MkIII moon photo

[Bob Walker]

Another MkIII landed in New Mexico....

One of my interests in the MkIII is to use the live view mode for astrophotographs, where I can have fine control over focusing.

Here's a link to a 100% crop of the moon using the 100-400 + 1.4TC lens, with and without postprocessing:

http://www.pbase.com/rwalkernm/mk3_moontest

The optics are not the best, but I have no complaints about the camera. Now I have to go figure out all the camera settings.

 

[SunBlack]

Not bad...

Just a retouch: sharpness, curves, CA.

 

[SunBlack]

uff... how to post links, pics?

 

[messner]

Hi

Right click on mouse on pictures on Pbase, click properties. The link is in jpg, post here in forum, look at preview, if OK, post it.

Omar
--
http://sydnet.net/omar

 

[SunBlack]

My link of reworked pic is on imageshack, not pbase......

 

[KCampbell]

You've lost me, how can focus be anything other than infinity when photographing the moon with a lens attached to the camera?

Kevin

 

[kruger]

Another MkIII landed in New Mexico....

One of my interests in the MkIII is to use the live view mode for
astrophotographs, where I can have fine control over focusing.

Here's a link to a 100% crop of the moon using the 100-400 + 1.4TC
lens, with and without postprocessing:

http://www.pbase.com/rwalkernm/mk3_moontest

The optics are not the best, but I have no complaints about the
camera. Now I have to go figure out all the camera settings.

Doesn’t look too good at all, do you have any exif data available ?

 

[liquidstone]

You've lost me, how can focus be anything other than infinity when
photographing the moon with a lens attached to the camera?

Kevin

When shooting the moon with a long lens, you'll be surprised how a minute turn of the focus ring blurs everything OOF.

Romy
--



http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone
(Over 240 species captured in habitat, and counting.)

 

[Bob Walker]

Doesn’t look too good at all, do you have any exif data available ?

The EXIF shows on the pbase link. f8, 1/200s, ISO 400, 560mm (1.4x400).

As I said, the seeing was not very good.

 

[Bob Walker]

My link of reworked pic is on imageshack, not pbase......

I would be interested in seeing what you did -- I did not put a whole lot of effort into the postprocessing of the image. The link did not show here....

Thanks,
Bob

 

[kruger]

Doesn’t look too good at all, do you have any exif data available ?

The EXIF shows on the pbase link. f8, 1/200s, ISO 400, 560mm
(1.4x400).

As I said, the seeing was not very good.

It has to be the lens combo, from what Ive seen looking around here the 100-400 isnt the sharpest and put a Tc on top of that just adds to the mess. Did you try that combo previously on another body with moon shots ?

 

[wilkman]

I'd echo Romy's comment .... in fact, I find it a bit difficult to dial in the exact focus that truly nails a moon shot. I may take a dozen shots before I land one this sharp. 100% crop, sigmonster, d2x



best, mark

 

[XYZXYZXYZ]

I thought you meant somone doing a moony photo

Couldn't resist posting

Sue@ http://www.suesbirdphotos.co.uk

 

[Armando J. Rodriguez Jr.]

Sorry to say it, but many things could have gone wrong on the pictures by the OP. Those pictures do not show what any DSLR is capable with a good lens and good technique when shooting at the moon. But your pictrue does.
Take care,

Armando.
--
'Heavens declare the glory of God', and I hope my pictures will too.
http://www.pbase.com/arodri3

 

[RichW]

because the end of the focus travel is not infinity! That point will vary due to temperature and mechanical differences. So you absolutely have to focus on a distant object. And it can be difficult to do.

Rich

You've lost me, how can focus be anything other than infinity when
photographing the moon with a lens attached to the camera?

Kevin

 

[KHL]

I've shot with that exact same lens combo with a 10D:
http://www.krislau.com/gallery/moon/moonshot?full=1

 

[kruger]

I've shot with that exact same lens combo with a 10D:
http://www.krislau.com/gallery/moon/moonshot?full=1

Do you have the non-photoshop version ?

 

[Jerry Gladh]

Just for fun....

http://www.jerrygladh.se/galleri/bildvisa.asp?id=558&gid=78&sida=45&sortering=1

Xl H1 and 500 f4 eq 3600mm

Jerry

 

[Bob Walker]

It has to be the lens combo, from what Ive seen looking around here
the 100-400 isnt the sharpest and put a Tc on top of that just adds
to the mess. Did you try that combo previously on another body with
moon shots ?

I was using the lens combo wide open, with the moon low on the horizon after a windy day. Actually, I think the quality was not too bad, considering.

The only test of the camera was the ease of using the live view feature to assist focusing, and that worked very well. If I try to get the best possible moon picture, you are right -- I need to up the ISO, set the aperture to something like f11 - f16, and keep the shutter speed reasonable. Maybe I can try that tonight if I don't fall asleep before the moon rises. The moon is more interesting when it isn't so full anyway.....

I was able to resolve Jupiter and three of its moons last night, using the same setup. But Jupiter was only about 6-10 pixels wide....

I have much better moon pictures I took with my 10D and the same lens combo, but there the focus was much more trial and error....

What I think will be interesting is to take pictures of nebula, using the live view to ensure I have the best possible focus on stars, and then stack images. Real astrophotographers have all this figured out, and its an experiment I want to try. If I get better at this, then maybe it makes sense to buy a tracking mount (I have an old Celestron C8), but good ones cost more than the MkIII.....

Thanks,
Bob

 

[Larry H. Smith]

You've lost me, how can focus be anything other than infinity when
photographing the moon with a lens attached to the camera?

There is "leeway" built into lenses, to allow for heat-expansion, manufacturing tolerances, etc.

"Infinity" focus is NOT exactly at the hard-over lens adjustment.

If your subject were an earthly one a mile away,...do you think you could easily turn the lens ring so minutely as to be within 1/4 INCH of perfect focus at the 1 mile distance? ( ...or see the difference in the viewfinder?)

The same focus-ring turning error that changes the precise focus plane 1/4 inch at 1 mile,...will change it approximately 1 MILE at a distance of 240,000 miles. Actual average error is very likely to be much greater than this miniscule example. I.e., if you achieve only "within 6 inches" focus at 1 mile on Earth,...you will be off by 24 miles on the moon. Etc.,...ETC!

Such photography is one of the places the new "live-view" magnified focus adjustment may be helpful.

In private communication, Dave Etchells of Imaging Resource reports the "Live-View" focus-ability of the 1DIII to be unquestionably better than the camera's viewfinder (and the viewfinder of the 1DIII is a good one).

If you can not SEE what is happening with such critical focus efforts, you are literally "shooting blind". This is why many sort through numerous moon exposures to find the best one.

Naively trusting a to-the-stop "infinity "setting is almost guaranteed to result in a lesser-quality image. (...and so is the AF "precision" latitude. Imagine what "1/3 of the depth of field" actually means at such distances!)

These issues, combined with less-than-rock-solid tripod mounting, failure to use MLU, etc., account for the poor quality of most casual "moon " shots. The average photographer has not worked through the error-magnification math involved in shooting at such distances.

Auto-everything aside, the best imagery requires educated, CAREFUL work!

Larry ;-)