Karen Liles , Jul 29, 2003; 11:45 a.m.
I recently received this information about Mars and wanted to see if
anyone could give me suggestions for getting a proper exposure. I
didn't know what forum to put it under so if "Nature" is not the
right one, please let me know. Thanks for any advice! (P.S. I
don't have a telescope. I have a 150 mm lens on my medium format
camera, and a 200 mm lens on my 35 mm camera.)
Never again in your lifetime will the Red Planet be so spectacular.
This month and next Earth is catching up with Mars, an encounter that
will culminate in the closest approach between the two planets in
recorded history.
The next time Mars may come this close is in 2287. Due to the way
Jupiter's gravity tugs on Mars and perturbs its orbit, astronomers
can only be certain that Mars has not come this close to Earth in the
last 5,000 years but it may be as long as 60,000 years.
The encounter will culminate on Tuesday, August 27th when Mars comes
to within 34,649,589 miles and will be (next to the moon) the
brightest object in the night sky. It will attain a magnitude of -2.9
and will appear 25.11 arc seconds wide.
At a modest 75-power magnification Mars will look as large as the
full moon to he naked eye. Mars will be easy to spot. At the
beginning of August Mars will rise in the east at 10 p.m. and reach
its azimuth at about 3 a.m. But by the end of August when the two
planets are closest, Mars will rise at nightfall and reach its
highest point in the sky at 12:30 a.m.
That's pretty convenient when it comes to seeing something that no
human has seen in recorded history. So, mark your calendar at the
beginning of August to see Mars grow progressively brighter and
brighter throughout the month.
Share with your children and grandchildren. No one alive today will
ever see this again!
Brady Dillsworth , Jul 29, 2003; 12:00 p.m.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_orbit_030121-1.html This site seems to correct some of your misinformation. But in general you seem to be correct.
Rob Bernhard 
, Jul 29, 2003; 12:58 p.m.
Personally, I'd like to rent a telescope for the event, with or without a camera attached.
Art Haykin 
, Jul 29, 2003; 01:07 p.m.
I would consult books and sites on Astrophotography. You'll not get much with most any regular camera lens. You'll need a telescope with a tracking motor to do it right.
Frank Uhlig , Jul 29, 2003; 01:43 p.m.
Karen, please do not get fooled.
This is an astronomical event: 75 fold mag will give Mars the appearance of a moon sized object, you say.
In 35mm, this magnification would require a 75 x 50 mm = 3750 mm 0r 3.75m or about 4 yards, or about 12 feet long lens. Just to appear as the moon would with a 50 mm lens, i.e., almost not there at all on film.
You may experience this proximity of Mars in person by enjoying a slightly brighter look at Mars, but to record it for posterity is - unfortunately - not for those without a huge telescope, nor for us with 200mm, or even 600 mm lenses.
Are you in accord? A photographic non-event by all means of reason ...
Bob Atkins 
, Jul 29, 2003; 01:48 p.m.
It will be relatively easy to get a shot of Mars, but it will just look like a red star on film. Not very spectacular, but if you want to do it just use fast film, use your lens at it's widest aperture, point it at Mars and give it a few seconds exposure. You'll get Mars and some of the brighter stars.
It's also not going to be THAT much closer than usual!
Bert Krages , Jul 29, 2003; 01:56 p.m.
Using the lenses you describe, Mars will record as bright and distinctive dot on an image. Probably the best way to photograph it with conventional equipment would be to incorporate it into a landscape image. To reduce trailing caused by the Earth's rotation, you will want to keep the exposure down to a few a seconds (e.g., ten seconds with a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera body, three seconds for a 200mm lens). You will need a telescope with a substantial motorized drive to get an image large enough to record planetary detail. At the level needed for astrophotography, the telescopes and mounts are both expensive and bulky. They also require a fair amount of experience to use proficiently.
Stephen Ratzlaff , Jul 29, 2003; 02:06 p.m.
I looked at Mars this past Sunday morning. with my small telescope.
If you have a small digital camera you can try to photograph Mars via eyepiece projection and get pretty decent results if you make an inexpensive mount for your digi-cam.
Go here for more info on Astrophotography and other info on telescopes.
http://www.weasner.com/etx/menu.html
Mike's site is geared a bit for the Meade ETX products, but there is also a wealth of info regarding astronomy in general and the info provided can pertain to any brand of telescope.
As I have a Meade ETX-90RA scope (inexpensive) this is the site I found most useful, but I'm sure there are a plethora of sites with astrophotography info out there.
There are also a lot of tips on how to make gear.
Regards
Philippe Gauthier , Jul 29, 2003; 03:22 p.m.
I watched Mars myself for the last several days and I can confirm that I've rarely seen the red planet so red and so bright. On the other hand, even with 8x50 goggles, it's barely more than a point in the sky, and that is already the rough equivalent of a 400 mm lens.
A star trail including Mars could be spectacular and easy to record, but any meaningful attempt to capture the planet on film or sensor will need to involve a telescope with a SLR attachment. You'll need at least a 6 inche telescope (10 inches would be even better) with an engine that keep the telescope pointed on Mars.
In short, you'll need to associate with an amateur astronomer and to do a lot of reading on astrophotography and such. Fortunately, the info is readily available on the web.
Alex Lofquist , Jul 29, 2003; 04:14 p.m.
I intend to photograph it within the next few weeks with a 500mm f/4 and a 1.4X TC. If I have calculated correctly, Mars should have an image diameter of about 1/12 mm, which would be barely resolvable as a disk. I expect that exposure times with ISO 400 will be about 1/10 sec, or less, to avoid trailing. I'll bracket a lot just to get something on film. At least I can say that I tried!
