On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 22:51:25 +0100, Mike Causer wrote:

Film? Digits, doesn't cost anything per exposure...

It's not the cost, it's the quality.

I'll give you that.

My best film camera [1] has more lenses of higher quality than any
digital I can afford.

Can't you get a digital body that would take your old lenes?

So, as this could be the first decent auroral display since the arrival
of digital cameras, ...

eh? I was using a digital camera at the last solar peak what 2001
ish, the following are from a little later.

http://www.howhill.com/weather/view....2003&m=10&d=29
http://www.howhill.com/weather/view....2005&m=01&d=21

I'll use the same camera tonight if it's not cloudly and if there is
anything to see. OK by modern standards it's not brilliant only 3M
pixel but it does a reasonable job. The second set look over
corrected now, they would have been done when I was using a CRT
monitor that was getting a little "tired" maybe I should look at the
orginals again sometime.

... which "program" are you going to use? Or set it to Auto, or take a
flying guess at exposure?

I'll use the settings from the last time recalled it's memory as a
starting point.

--
Cheers Dave.
Nr Garrigill, Cumbria. 421m ASL.