Reading mode: Light Dark

Full Moon on 500 AF Reflex on A700

Go to last post
J

John KM/linhof

Leading Member
Messages
524
Reaction score
227
Location
Jacksonville, FL, US
Moony-16 - a bit
Moony-16 - a bit

I stepped outside to see this low on the horizon. Manual exposure at 400 ISO 1/1000 at f8. Wobbly hand hold with manual focus. The focus at the marked infinity required a slight backoff. Here in North Florida it is relatively cold at 48F but very clear.

I really like the Minolta 500 AF and it works well with the A700.

--
Linhofbiker
 
You'll get far better results if you photograph the moon when it's high in the sky and less than full.
 
tbcass said:
You'll get far better results if you photograph the moon when it's high in the sky and less than full.
Click to expand...
I agree. Years ago I tracked a lunar eclipse with multiple exposures on 35mm using a Minolta XK and Minolta 300mm lens. Made a poster sized print that was pretty good. I was on a dock on the river and the night sky was clear. I still used Moony-16 as an exposure guide. sky
 
John KM/linhof said:
I stepped outside to see this low on the horizon. Manual exposure at 400 ISO 1/1000 at f8. Wobbly hand hold with manual focus. The focus at the marked infinity required a slight backoff. Here in North Florida it is relatively cold at 48F but very clear.

I really like the Minolta 500 AF and it works well with the A700.
Click to expand...
Nice...

here's with a 70-400mm [and 2nd image using a 2XTC ]

Moon and Jupiter
Moon and Jupiter

Moon
Moon

-Martin P

https://www.flickr.com/photos/photosauraus_rex/
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Beautiful. Handheld? Not! A very heavy tripod for star gazing?

So, was Saturn really there? What was composite about the photo?

--
Linhofbiker
 
Last edited:
Syber is right.
 
No secret. It's 2 or more images combined into one.

--
Tom
 
Last edited:
John KM/linhof said:
Beautiful. Handheld? Not! A very heavy tripod for star gazing?

So, was Saturn really there? What was composite about the photo?
Click to expand...
T'was a photomontage taken on a unicycle whilst juggling bowling pins and playing the harmonica... sigh!

-Martin P

Loading…

www.dyxum.com
 
John KM/linhof said:
Beautiful. Handheld? Not! A very heavy tripod for star gazing?

So, was Saturn really there? What was composite about the photo?
Click to expand...
Among other things, exposure for the gas giants and even more so for the moons of Jupiter needs to be higher than for the moon. Exposing for the moons of Jupiter would blow out the moon very badly. Composite is the only option.

The reason is very simple. Light from the sun falls off by the inverse square law and the gas giants are much further away from the sun than our moon is.
 
craig66 said:
John KM/linhof said:
Beautiful. Handheld? Not! A very heavy tripod for star gazing?

So, was Saturn really there? What was composite about the photo?
Click to expand...
Among other things, exposure for the gas giants and even more so for the moons of Jupiter needs to be higher than for the moon. Exposing for the moons of Jupiter would blow out the moon very badly. Composite is the only option.

The reason is very simple. Light from the sun falls off by the inverse square law and the gas giants are much further away from the sun than our moon is.
Click to expand...
Oldest surviving capture ever...

Loading…

lightsinthedark.com

-Martin P

www.flickr.com

Martin Passchier

Explore Martin Passchier’s 973 photos on Flickr!
www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
 
It must be a negative image because the crescent is dark and everything else is light. I had to laugh because one reply said the moon is hard to photograph even with a DSLR. Actually it's pretty easy using a formula I learned from a photography magazine back in the 70's. It requires using manual mode, focusing to infinity and setting the camera at 1/ISO shutter speed and f8. It gives perfect results every time.



6820977d808943bba2768c73d3c3f231.jpg



--
Tom
 
tbcass said:
Actually it's pretty easy using a formula I learned from a photography magazine back in the 70's. It requires using manual mode, focusing to infinity and setting the camera at 1/ISO shutter speed and f8. It gives perfect results every time.

6820977d808943bba2768c73d3c3f231.jpg
Click to expand...
That's what I call "moony-16" for a full moon over head with a cold clear sky use f16. 3/4 moon and lower in the sky will need f8 or f11. When I photographed the eclipse I would increase the exposure by 1 stop every 20 minutes or so. Will have to try the camera obscurer if I can figure out how to point it up easily, it's quite large.

--
Linhofbiker
 
Since the brightness of the moon surface is constant my formula works at any phase.
 
tbcass said:
Since the brightness of the moon surface is constant my formula works at any phase.
Click to expand...
True, but what about the layers of atmosphere/polution difference between high overhead and a moon that is rising above the land or ocean?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top