21, 2026, 07:02 PM
It really depends on the details of what you’re comparing to. Aperture, total integration time, guiding quality, optical quality, filters, processing technique and sky quality all matter. Also keep in mind that at your focal length and chip size, even M42 is a pretty small object. You’ve had to crop in a lot to produce the 2nd image. Rather than doing that, I would look at the whole image and see how you feel about that quality wise. Each setup has strengths and weaknesses, the trick is to make the most of what your setup does well. In your case, it’s wide fields, not extreme closeups.
Sorry if I didn’t clarify, the image is meant to be viewed just as a wide angle image, the crop was only to show the details more clearly given the 1MB limitation for the image uploads (the wide angle image had to be compressed and scaled down a bit to fit).

I have tried shooting with longer lenses as well but results have not been great, so I’m sticking to the wide for now, but my goal really is to go much closer. From what I can gather, my ideal range would be something around 500mm, which is quite bold for my tracker without autoguiding.
You can do that but depending on the mount your exposures will need to be very short, just a few seconds. That’s not as bad as it sounds though. It’s total integration time that matters the most.

I have seen people shooting 0.5” exposures untracked get much better results than what I posted, so it’s definitely possible, it’s just insanely expensive in terms of storage to try and get decent integration times with very short exposures

Interactive Sky · Mar 21, 2026, 07:48 PM
giogargiulo · Mar 21, 2026, 07:24 PM
andrea tasselli · Mar 21, 2026, 06:58 PM
1. Lens (should really get something like the Samyang 135mm f/2 which can be shot fully open) but otherwise think about more expensive lenses which means they can be used to f/2.8 or thereabout. This a big difference.

2. Camera. Is it modified for astrophotography. If it is not then think again whether this is a reasonable path in a light polluted environment (it isn't). If your camera can't be modded then a (maybe) cheaper but modded camera should be higher on your priority scale.

3. Filter, or the lack thereof. Shooting at f/6 with a camera lens you need all the help you can get unless you shoot in reasonable dark skies (B<=4). A LP filter is going to given much better results for the same amount of effort.

4. Time. Not enough in your circumstances. think 3x-4x as much with your current setup.
If shooting at the same ISO and matching exposure, is there a meaningful difference between shooting let’s say f/2 for 10”, or f/4 for 40”? Or is that only a practical difference?
I know there’s a debate on the optimal exposure times, especially in light polluted skies - but my understanding was that until you hit the limit set by light pollution, it’s better to shoot for longer, or am I missing something?
Modding this camera is not an option because I do use it for work as well. Would a modded DSLR be better than a dedicated planetary camera?
Do you recommend something like a dual-band or an UHC filter? Or something narrow-band like an H-alpha filter to add more detail on top of the broadband image?

Thank you for the comprehensive reply by the way!
Hi,
A modded DSLR would definitely be better than a dedicated planetary camera in terms of field of view, so it’s a better option for deep-sky work than a planetary camera.
That said, in my opinion, if you ever decide to go with a cooled astro camera, it would outperform a DSLR overall — mainly because of lower noise, better sensitivity, and more consistent results.
Hope this helps. 😀

I am not particularly interested in wide field views, I am much more interested in deep-sky, so that could definitely be an option.

andrea tasselli · Mar 21, 2026, 07:51 PM
If shooting at the same ISO and matching exposure, is there a meaningful difference between shooting let’s say f/2 for 10”, or f/4 for 40”? Or is that only a practical difference?
I know there’s a debate on the optimal exposure times, especially in light polluted skies - but my understanding was that until you hit the limit set by light pollution, it’s better to shoot for longer, or am I missing something?

Modding this camera is not an option because I do use it for work as well. Would a modded DSLR be better than a dedicated planetary camera?

Do you recommend something like a dual-band or an UHC filter? Or something narrow-band like an H-alpha filter to add more detail on top of the broadband image?

Thank you for the comprehensive reply by the way!

I think that your first point has the order of priorities reversed; you shoot for as long as necessary with the largest possible aperture you can get. There is simple no upper limit to exposures' total integration time. But I can concede the point in purely numerical way but it is not as how the things go in this hobby I'm afraid. Once your integration time is above the read noise floor of the camera the only limit in integration duration is in clipping the stars but on a wide field setup this is almost a given that you'll end up clipping the brightest stars. In exceedingly LP environment the limit might be set by the sky background noise though.

A modded DSLR or mirrorless is definitely the right step forward unless you shoot under pristine skies but I believe you don't. A dedicated planetary camera is definitely a step forward from you current kit but it usually comes with very narrow FOV given the size of the sensor. If you are willing to trade FOV against better performances (even compared to the average modded DSLR) then yes, that is the way it can go.

If you're shooting emission nebulae then a dual band filter is very very recommended. Otherwise a LP filter helps quite a bit for broadband (e.g. reflection nebulae) targets.

