Canon EOS R6 IBIS in action

[Joules]

Thanks for the heads up. Rushed outside and did a qucik snap. Actually about 20 and I must learn how to stack them.

Autostakkert 3 is great for stacking images of the moon. Many people use it for Lucky Imaging stacks, but I use it for simple stills stacks like yours and have been pretty Happy. The default settings work well. It can fail though, if the position of the moon within the frame differs a lot between images.

The result will look slightly blurry initially, but some deconvolution with PS SmartSharpen or a more dedicated tool helps clean that up nicely.

Not sure if it was because of my tripod, or that my balcony isn't sturdy, or because it was close to a whirring outside AC unit, but the image would hardly quit shaking.

What looks like movement in images of the moon can also be caused by the turbulence in the atmosphere or air around you. Shooting the moon when it's near the horizon or shooting through an open window for example will result in much worse 'shake'.

 

[scyrene]

I don't know, I'm very new at this moon thing, being a CR member doesn't mean I'm a lunar shooter. I just looked up a list of Super Moons and this was listed as an also ran. I also have a 1.4 tc now so trying my luck with 560mm. It's a good target for that sort of thing. I enjoy it, despite the ridicule by 'better and more informed' photographers you'll read about on certain photo forums.

Fair enough! I always enjoy(ed) testing a new long lens/higher res sensor on the moon as I progressed, it's a good touchstone target

 

[scyrene]

Thank you! They're sharp for the challenges of shooting through the atmosphere at 2032mm. But looking at the full resolution RAW or TIFF, compared to a regular Earth bound shot, it's apparent that the atmosphere was a limiting factor.

Haven't tried stacking the moon to compensate yet.

Stacking can make a huge difference, although that shot was great anyhow. I always found the software fiddly though.

 

[scyrene]

I dont have idea ,new kind of tech maybe? just what rumours say about 1dx3 sensor.
Maybe no more DR penalty from dpaf ,wouldnt it improve high isos too?

I'm no expert, but what people (who seem to know what they're talking about) say is, high ISO image quality is not limited by the technology, but by physics.

 

[Tremotino]

Then go and buy two, one instead of me. Canon simply thinks it is a good idea to refurbish already used sensor again. But this time, from a very specialised camera, which 1DXIII is. For general user (as you suggest "most ppl do not"), going down from 26mpx to 20mpx, is not a good message, whatever you might think.

For me (a general user) it is a good thing.
I'm going to buy his year a R camera. Not sure which one but if I have to choose between 45mpx and 20mpx I would always prefer 20mpx.

 

[Optics Patent]

Very good quality moon, and probably because it was shot through the telescope.
But in terms of the DR and settings, I've shot the moon at ISO 100 many times, the moon is bright enough so you only need ISO 100 and still quite fast shutter speed around 1/500 or so, f2.8-3.5. That is, with the moon alone, you don't need high ISO and you don't struggle with the DR. So no, there's no point in starting a high ISO or DR argument...

Bear in mind that the full moon is the same brightness as any dark rocky surface in equatorial noonday sunlight.

 

[Michael Clark]

Amen. These moon nicknames have been invented in the last 10 years as Internet Clickbait. Ultra super mega blood Moon

Many of them are. But many other nicknames for the full moon in certain months have ancient origins.

 

[Michael Clark]

Nice shot!
I randomly decided to take some shots of the full moon last night too. I used the telescope I have and an EF adapter. Not completely sure why, but I couldn't get a completely steady shot. Not sure if it was because of my tripod, or that my balcony isn't sturdy, or because it was close to a whirring outside AC unit, but the image would hardly quit shaking.

It just reminded me how much of a pain it is to use the 5D4 for certain shots because there is no flip screen. Really looking forward to finally having a flip screen and IBIS for these kind of shots.

If you are shooting through the "propwash" and thermal distortion of a heating/cooling unit you'll never get a steady shot.

 

[1Zach1]

Love my RP, but I’m already having gear envy.

 

[dtaylor]

But in terms of the DR and settings, I've shot the moon at ISO 100 many times, the moon is bright enough so you only need ISO 100 and still quite fast shutter speed around 1/500 or so, f2.8-3.5.

If your lens or scope is that fast. The telescope I used is a 2,032mm f/10. Starting from your suggested settings (1/500 f/2.8 ISO 100) that means ISO 1600 to hold 1/500th of a second. That night I started at lower ISOs and shutter speeds but they were strongly blurred by atmospheric turbulence. 1/1000 at ISO 3200 turned out to be the best compromise.

I could have put a 300 f/4 or a 400 f/5.6 on the moon, but the magnification loss is much greater than the ISO (SNR) gain. That might not be the case for someone with, say, a 600mm f/4 and a TC.

 

[Kit.]

Look at the very bottom edge of his photo. See the shadow in the craters? The lack of those shadow is what I mean by flat.

Now look at the ones below, where it's not a full moon. These are more interesting to look at. The shadows along the edge of day/night makes it more interesting to look at:

OK, given that photography is an art... how do we manage to get a second light source?

 

[Michael Clark]

Bear in mind that the full moon is the same brightness as any dark rocky surface in equatorial noonday sunlight.

Assuming the moon is directly overhead it is. If the moon is closer to the horizon then, as observed from the earth's surface, it dims in the same way that your terran rocky surface does when the sun is closer to the horizon and passing through the atmosphere at an angle.

