What is the “right” kind of camera for photographing the northern lights?

Hi Steven! Hmmm, this hasn’t happened to me before, and I’ve really pushed my camera, being out in -40F for a while at a time. I suppose this could be a factor of cost, as I’m using a fairly fancy Canon camera. Perhaps less costly point-and-shoot cameras have this vulnerability? Frankly, I don’t think they do, though. I think the main risk is that batteries drain somewhat quickly, such that you may use 2 or even 3 in a single day in really cold temps. But, I’ve not seen the whole system freeze up before. Hope this helps!

yes indeed! I’ve heard great things about the Sony Alpha series, and this one is a pretty good deal. This isn’t full frame, from what I understand, but you definitely don’t need a full frame to get great aurora shots. It helps, but is only a bonus…any camera this advanced is still going to get wonderful shots. As far as the lens, that’s a good one to start with. Then, once you catch the shutter bug, you may wish to get something a bit more dedicated to aurora, with a lower f/number and a bit less range (in my opinion, lenses with big ranges tend to sacrifice a bit in quality). But again, great intro lens! Hope this helps!

A great question! And it would certainly be cool! However, it’s basically impossible because each video frame would need to be 5 to 10 second exposures. Thus, to cram in 24 to 30 frames a second (which is what video typically is), you just can’t. Typically when shooting video 1/24th of 1/30th of a second is all you can do because again, all those frames have to fit within one second.

What you CAN do, though, which is what you’ll see on videos like on youtube, vimeo, discovery channel, etc. Is to take a time lapse video. This technique is where you set your camera of a function to continuously take photos, say, over the course of an hour, at specific frame rates. So in this case what I’d do is set my camera to take 2 hours of photos, one photo ever 10 seconds, and each photo a 10 second exposure. Then, over the course of the 2 hours, I’ll have hundreds of photos, which I can merge into a single video file (using software) to get a time-lapse video of the aurora. If you are keen to learn more on this, there are some great internet resources and it’s great fun! But, it take a lot of time, and frankly I’d prefer to be taking still photos that whole time rather than having my camera busy with one single time-lapse video the whole night.

Hope this makes sense and GREAT question!

Hi Jim,

Actually the kit lens that comes with these cameras is quite alright. The 18mm at f/3.5 gets the job done. Frankly, if I were to invest in any gear in your shoes, I’d try and upgrade the camera body slightly. The T1i is good, but it’s got older technology to it and doesn’t have good low light sensitivity. That is, when shooting at anything over ISO 800 it gets quite grainy. Thus, getting a newer rebel, even one a few years old, will pay big dividends. And then I’d just use the 18-55mm with that newer Rebel. I think they’re up to a T7i by now, but you can save a little money by getting a T5i or T6i and it’ll still be lightyears better in low light vs. the T1. Hope this helps!

Hi Jim,

You bet! I think my top pick would be Canon’s 10-22mm lens. Although it’s not a particularly “fast” lens, at f/3.5-4.5, you generally don’t need something crazy fast for northern lights. However, if you’re going to go for a prime lens, I’d recommend looking at Rokinon lenses, as they are both fast and affordable at very wide angles. To me, I do feel like having a bit of zoom is nice, to help frame the photo, but my general advice is to pick a lens that’s very wide first (thus the 10-22) and worry about the aperture later. That is, if you’re comparing two 10-22 lenses, go for the faster one, as long as it doesn’t break the bank. I wouldn’t go for anything slower than f/4, but f/4 gets the job done nicely.

Hi Minal! It’s a complicated question, as there are so so many options. And those are based on many factors like past experience, budget, plans for the future, and threshold for specialty equipment. However, please do write back if you have specific parameters that I can help with. Most notably what equipment you already have and what your budget might be.

Hi John,

I’ve heard great things about the Sony A series! I think you’ll love it. In my humble opinion, I would go for the widest lens you can, even if it’s not as big of an aperture. Thus, I’m thinking the 14mm f/1.8. And as far as too wide, nope, no such thing for aurora. You can always crop in if necessary, but generally the more sky you can get in your frame the better.

Nikons are great cameras, and the D5300 is a perfect starter DSLR. There are of course many, many options, and it’s always important to keep in mind that you get what you pay for. The next big step in cameras is once you go from a “crop frame” to a “full frame” camera. Although expensive, they’re very useful for shooting in low light conditions, like aurora or star photography.

For that budget, you can either go for a Canon Rebel + 18-55mm lens and a 70-300mm lens, but you may be a little limited on telephoto at 300mm. Instead, maybe I’ll suggest that you look at either the Sony RX10 III, or the Canon sx70hs. The canon is more around $500 and the Sony is more around $1,200, so not perfectly on the money, but pretty darn close! I vouch for both of these, and they are cameras that you don’t need any extra lenses for :).

it’s indeed a great camera! For that type of camera and price range (advanced point and shoot, $550-$600) there are virtually no downsides! But in full disclosure, compared to a fancy DSLR or mirrorless camera at 2x or 4x the price, you’ll notice a difference in low light sensitivity as well as overall quality of the shot. Basically, the more you spend and the more gear you lug around with you (extra lenses to change, etc.) the higher resolution your photos are. HOWEVER at this price, size, and ease-of-use, the sx70 is amazing.

