Moon photos
- Thread starter bchernicoff
- Start date
jrista said:JumboShrimp said:
Very nice! Good color and shading. I like it.
It's tough to get better detail than that once you go into the umbra unless your tracking the moon. You lose spatial resolution at higher ISO, almost as much as you do with longer exposures at lower ISO due to motion. I did eclipse photography for a few years before I got my tracking mount, and most of my shots weren't any better than yours (many were worse!) With a longer lens, it gets a little better, however you have to increase our shutter speed even more (to counteract the motion of the moon...it appears faster the longer the focal length) and use an even higher ISO.
You need a mount that can track at lunar rate (vs. just sidereal) to get anything like this:
Exceedingly fine shot, jrista. I am now officially jealous.
Upvote
0
JumboShrimp said:jrista said:JumboShrimp said:
Very nice! Good color and shading. I like it.
It's tough to get better detail than that once you go into the umbra unless your tracking the moon. You lose spatial resolution at higher ISO, almost as much as you do with longer exposures at lower ISO due to motion. I did eclipse photography for a few years before I got my tracking mount, and most of my shots weren't any better than yours (many were worse!
You need a mount that can track at lunar rate (vs. just sidereal) to get anything like this:
Exceedingly fine shot, jrista. I am now officially jealous.
You can actually get smaller mounts that will let you track well enough to get better moon shots for pretty cheap. I'm not exactly sure how long a lens it could handle, but something like the iOpteron SkyTracker might do the trick for smaller lenses up to 400mm (and slap on a TC, and you might be able to get an even longer focal length.)
Upvote
0
So, I promised to come back to this topic when my Kenko 3x extender got in. And its in. Its throwing lens errors however, so I had to fiddle around a lot before I could get it to make pictures.
When no lens is attached it errors, and with the Tamron 150-600 it errors. It does however work fine with the 85mm. So i'm not sure whats going on.
I ended up taping up all the pins on a 12mm extension tube, and put that between the body and the kenko.
The moon is still a bit low right now for the best shots (humid air and all that), but I shot a video to show what the field of view is on this combo.
Here is the link: http://youtu.be/Xhz4ux7F8BQ
:edit:
Moon is bit higher now. i did a shot with and without the kenko from the same position. Lens fixed on the tripod.
http://blog.quicksetup.nl/images/600mm.jpg
http://blog.quicksetup.nl/images/1800mm.jpg
The fringing on both setups is about the same. These shots were set to b&w because I like the moon best that way. Apart from that and cropping I did nothing.
When no lens is attached it errors, and with the Tamron 150-600 it errors. It does however work fine with the 85mm. So i'm not sure whats going on.
I ended up taping up all the pins on a 12mm extension tube, and put that between the body and the kenko.
The moon is still a bit low right now for the best shots (humid air and all that), but I shot a video to show what the field of view is on this combo.
Here is the link: http://youtu.be/Xhz4ux7F8BQ
:edit:
Moon is bit higher now. i did a shot with and without the kenko from the same position. Lens fixed on the tripod.
http://blog.quicksetup.nl/images/600mm.jpg
http://blog.quicksetup.nl/images/1800mm.jpg
The fringing on both setups is about the same. These shots were set to b&w because I like the moon best that way. Apart from that and cropping I did nothing.
Upvote
0
procentje20 said:
Just to point out...the moon is out of focus there. Which is expected, since you used an extension tube...that kills infinity focus in favor of closer focus than the lens' default MFD. You wont' be able to sharply focus the moon until you remove the extension tube.
Upvote
0
jrista said:
I noticed twisting off the lens a bit also allows for shots to fire, as the lens error is no longer present.
What would you say should be my f stop on the lens with the 3x attached? I think I can go pretty low with the shutter speeds, about 1/160 to only counter the moons movement, as I have a pretty sturdy tripod.
Upvote
0
At 3x, your looking at 1800mm. You probably want f/22 to keep things as sharp as possible. Keep in mind here...you are going to be oversampling the lens. That's ultimately a good thing...but the image will not look tack sharp at 100%. Not without deconvolution and probably some wavelet sharpening.
The bigger question is...will the moon fit in the FoV at that size. I think you'll be cutting it pretty close.
As for shutter speed...that depends on the phase. A crescent could require considerably longer exposures. A near-full gibbous or full moon could require considerably shorter.
The bigger question is...will the moon fit in the FoV at that size. I think you'll be cutting it pretty close.
As for shutter speed...that depends on the phase. A crescent could require considerably longer exposures. A near-full gibbous or full moon could require considerably shorter.
Upvote
0
Hi bwud.
I really like that, nice composition, thanks for sharing.
Cheers, Graham.
I really like that, nice composition, thanks for sharing.
Cheers, Graham.
bwud said:
Upvote
0
procentje20 said:
I have a piece of black electrical tape that I put over the pins on the camera body. That let me use my Canon 1.4x & 2x III extenders on my Nikon 300mm AIS lens. I'd recommend something like that over loosely connecting the lens to the body.
Also, keep in mind that the higher the magnification, the faster the shutter speed you'll need. You might be able to get away with 1/160th at 100mm or 200mm, but at 600mm you'll need a lot higher. I went with 1/320th at 600mm, at 1800mm you may need 1/600 or 1/800.
5D3_0389 by yorgasor, on Flickr
Upvote
0
yorgasor said:
You can actually get away with slow shutter speeds if you give the camera time to settle before it takes the shot. I use the 10 second delay shutter mode when I'm just using the camera (vs. using BackyardEOS software on my computer), and I've been able to get as little as 1/4 second shots of the moon at 1200mm.
If you have another source of vibration, such as wind, then you might be forced to use a faster shutter, but so long as you let the system settle before the exposure is taken, you can get away with very long exposures.
Upvote
0
That's what we usually get anytime there is something interesting. Had lightning to my back and about 30 min before totally clouded here.
Upvote
0
Here's a couple recent ones from my collection.
The city picture was during the "Honey Moon" taken with 5D3 and in-camera HDR to see how it would handle that sort of scenery. It actually didn't work at all to no one's surprise, so the detail you see on the face of the moon is photoshopped from a different exposure on top of an otherwise overexposed bright white spot, but still like the way the photo turned out as an experiment!
The moon telephoto was with a handheld 7D and 55-250 STM, testing out the new cheap gear. Photo is heavily cropped, still looks decent for handheld on such an old sensor.
The city picture was during the "Honey Moon" taken with 5D3 and in-camera HDR to see how it would handle that sort of scenery. It actually didn't work at all to no one's surprise, so the detail you see on the face of the moon is photoshopped from a different exposure on top of an otherwise overexposed bright white spot, but still like the way the photo turned out as an experiment!
The moon telephoto was with a handheld 7D and 55-250 STM, testing out the new cheap gear. Photo is heavily cropped, still looks decent for handheld on such an old sensor.
Attachments
Upvote
0
