Lunar Eclipse PICS with the EOS Ra, EOS R6 & EOS M6

EOS R6 + EF 24mmL II lens - Super Moon after sunset. With 3 hours to go before the Eclipse..
Australia had a Total Lunar Eclipse (Blood Moon) this week and I remember the last one being washed out with rain and cloud... and the one before that was mired in the same weather as well. Usually we get just a 'partial' eclipse, not a 'total' eclipse, so it was great to see clear skies and an event that took place in the early evening instead of the early morning.  The main totality of the Eclipse occurred at about 9.11pm local time.
.
I took the EOS Ra with me as I had anticipated that the Milky Way would become visible when the moon dimmed. The moon was also due to be nestled in a colorful area of the Milky Way known as the Ophiuchus Complex, which features a range of colorful stars. The Stellarium computer app showed me what to expect when I started planning last year. There's a few images below showing the progression of the view. For added stability, I used a Celestron CGX to stabilize the camera against any possible strong wind
.

EOS R6 + EF 24mm f/1.4L II lens - waiting with others for the eclipse to occur.

EOS M6 (left) + EF 100-400mmL II lens and the EOS Ra (right) on a CGX EQ Mount for stability.  Image taken with the Canon EOS R6 + EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM lens.

EOS M6 + EF 100-400mL II lens + EF 2x III Extender

EOS M6 + EF 100-400mL II lens + EF 2x III Extender

EOS M6 + EF 100-400mL II lens + EF 2x III Extender

EOS M6 + EF 100-400mL II lens + EF 2x III Extender - 'Blood Moon' taking effect.

EOS R6 + EF 24mm f/1.4L USM lens. (not a composite)

.
The last few images (below) are from the EOS Ra. Since the sensor is modified for Astrophotography, it sometimes over-saturates reds and crimson hues and it also tends to produce both bloom and flares when bright light sources are in the frame. The Totality of the Eclipse only lasted a little over ten minutes but the brightness of the moon varied quite a bit during the entire time ...and I was running three cameras while trying to keep an eye my equipment with dozens of strangers with kids around me. The last image looks surreal and almost appears to be a composite - but it's a 5-second JPEG exposure shot at f/1.4 with ISO 5000. I did have to edit the colors, saturation, hue, levels and curves to bring out the colors and details captured by the camera. Can post a copy of the unedited 'washed out' JPEG if anyone's interested. I like that last image although it still looks a little searing with that splash of crimson. I tried cloning it out but it looked far worse. De-saturation of the flare didn't work either. I guess I'll just live with it.
.
If I get to shoot another eclipse, I'll aim for including a cityscape or a landscape to make it more interesting.
.

EOS Ra + RF 85mmL lens - (1/6 second exposure)

EOS Ra + RF 85mmL lens - (1/125 second exposure)

EOS Ra + RF 85mmL lens - (5 second exposure - not a composite)

Wow, that last image. Thank you for sharing.

Marco, I have to say, you've absolutely nailed the art of milky way post processing. I absolutely love all of the MW pictures you've posted in the last years or so. Especially since you're using jpgs as a base.

I would be very interested in seeing the flat SOOC jpg you've mentioned!

MasterWayne wrote:

Marco, I have to say, you've absolutely nailed the art of milky way post processing. I absolutely love all of the MW pictures you've posted in the last years or so. Especially since you're using jpgs as a base.

I would be very interested in seeing the flat SOOC jpg you've mentioned!

Here you go!  Note that all the colors I've extracted are embedded in this JPEG - without a need to add anything.  There's a bit of light falloff at the edges that and I left the slight orange-yellow flare in place over Antares (the yellow star).  I used both slider controls in Photoshop and Lightroom with both a mouse and a pen. I probably could have cloned that flare over Antares right out without any trouble.  One of the techniques I use to squeeze out some contrast and saturation is to duplicate the original layer and then transform that duplicate to an "overlay" before fading it back.  Duplicating this process more than once will have a dramatic effect on the contrast and highlights.  'Auto-color' sometimes works but adjusting the Color Balance manually helps me remove any of the warmer hues from the background, changing the overall hue from yellow to blue. Individual stars can get their colors enhanced with the Saturation wand although it's very easy to go overboard (which I've done before).  Usually Antares generates a flare when shooting with a wide aperture with the EOS Ra and I tend to digitally correct this - but not this time since it wasn't too strong.   I did try cloning out the red glare around the moon but it just looked even more peculiar and artificial, hence I left it in.
.

The "processed" JPEG posted earlier - Very slightly cropped at the edges

The original JPEG without edits.  Note the slight secondary flare reflection in the lower right region.

