-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Shooting for the moon
- Thread starter trescue
- Start date
jimrpdx
Veteran Member
A tracking mount like telescopes use is pretty much required - the more power, the faster it moves across the field. To get high power without hi-iso noise, an equatorial mount will do the trick. And if you get it attached to a hi-quality telescope (APO refractor or well-made reflector), there's your lens :^)
--
Jim R, A200 & stuff -- http://picasaweb.google.com/alphaPDX
--
Jim R, A200 & stuff -- http://picasaweb.google.com/alphaPDX
Here are some sample moon shots I took last week with the Sony 70-400G; all taken with a tripod. The files are the original size and not cropped, unless noted, to help you see the relative size.
I think they are still too small for large prints, but perhaps OK for 5x7 or 8x10. I hope it helps make up your decision.
--
FEM2008
I think they are still too small for large prints, but perhaps OK for 5x7 or 8x10. I hope it helps make up your decision.
- 1 70-400G
- 2 70-400G + Sony 1.4X teleconverter
- 3 Same as last shot but cropped in half
--
FEM2008
Tom Harvey
Senior Member
I don't think you NEED a tracking mount for moon shots. You can get away with hand-held so a decent tripod will be fine. An exposure of around f/5.6, 1/800, ISO 400 would be about right.
--
Tom
HopeSpringsEternal
Forum Enthusiast
I love the last picture. very great detail. I've shot the moon using my Minolta AF 500mm f/8 mirror lens handheld and on tripod and for the like of me, I can't see much of a difference in sharpness. In some cases, the handheld (shaky hands) shots were sharper than the tripod shot using 2 second mirror lockup.
I've also tried 500mm Tamron SP f/8 with 2x teleconverter and I don't see more detail in the picture.
However when I look at the moon with a 10x42 or 20x80 binoculars I see a lot more details than I've ever seen on my camera. Why?
Should I be limiting myself to good APO glass at say 500mm and then magnifying the moon view by cropping instead of "zooming" with optics?
Even a cheap $100 barska 20-60x50 spotting scope shows more detail @ 40x than I've ever seen on digital pictures. Of course with this scope,a tripod is a necessity.
Is it possible than the moon view as seen by human eye is somehow inherently of a higher resolution/DR than a digital sensor can ever be?
I've picked up a Russian Rubinar 1000mm f/10 lens and once I fix the tripod ring I will try it to see if this is any better than the lenses I've been using so far.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hopeiseternal/
I've also tried 500mm Tamron SP f/8 with 2x teleconverter and I don't see more detail in the picture.
However when I look at the moon with a 10x42 or 20x80 binoculars I see a lot more details than I've ever seen on my camera. Why?
Should I be limiting myself to good APO glass at say 500mm and then magnifying the moon view by cropping instead of "zooming" with optics?
Even a cheap $100 barska 20-60x50 spotting scope shows more detail @ 40x than I've ever seen on digital pictures. Of course with this scope,a tripod is a necessity.
Is it possible than the moon view as seen by human eye is somehow inherently of a higher resolution/DR than a digital sensor can ever be?
I've picked up a Russian Rubinar 1000mm f/10 lens and once I fix the tripod ring I will try it to see if this is any better than the lenses I've been using so far.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hopeiseternal/
Thank you. It was late last night and I did not even adjust contrast or sharpness before I uploaded.
I think that viewing the moon with a larger aperture lens, telescope, or binoculars will give you better resolution due to better light gathering capability and better contrast. Better scopes boast larger aperture and better light gathering capability over magnification. Also, our own eyes and brain have amazing capability to interpret and compensate, especially when both are used togther as in the case of binoculars.
--
FEM2008
dqnielg
Well-known member
That would be true for taking long exposures, but for shots of the moon it shouldn't be an issue.
--
To the OP, the following shot was taken with a $20 banged up copy of the Minolta 75-300mm, hardly a top end lens:
Not the most amazingly detailed shot ever, but it should help you to gauge your expectations on your 70-400mm, which is a much better lens.
--
To the OP, the following shot was taken with a $20 banged up copy of the Minolta 75-300mm, hardly a top end lens:
Not the most amazingly detailed shot ever, but it should help you to gauge your expectations on your 70-400mm, which is a much better lens.
Chris Malcolm
Senior Member
The quality of the air, what astronomers call the "seeing" is very important for taking detailed moon shots with lenses past about 200mm on an APS-C sensor DSLR. Layers at different temperatures with turbulent boundaries, and convection currents (very common over cities) can spoil detail resolution. I too have the 500mm f8, and so far over about a dozen different sets of moon shots, some done very carefully with my best tripod, the sharpest happens to be a casual handheld shot, simply because by sheer luck it was taken in much better atmospheric conditions than any of the others.
--
Chris Malcolm
--
Chris Malcolm
dqnielg
Well-known member
I live in Cincinnati. In the winter the air quality is decent, but in the summer we have some of the highest particulate counts. I'm pretty sure I took that picture outside of the Flagstaff, AZ. Air is much clearer out there.
What you need is depending on what you expect your result will be.
The greater the focal length the more details can become visable. A good tripod will be one thing to have. Then go for a half moon or so (full moon will give less detail!
Then take the time to focus well. then take as much pictures as possible.
A good telsecoop (APO) or good lens (like the 70-400 G lens) will be a good choice.
The quality of the seeing is very important. So no wind, good clear sky etc. Take your pictures as the moon is high in the sky, when it is low by the horizon it will be hard to take sharp pictuers!
A moon picture I made with my 80mm/560mm focal length F7 telescope 1/90 sec.
(100% crop)
And this is the telescope I used:
The greater the focal length the more details can become visable. A good tripod will be one thing to have. Then go for a half moon or so (full moon will give less detail!
Then take the time to focus well. then take as much pictures as possible.
A good telsecoop (APO) or good lens (like the 70-400 G lens) will be a good choice.
The quality of the seeing is very important. So no wind, good clear sky etc. Take your pictures as the moon is high in the sky, when it is low by the horizon it will be hard to take sharp pictuers!
A moon picture I made with my 80mm/560mm focal length F7 telescope 1/90 sec.
(100% crop)
And this is the telescope I used:
Steph69
Senior Member
This is one i took a while back with the a100 and the Sigma 500mm APO Handheld.
joel22484
Forum Enthusiast
Nicely done, especially for handheld! Any exif info?
luchocolombia
Well-known member
--
Luis
Fuji S3800, S5000 - Sony H1, H5, H50 + vcl-dh1758 + vcl-m3358 Now Alpha 350+18-200 Tamron, begining from zero
Luis
Fuji S3800, S5000 - Sony H1, H5, H50 + vcl-dh1758 + vcl-m3358 Now Alpha 350+18-200 Tamron, begining from zero
Steph69
Senior Member
Sorry i dont have the shot anymore, only the resized for the web one.
But having looked at my old post there was info on there :- ISO400 shot @ 500mm f14 1/200sec with minimal PP and cropping.
But having looked at my old post there was info on there :- ISO400 shot @ 500mm f14 1/200sec with minimal PP and cropping.
Similar threads
- Question
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum