How to get a good, sharp picture of the moon?

I agree with what's written above (no extension tubes, telephoto lens, manual exposure or really big exposure compensation, shooting it a dusk or dawn)... I just wanted to add, those black specks on your photo were most likely sensor dust.
 
OK, the moon was overexposed so the 5N could not focus, I thought. Let's try -3EV, see what happens:

Definitely sharper, but the moon was still overexposed. So I thought, let's add some extension rings to bring my lens closer to 200. Then this happened:

Now I was plenty close to focus well, yet it was impossible to focus.
What metering mode you have used ? If you use "spot metering" on moon you might get correct exposure at -2EV.
However I prefer to go manual for moon shot in dark since its a tricky situation.

Try manual mode. ISO 100, speed : 1/1000s, F8 and focus manually and use stand. Improve by trying things around these settings.
 
Correct Exposure has to be right then with manual focusing on a tripod the moon will pop right in and WOW you have the shot…..John

29aece744b2b4a6db0415d6d245eb201.jpg
Can you give more detail on how you got this? Ie. what focal length and how did you get this detail?
 
Can't beat a telescope for shots of the moon. This was a single (unstacked) taken via a 6" Schmidt Cassegrain type with a prime focal length of 1500mm at f10.

The background stars were added later.



e4ab1337141d4bff8e0d87792a43f25f.jpg





--
Steve
 
Can't beat a telescope for shots of the moon. This was a single (unstacked) taken via a 6" Schmidt Cassegrain type with a prime focal length of 1500mm at f10.

The background stars were added later.

--
Steve
Man, before I read that you added the background stars later, I was like "How the hell did you do that?"

But yeah, a telescope works wonderfully. At some point I'd like to buy one as well.
 
Starman

Never say never

My Moon at 2000 mm







with a camera, not a telescope

--
Old Greenlander
"I show the world the way I see it"
35 years of photography and still learning
 

Attachments

  • 3373863.jpg
    3373863.jpg
    218.8 KB · Views: 0
For metering, use the smallest spot and also bracket.

For focus, use a manual focus lens. It is very hard to get an autofocus lens to focus exactly on infinity.
this^

ff632fd1f889403390fd61046573867e.jpg

Now this is from years ago.. taken with a Panna bridge FZ40 bracketted.. not too bad.. when I get my 300 4 I'll try it again
 
Last edited:
The moon is rock dust (basalt, actually) in bright sunlight. It's about as bright as an 18% gray card in sunlight. You figure the rest.

And for gosh sakes, you've got a digital camera with a histogram. Just adjust the exposure so the peak of the histogram is to the right.

And for gosh sakes, squared. Your lens cannot focus at infinity with an extension tube. An extension tube is for macro photos, to extend the lens focusing range to closer distances. What were you thinking?
 
Where superzooms beat pretty much any DSLR! Their reach is insane.
 
Unfortunately I have to agree.

I tried with my expensive DSRLs and long lenses and could not match yet what I got from this small camera.
 
At least they're generally less expensive than a camera + super zoom!
 
Can't beat a telescope for shots of the moon.
You can. A Hasselblad on a space craft heading toward the moon beats the telescope any time.
This was a single (unstacked) taken via a 6" Schmidt Cassegrain type with a prime focal length of 1500mm at f10.

The background stars were added later.

e4ab1337141d4bff8e0d87792a43f25f.jpg

--
Steve
Good photo anyway.
 
The moon is rock dust (basalt, actually) in bright sunlight. It's about as bright as an 18% gray card in sunlight. You figure the rest.

And for gosh sakes, you've got a digital camera with a histogram. Just adjust the exposure so the peak of the histogram is to the right.

And for gosh sakes, squared. Your lens cannot focus at infinity with an extension tube. An extension tube is for macro photos, to extend the lens focusing range to closer distances. What were you thinking?
Confusing extension tube with tele extender.
 
Where superzooms beat pretty much any DSLR! Their reach is insane.
It's the fine pixel pitch that does it. One day there will be DSLRs/mirrorless with the same pixel sizes as those of bridge cameras today, and better lenses.

Sticking one of those little Nikon mirrorless cameras on a good Nikon long prime lens might work.
 
Unfortunately I have to agree.

I tried with my expensive DSRLs and long lenses and could not match yet what I got from this small camera.
Spend less on the DSLR, more on the lens.



a5392d7111564b68aaf487f7e8c6972b.jpg



--
Mark
 
48b83ca3deeb45f9b82ecc31f3e0f169.jpg

Just for fun, here are some more moons, in orbit around Jupiter. Certainly not a good, sharp picture, but for a hand held shot, propped against a pub wall, it's acceptable I reckon. No telescope, just a Nikon Coolpix P600. I find it rather amazing that a relatively inexpensive camera can do this.
 
Is amazing you found them in first place!
 
I recommend photographing the moon while rising in the blue twilight hour to avoid the massive difference in dynamic range between the sky and the moon. In this case when exposing for the moon the sky will still appear black.

--
Regards Daryl
http://dsinclair.zenfolio.com/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/123427081@N03/
Hobbes: You're ignorant, but at least you act on it.”
--
Lucy
Oly cams and a Canon, too.
FCAS Member #98, Oly Division
'Photography is the art of seeing what others do not.'
http://www.pbase.com/image/56509403/small.jpg
 
Last edited:

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top