.
Note that the moon (and the city of Sydney below frame) were producing so much light that the image was somewhat washed out.  Below is an example from last year when I took three simple JPEGs using a regular tripod.  You might be interested in that image too because it shows the three panels (JPEGS) without any edits to them.  Those colors in the Ophiuchus Complex (on the right) are quite clear.  With an unmodified camera, the blue hues around Ophiuchus Rho simply never seem to come out much.  I don't consider the "final" edited image to he suitably edited but these were just quick tests to see what the camera could capture.  When I figure out how to get better polar alignment with my motorized mount, I'll try stopping down the lenses used and will double my exposure times from 5 seconds to 10 or 15 seconds (unguided).  This should greatly improve detail and may allow me to stack images someday.  Might need a new computer setup for this though.
.

3 unedited JPEGs prior to merging into a Panorama via the Photoshop [automate - "photomerge"] feature - showing the amount of color and detail captured without a moon in the sky.

Same image after a really basic color, contrast, hue, levels, saturation edit. I'd have altered the overall hue of this image if I was re-editing this today.

An image shown just after capture - taken with the EOS Ra + EF 50mm f/1.2L USM lens from a Rural sky location with a 10 second exposure - This older EF lens tends to produce a lot of purple fringing around the stars, something I'd like to try with the RF 50mmL lens some day.  But you can see how much color and what levels of detail were captured in this one JPEG.

.
In the past and when using regular, non modified cameras, I've found some faint nebulous colors (eg Bernard's Loop) simply didn't show up at all.  But from the very first images i took with the EOS Ra, I was quite surprised at how much color and detail was captured.  It looks crisp on the LCD during playback but after downloading seems a little more washed out.  There's definitely a tendency to throw strong flares when bright light-sources are in frame ... but this can often be edited out without too much grief.  And dropping the aperture down seems to have a strong impact on these flares when they occur.
.
I think it was noticed by reviewers around 2018 that Canon's image processors were embedding more data for Dynamic Range into the JPEGs than previously observed.  Newer cameras like the R5 and R6 have the new 10-Bit HEIF files available but I'd prefer to get a new computer & suitable monitor before I start dealing with those.  So far I'm not capturing images that I expect to print but I will likely shoot RAW in the near future for some of my Astro.
--
Regards,
Marco Nero.

Dude, your 8th photo is CHAMP!!! Everything else is of course very good!

And I thought the EF24mm 1.4L isn't for astro?

Thank you Marco for your response and detailed explanation!
The detail you get from the night sky while being right next to Sydney is still quite remarkable, imho.
Shot nr. 8,which is my favorite from this series, no way looks like shot right next to a big city.. Or at least not when processed by me
Regards,
Wayne

MasterWayne wrote:

Thank you Marco for your response and detailed explanation!
The detail you get from the night sky while being right next to Sydney is still quite remarkable, imho.
Shot nr. 8,which is my favorite from this series, no way looks like shot right next to a big city.. Or at least not when processed by me
Regards,
Wayne

If that moon (and Sydney) hadn't been contributing to the light pollution at the time, I'd likely have caught something a little more vibrant with more detail.  I think the cold air may have helped (colder weather seems to keep the pollution particles down reduces sensor heating/noise) and I was VERY glad that the clouds that arrived just before the Eclipse commenced, suddenly disappeared completely.  The shots that other people took with their own cameras, some of them very inexpensive rigs, looked identical to mine when they showed them to me on the LCD screen of their cameras.  Everyone else seemed to capture that shot in Portrait Mode (vertical) and I regret not taking several shots to stitch together to show Sydney below it in the same frame.  I think I missed an opportunity there. 
.

Taken just before the Eclipse began last week, the sky was filled with clouds... which dissipated completely within minutes.

.
A few people who came to watch the Eclipse seemed surprised I had driven "all the way from the suburbs" to get to the lookout.  But the drive is a little over an hour to reach this location so it's not too bad.  My preferred spot is in the National Park about 45minutes deeper into the mountains and darker and quieter... however, it's also VERY windy because it's an exposed location on a ridge, and phone reception is sketchy there.
.
It's rather surprising how much difference a drive to the country or up to the mountains can make with imaging.  It's so tempting to just take a few pictures from the front porch at home in the suburbs that to take a drive to a darker location where the skies are clear.
.

Taken in 2013, this is a picture taken about 200m away on the same road at the same elevation, and you can see how Sydney's light pollution creates a halo of light over the city and suburbs.

A tighter view of the same, but with Tungsten WB - The light pollution is unmistakable here.