I’m not sure I understand the need to shoot as wide open as possible.
Once I get to my target ISO and exposure level, would it not be better to shoot for longer rather than shorter?
That is, all other things being equal, and assuming everything is properly exposed etc., are for example 20x40” exposures not better than 40x20” exposures?

I’m not sure I understand the need to shoot as wide open as possible.
Once I get to my target ISO and exposure level, would it not be better to shoot for longer rather than shorter?
That is, all other things being equal, and assuming everything is properly exposed etc., are for example 20x40” exposures not better than 40x20” exposures?

The issue is that the concept of "properly exposed" photo doesn't apply here. Let's say that in season you can manage 20 hours for a given target. Now, that time is fixed but aperture isn't if you can help it hence you would shoot for as long as required by the local circumstances and capture as many "photons" as possible within that time frame. Now, you don't actually know how much time you'll be afforded (unless you live in a local where weather doesn't apply) so you would do the same as described above but on steroids. If you shot with a background noise above the read-out noise for any set of combinations of number of shot x exposures than yes, they are essentially equivalent (if the read noise is significantly less ,a decibel, let's say, than the sky noise in both scenarios). I hope I made myself clear.

Short answer is, they are the same.

andrea tasselli · Mar 21, 2026, 10:19 PM
I’m not sure I understand the need to shoot as wide open as possible.
Once I get to my target ISO and exposure level, would it not be better to shoot for longer rather than shorter?
That is, all other things being equal, and assuming everything is properly exposed etc., are for example 20x40” exposures not better than 40x20” exposures?

The issue is that the concept of "properly exposed" photo doesn't apply here. Let's say that in season you can manage 20 hours for a given target. Now, that time is fixed but aperture isn't if you can help it hence you would shoot for as long as required by the local circumstances and capture as many "photons" as possible within that time frame. Now, you don't actually know how much time you'll be afforded (unless you live in a local where weather doesn't apply) so you would do the same as described above but on steroids. If you shot with a background noise above the read-out noise for any set of combinations of number of shot x exposures than yes, they are essentially equivalent (if the read noise is significantly less ,a decibel, let's say, than the sky noise in both scenarios). I hope I made myself clear.

That makes sense, thanks!

You are doing fine for the equipment you are using.

But you are using terrestrial equipment and trying to shoot space objects with it. You will improve by leaps and bounds with the right equipment for Astrophotography.

Like you, I started experimenting with my DSLR. But soon realized I needed different equipment to advance. A telescope is a lens, that’s true, and Astro cameras are far different than DSLR’s.

You have the concept down fine. But you need to study Astrophotography. I was interested in Nebula after I “discovered” The Great Orion Nebula. I’d been doing Macro photography of tiny Jumping spiders and realized the night sky really wasn’t much different. Just different tiny subjects. But just like Macro Photography has it’s things to make it work best, so does Astro Photography.

Oh, I have reverted to my DSLR and my Tamron 150-600mm telephoto lens for comet chasing. Comet 41P Tuttle Giacobini Kresak, The Comet Catalina, Even the ISS Zarya

The ISS was an accident. It showed up in my time lapse imaging of planets aligned. I almost deleted the frames but decided to do some research in Stellarium and discovered what I really had in those frames. MUCH more interesting than the Planets aligned. (25 second exposures, ISO 1600, IIRC. 30 seconds total, but settling time added in yielded 25s of actual exposures.)

Great work so far. But you should consider getting different tools for the job.

Keep at it!😉

Tony Gondola · Mar 21, 2026, 07:02 PM
It really depends on the details of what you’re comparing to. Aperture, total integration time, guiding quality, optical quality, filters, processing technique and sky quality all matter. Also keep in mind that at your focal length and chip size, even M42 is a pretty small object. You’ve had to crop in a lot to produce the 2nd image. Rather than doing that, I would look at the whole image and see how you feel about that quality wise. Each setup has strengths and weaknesses, the trick is to make the most of what your setup does well. In your case, it’s wide fields, not extreme closeups.

This hits home for me. Thanks for the words of wisdom.

I noticed I was trying to crop and zoom so much in my images, when I should let it be just as it naturally wants to be. My second M42 session I didn’t crop quite as much and I realized it was much nicer.

Hi giogargiulo! First, congrats on your image. You are entering a fun and challenging hobby - endless things to learn but you are off to a good start. You might be disappointed by your image, but what I see are pretty good round stars, nice color in those stars, no obvious calibration artifacts or gradients, and nice color in the nebula. I can recognize the Flame and Horsehead Nebulae as well, so you are starting to pull out things fainter than M42. Nice start that you can build on.

The advice above is all good, I will layer a bit more on assuming that you do not want to invest in new gear right now and want to see what you can get from what you have.