The absolute brightness of the full moon varies due to its eccentric orbit around the earth, by the relative angle of the earth and sun to the moon, and the absolute distance from the sun to the moon (which of course also varies due to the eccentricity of the earth's orbit around the sun). It's quite measurable and more significant than many realize. When the moon is near perigee and the sun is almost directly behind the earth (full moon) as the earth is near perihelion it is almost 30% brighter (in terms of the field strength of its light falling on the earth's surface) than when the moon is at apogee when it is full and the earth is at aphelion. At farthest apogee the moon is 14% further from the earth than at closest perigee. At perihelion the earth is 3.4% closer to the sun than at aphelion. Combine all of that and when a full moon occurs at perigee when the earth is at perihelion the distance light travels from the sun to moon to earth is 147,812,750 km. When a full moon occurs at apogee when the earth is at aphelion, that total distance is 152,506,720 km.

 

[tron]

Any pricing info? I’m guessing $2500-$3k, too expensive as usual from Canon

Nobody will buy an RP like camera for that price. I would guess 2K tops and soon much less. Because
if someone has already lenses with IS IBIS will not offer much to so as someone will sacrifice 6Mp and much money.
They would rather get a R5... Just my opinion of course.

 

[Max TT]

By all accounts the RF mount will consist of serveral models among varying price points. I am not sure why people use they term crippled to describe a camera at a lower price point? I don't know quite what to expect other than the rumors I have read on this site. I am willing to wager the $1000 camera will not have all of the features the $5000 camera has. That is not crippling the camera, That is giving someone a reason to buy the $5000 camera, otherwise they would only make one model.

Hey yes agreed, if it’s a $1000 entry level camera that represents an upgrade from the RP, then I can’t complain much about missing specs. And I won’t.

But if the R6 is intended to be an upgrade from the current EOS R with pricing in line with or just above the Sony A7III and it then falls short of meeting those specs on the A7III then that’s disappointing. I mean the A7III is a two year old system, if they can’t meet its minimum standards then it’s crippled.

A7III has IBIS, has Dual Slot, 4K no crop, Magnesium Alloy, 24mp etc and it’s selling for sub $2000. That should be Canons starting point. I mean if you can’t even make a camera that at least rivals a two year old Sony body, then don’t waste my time. Hence crippled.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

If your lens or scope is that fast. The telescope I used is a 2,032mm f/10. Starting from your suggested settings (1/500 f/2.8 ISO 100) that means ISO 1600 to hold 1/500th of a second.

Right, that's very specialised equipment. 1/500s is probably too fast, 1/250 or 1/125 will probably do as well so ISO 400 should probably work with f/10. At some point you'll see the blur in the moon but at the same time noise reduction at ISO 3200 also means some loss of detail, and there I can't tell which setting is optimal, it'll probably depend on the focal length.

I'm not into pure astrophotography as it takes specialised equipment to get cool nebula and celestial bodies shots. I'm simply shooting the moon with 70-200 f2.8.
At some point I lost interest to shoot the moon alone as it looks the same from any point on Earth with clear sky. That is you take one or two moon shots, maybe at different phases, and then what? - it'll always be the same. This was as far as I went with the moon, it was taken during a lunar eclipse and obviously totally unscientific (the eclipsed moon is in the proper position though).



Things get more interesting when you want to have some detail in the moon and in the foreground. With the nightscapes with the moon you're almost forced to combine 2 or more images with different exposures.

 

[Michael Clark]

OK, given that photography is an art... how do we manage to get a second light source?

Well, you could always do what Arthur C. Clarke suggested in his novel 2010: astro-engineer the mass of Jupiter into a smaller volume until it reaches critical mass and ignites with nuclear fission at its core...

 

[Optics Patent]

Since this site makes no effort to avoid off-topic moderation, I'll bite.

Post moderated for being off topic

 

[Michael Clark]

Since this site makes no effort to avoid off-topic moderation, I'll bite.

Aside from low elevations when the moon or sun will be evidently reddened, yellowed and dimmed, this effect is photographically inconsequential for most elevations in all seasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_mass_(astronomy) If the moon look white, it's as bright as I pointed out: rocky soil under blinding equatorial noontime sun.

I share the notion that the only observationally or photographically interesting differences are the size due to orbital eccentricity. Don't forget libration giving a peek around the limb and an opportunity for 3D images.

If the moon is 14% farther from the earth's surface it is not as bright, due to the area square rule.

 

[Gazwas]

Did you not read his description? He mentioned how it was different materials from the R5 and more round than the R/RP

Why the aggressive tone?

My comment was posted before the updated version now showing without any description.

 

[PureClassA]

Then go and buy two, one instead of me. Canon simply thinks it is a good idea to refurbish already used sensor again. But this time, from a very specialised camera, which 1DXIII is. For general user (as you suggest "most ppl do not"), going down from 26mpx to 20mpx, is not a good message, whatever you might think.

Actually it's a fantastic idea if it's a fantastic sensor, which it absolutely is. There is far more to the 1DX3 than just its sensor. And how are we "going down from 26MP to 20MP" if this is the FIRST EVER R6? And 26-20 frankly isn't that big a difference in real world terms. And there isn't really all that huge a difference from my 30MP Eos R to my 20MP 1DX2 unless we really pixel peep a lot.

Maybe 20MP is exactly where Canon always intends to keep the R6? Nothing wrong with that. Perhaps going forward the R6 bodies will always share whatever sensor is in the 1DX (or the 1RX going forward) bodies? The EOS R and RP were temporary place holders before the grand lineup of the RF system was unveiled. Both very good and capable cameras. I only do photography work very part time, but last year I shot about $25k worth of stills jobs on sensors of 20-22MP. Everything looked amazing.

Now we've moved on from the EOS R and RP. The R line will be made of cameras specialized for different needs. Buy the EOS R5 if the R6 is "too low" for you. I just think you're erroneously trying to compare the R6 to the RP which are two different lines. One doesn't replace the other.