Not the best image, but this is the same lookout - and you can see a layer of smog in the distance, which is surprising since Sydney is a relatively clean-air locations.  But being above this layer of particles means I get some clearer views of the night sky from this higher elevation.
--
Regards,
Marco Nero.

Larawanista wrote:

Dude, your 8th photo is CHAMP!!! Everything else is of course very good!

And I thought the EF24mm 1.4L isn't for astro?

I shot at f/2 (to eliminate some of the coma) with an 8 second exposure using ISO 2500.  The EF 24mm f/1.4L II was recommended to me by Canon for photographing the night sky, especially with Auroras.  I have not yet had the chance to test that out yet. But I suspect this lens will eventually be superseded with an obscenely expensive RF version before long.
.
The really strange thing about this lens is that it Vignettes quite stongly on the EOS Ra but not the EOS R6.  The EOS Ra is simply an EOS R with two modifications.  The vignetting on that camera makes no sense to me, and it's quite disappointing.  It can't be corrected and simply must be cropped.  Or another lens used instead.  Canon have not been able to explain why this happens and seem to think it might be "caused by the use of a lens adapter".  Yet the R6 uses the same adapter and lens with no vignette.  It's a bit puzzling to me.
.

EOS Ra with the same lens (unedited) showing hard vignetting, even without a filter or a lens hood on the lens.  Quite a mystery.

Marco Nero wrote:

Larawanista wrote:

Dude, your 8th photo is CHAMP!!! Everything else is of course very good!

And I thought the EF24mm 1.4L isn't for astro?

I shot at f/2 (to eliminate some of the coma) with an 8 second exposure using ISO 2500. The EF 24mm f/1.4L II was recommended to me by Canon for photographing the night sky, especially with Auroras. I have not yet had the chance to test that out yet. But I suspect this lens will eventually be superseded with an obscenely expensive RF version before long.
.
The really strange thing about this lens is that it Vignettes quite stongly on the EOS Ra but not the EOS R6. The EOS Ra is simply an EOS R with two modifications. The vignetting on that camera makes no sense to me, and it's quite disappointing. It can't be corrected and simply must be cropped. Or another lens used instead. Canon have not been able to explain why this happens and seem to think it might be "caused by the use of a lens adapter". Yet the R6 uses the same adapter and lens with no vignette. It's a bit puzzling to me.
.

EOS Ra with the same lens (unedited) showing hard vignetting, even without a filter or a lens hood on the lens. Quite a mystery.

That's nasty vignette indeed. Thank you for this feedback, I have a shot at an affordable pre-owned EF24mm 1.4L VII and this is helpful.

Dear Marco,

I'm asking for your permission to hang this photo on my wall.

Thank you

WOW! Awesome job!!  Those photos are wonderful!  I wish I could get shots so good.  Thanks a ton for sharing them.

Marco Nero wrote:

Larawanista wrote:

Dude, your 8th photo is CHAMP!!! Everything else is of course very good!

And I thought the EF24mm 1.4L isn't for astro?

I shot at f/2 (to eliminate some of the coma) with an 8 second exposure using ISO 2500. The EF 24mm f/1.4L II was recommended to me by Canon for photographing the night sky, especially with Auroras. I have not yet had the chance to test that out yet. But I suspect this lens will eventually be superseded with an obscenely expensive RF version before long.
.
The really strange thing about this lens is that it Vignettes quite stongly on the EOS Ra but not the EOS R6. The EOS Ra is simply an EOS R with two modifications. The vignetting on that camera makes no sense to me, and it's quite disappointing. It can't be corrected and simply must be cropped. Or another lens used instead. Canon have not been able to explain why this happens and seem to think it might be "caused by the use of a lens adapter". Yet the R6 uses the same adapter and lens with no vignette. It's a bit puzzling to me.
.

EOS Ra with the same lens (unedited) showing hard vignetting, even without a filter or a lens hood on the lens. Quite a mystery.

Looks like Distortion Correction is turned off. If it was vignetting there would still be something in the corners, but rather than just dim it's absolutely black. If one camera had distortion correction on and the other off this is what you'd get. As noted in the R manual on page 111 the image is cropped when Distortion Correction is enabled.

So happy to hear you had clear skies --- I know you've had a lot of bad luck lately!

Brilliant photos - an absolute treat. Thanks so much for posting your results!

Here in FL total eclipse started 45 min after Moonset, unfortunately. However it was an opportunity to get some pretty shots of a partially eclipsed Moon setting over the Gulf of Mexico. I posted a few pics over in the Astrophotography Talk forum.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65180528

Larawanista wrote:

Marco Nero wrote:

Larawanista wrote:

Dude, your 8th photo is CHAMP!!! Everything else is of course very good!