Get more data. Your tracking and focus look reasonable. I would go to a faster f-stop, keep the exposures short, and get a lot of them. Try to get 8 hours, see what it gains you. Then, get another 8 hours. Every doubling of your total integration time gains you a ~1.4 increase in S/N. Yes, you will need more storage for all the files, but that is part of this hobby!
If possible, avoid nights with a bright moon, and set up away from outside lights. Light pollution is unavoidable, but try to avoid ambient things that add to it. anything you can do to increase the S/N of your images will pay off.
Details in the nebula will be hard, simply because you are capturing a very wide FOV on a sensor with ~3.4 micro pixels. The image of the nebula falls on a pretty small set of pixels…details will be hard to come by. Think more about the overall impression of the image.
Little things matter - minimizing vibration (allow for settling, avoid wind, etc.), perfect focus (check this as the temperature changes), good calibration data, etc.
Keep learning about processing. I have a sneaky suspicion there is more that could be “pulled out” of your existing data with some processing tricks! When I first started in the hobby, I vastly underestimated the investment in time and education that I would put into processing. Keep learning about this!
Good luck, and definitely post your efforts!

Jeffrey Kieft · Mar 23, 2026, 02:24 PM
Hi giogargiulo! First, congrats on your image. You are entering a fun and challenging hobby - endless things to learn but you are off to a good start. You might be disappointed by your image, but what I see are pretty good round stars, nice color in those stars, no obvious calibration artifacts or gradients, and nice color in the nebula. I can recognize the Flame and Horsehead Nebulae as well, so you are starting to pull out things fainter than M42. Nice start that you can build on.
The advice above is all good, I will layer a bit more on assuming that you do not want to invest in new gear right now and want to see what you can get from what you have.
Get more data. Your tracking and focus look reasonable. I would go to a faster f-stop, keep the exposures short, and get a lot of them. Try to get 8 hours, see what it gains you. Then, get another 8 hours. Every doubling of your total integration time gains you a ~1.4 increase in S/N. Yes, you will need more storage for all the files, but that is part of this hobby!
If possible, avoid nights with a bright moon, and set up away from outside lights. Light pollution is unavoidable, but try to avoid ambient things that add to it. anything you can do to increase the S/N of your images will pay off.
Details in the nebula will be hard, simply because you are capturing a very wide FOV on a sensor with ~3.4 micro pixels. The image of the nebula falls on a pretty small set of pixels…details will be hard to come by. Think more about the overall impression of the image.
Little things matter - minimizing vibration (allow for settling, avoid wind, etc.), perfect focus (check this as the temperature changes), good calibration data, etc.
Keep learning about processing. I have a sneaky suspicion there is more that could be “pulled out” of your existing data with some processing tricks! When I first started in the hobby, I vastly underestimated the investment in time and education that I would put into processing. Keep learning about this!
Good luck, and definitely post your efforts!
J

Thank you for the comprehensive reply!
So far the consensus seems to be that other than improving my setup, the best thing I can do is capture more data, so I’m waiting for a clear night to give that a go.

You also make a good point on the pixel size - I’m probably undersampled for what I’m trying to capture.

The processing aspect is probably still the one I understand the least at the moment, I’m trying to learn as much as I can on Siril but there’s probably even too much information out there, it can be overwhelming!

Thank you for the comprehensive reply!
So far the consensus seems to be that other than improving my setup, the best thing I can do is capture more data, so I’m waiting for a clear night to give that a go.
You also make a good point on the pixel size - I’m probably undersampled for what I’m trying to capture.
The processing aspect is probably still the one I understand the least at the moment, I’m trying to learn as much as I can on Siril but there’s probably even too much information out there, it can be overwhelming!

Indeed, the multitude of tools for processing is a blessing and a curse, and of course everyone has their own way of doing it, their own style, and every dataset is a little different.

Jeffrey Kieft · Mar 23, 2026, 04:17 PM
Thank you for the comprehensive reply!
So far the consensus seems to be that other than improving my setup, the best thing I can do is capture more data, so I’m waiting for a clear night to give that a go.
You also make a good point on the pixel size - I’m probably undersampled for what I’m trying to capture.
The processing aspect is probably still the one I understand the least at the moment, I’m trying to learn as much as I can on Siril but there’s probably even too much information out there, it can be overwhelming!
Indeed, the multitude of tools for processing is a blessing and a curse, and of course everyone has their own way of doing it, their own style, and every dataset is a little different.

Because in this sport, everybody runs their own equipment.

My advice:

More aparture,. 1 hour @ 2.8 > 4 hours at 6.0
More total exposure time. The more the better.
Higher ISO setting. Like 1600 or 800. This is not obvious, but most cameras have less noise at moderate/ high ISO for a given exposure time. (Not like daytime photography!)
Learn as much as possible about processing. Watch tutorials. Read.
Above all: Move to a darker site!