Hope this helps!

while a bridge camera like this will be fantastic for 99% of all photography, it likely won’t do the trick for northern lights photos. Wish I could say “yes, it’ll do great!” but I’ve seen these in action, and they just don’t have a long enough exposure at a high enough ISO. Frankly, aurora photography is VERY challenging for the camera, so you must have something more in the mirrorless or DSLR level. One way you can tell if your camera will work is if you can set it on manual, get a f/number somewhere around f/4, a 20 second exposure AND an ISO around 1600 or 2000. Most point and shoots, even if advanced, unfortunately just don’t have the tech to make that work. Hope this helps a little!

yes indeed! This is a great setup, and covers a great range of telephoto/zoom. The 18-55mm will be your “go to” lens for photographing the aurora, and general travel shots of “the north” at this time of year. The 70-300 will be great for anything you need at a distance, which frankly won’t be all that much in Churchill during the winter, but will be a go to lens for any other classic wildlife safari. Hope this helps!

Hi James, great question, but a loaded question! There are SO many great lenses out there, and they come from many manufacturers, and at many price points. Generally, I recommend getting a lens in this order of priority…a lens that is a) very wide (10, 12, 14mm at widest) b) is fast (f/4, f/2.8 or faster) and c) is of good quality. Weird how I say good quality last, right? Mainly that’s because you can get some very good “b+” lenses that are wide and fast, but may not be the top tier Nikon glass. Companies like Rokinon, Tokina, tamron and others fit this bill. There is a great Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 that is wonderful for aurora photography, but this is nearly $2,000. Alternatively, a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 is about $500. And it’s actually WIDER! Thus, I’d go for the Tokina in most cases – https://www.adorama.com/tn1120dxnkd.html?utm_source=rflaid913479

Hope this helps!

Hi Bruce, great question! Personally I think the 18-55mm would be enough. If you do wish to get a better/more ideal lens for your canon, I would recommend the 10-22mm they make. The 17-40 will be better quality than the 18-55, but it’s a very very similar range. The 10-22mm will also be better quality (i.e., better glass, sharper photos, etc.), but it adds a really important wider field of view, which I personally feel is extremely helpful for aurora photos–more sky, more foreground, more aurora. You’ll probably find that you like it for a lot of other photography, too. So, I do recommend picking up the 10-22mm if you can swing it, but at the end of the day the 18-55 will work and you’ll still get great shots.

Hi Su, good to hear from you! This is a good question, but of course with many ways to answer! In my mind, you can go one of two directions. If you are still ok with the interchangeable lens world, which is going to give you better quality, but generally more to deal with (and ensuing size and weight) I might recommend looking at Olympus…they have a great system that is known as “micro 4/3s” and the smaller sensor enables the entire system to be much smaller than DSLRs and even other mirrorless systems. They’re great. However, I could also recommend you look at Sony’s “bridge” camera system, which takes away the interchangeable lens aspect. Thus, it’s one size that basically does it all. Their RX10 IV is a really solid camera that competes with the bigger fancier ones, too. The thing to think about when comparing these two is that the Olympus is going to be smaller if using small lenses, but will get slightly bigger than the Sony as soon as you start putting on the quality lenses. The Sony RX10 will be a little bigger and heavier than the Olympus+small lens, but won’t ever get bigger–and has a 600mm lens built right into it! Thus, you will know exactly what you’re getting into once you compare sizes and weights. I hope this helps a little! Let me know!

Hi James, happy to help here. I’d recommend you check out my “Step by Step Plan for Photographing the Northern Lights” at this link and post: https://dailywildlifephoto.nathab.com/photography-guide/step-by-step-plan-for-photographing-the-northern-lights/ . I think it’s exactly what you’re looking for!

Hi Change, the 18-55mm isn’t bad, but Nikon makes a great 10-24mm lens for the DX platform. But frankly, the biggest improvement you can make in your setup for low light photography would probably be to consider a full frame camera. It’s a much bigger investment than just a new lens, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention this, too. For now, though, getting an “ultra wide angle” lens is going to be your best bet…more angle equals more sky, more stars, and more aurora in your shot!

Hi Nataly, thanks for the note here and I’m glad you’re getting out to photograph the aurora when possible! As far as lenses, there are two schools of thought. One would be to get a very “fast” lens, like f/1.4 or f/1.8 at 24mm (full frame equivalent). The other school of thought, which I’m partial to, is to get a very wide lens, like a 14 or 16mm full frame equivalent, and just get it as “fast” as possible…usually this means f/2.8 or even f/3.5. See the thing is that northern lights actually aren’t all that dim, contrary to astrophotography. Thus, I prefer going very, very wide to get as much of the sky and lights as possible, and just dealing with the slightly “slower” aspect of an f/2.8. It’s worked very well for me over the years, and I hope the same for you!

Hi Tim, great to hear from you and glad to hear you’ll be taking advantage of this solar maximum, as we are getting some incredible solar explosions, resulting in some mind-blowing aurora. The 1D series is plenty of camera for aurora :). I’d recommend using full frame settings (as I recall, some of these models offer a crop option, which is great for sports, and go for as wide of a lens as you’ve got. Don’t worry if it’s only f/3.5 or f/4–you can crank up your ISO a bit to 1600 or 3200 with good results. Enjoy it!!