And I thought the EF24mm 1.4L isn't for astro?

I shot at f/2 (to eliminate some of the coma) with an 8 second exposure using ISO 2500. The EF 24mm f/1.4L II was recommended to me by Canon for photographing the night sky, especially with Auroras. I have not yet had the chance to test that out yet. But I suspect this lens will eventually be superseded with an obscenely expensive RF version before long.
.
The really strange thing about this lens is that it Vignettes quite stongly on the EOS Ra but not the EOS R6. The EOS Ra is simply an EOS R with two modifications. The vignetting on that camera makes no sense to me, and it's quite disappointing. It can't be corrected and simply must be cropped. Or another lens used instead. Canon have not been able to explain why this happens and seem to think it might be "caused by the use of a lens adapter". Yet the R6 uses the same adapter and lens with no vignette. It's a bit puzzling to me.
.

EOS Ra with the same lens (unedited) showing hard vignetting, even without a filter or a lens hood on the lens. Quite a mystery.

That's nasty vignette indeed. Thank you for this feedback, I have a shot at an affordable pre-owned EF24mm 1.4L VII and this is helpful.

If you don't mind cropping out the vignetting (WITH THE EOS Ra), it's fine on that camera. The interesting thing is that the same hard-vignetting doesn't occur with any of my other cameras.

.
Don't be put off my my experiences with the EOS Ra camera with this lens.  The vignette can be trimmed from shots with the EOS Ra but it doesn't show on any of my other cameras at all, including the EOS R6.  Some samples below from the EOS R6 with this lens, including a Milky Way shot.
.
As is typical with this lens, Coma exists when shooting wide open but disappears when stopped down.  This is not really an issue for anything other than Astro at f/1.4.  With non-astro subjects, the aspect of Coma relates to Lens Character and even the bokeh produced by this lens.  Most wide lenses tend to produce some light falloff (soft vignetting) in the corners and the same applies to this lens.  I tend to shoot in JPEG so the images are pretty darned clean, straight out of the camera - and any corner shading is automatically corrected by the camera.
.
If you have access to a good copy of this lens (ie one that hasn't been abused), it's considered one of the best lenses Canon has made for professional journalists. Product photographers and automotive photographers also like this lens.

.

EF 24mm f/1.4L II - on the EOS R6

EOS R6 + EF 24mmL II lens

EOS R6 + EF 24mmL II lens

EOS R6 + EF 24mmL II lens

EOS R6 + EF 24mmL II lens

EOS R6 + EF 24mmL II lens

Thomas A Anderson wrote:

Marco Nero wrote:

Larawanista wrote:

Dude, your 8th photo is CHAMP!!! Everything else is of course very good!

And I thought the EF24mm 1.4L isn't for astro?

I shot at f/2 (to eliminate some of the coma) with an 8 second exposure using ISO 2500. The EF 24mm f/1.4L II was recommended to me by Canon for photographing the night sky, especially with Auroras. I have not yet had the chance to test that out yet. But I suspect this lens will eventually be superseded with an obscenely expensive RF version before long.
.
The really strange thing about this lens is that it Vignettes quite stongly on the EOS Ra but not the EOS R6. The EOS Ra is simply an EOS R with two modifications. The vignetting on that camera makes no sense to me, and it's quite disappointing. It can't be corrected and simply must be cropped. Or another lens used instead. Canon have not been able to explain why this happens and seem to think it might be "caused by the use of a lens adapter". Yet the R6 uses the same adapter and lens with no vignette. It's a bit puzzling to me.
.

EOS Ra with the same lens (unedited) showing hard vignetting, even without a filter or a lens hood on the lens. Quite a mystery.

Looks like Distortion Correction is turned off. If it was vignetting there would still be something in the corners, but rather than just dim it's absolutely black. If one camera had distortion correction on and the other off this is what you'd get. As noted in the R manual on page 111 the image is cropped when Distortion Correction is enabled.

I just checked.  Here's my settings for the EOS Ra with the EF 24mmL lens (which is recognized by the camera):
___________________________
Peripheral Illumination Correction = ON
Distortion Correction = OFF
Digital Lens Optimizer = ON
.
This isn't Light Falloff (soft vignetting), this is Hard Vignetting.  And Canon's wasn't able to explain why it's happening with just this camera.  I note that some models of the EOS 5D (3?) would also vignette harder with this lens than the EOS 6D did.  Since the EOS Ra is simply an EOS R with two differences (30x magnification + Modified Sensor), the menu is the same.  We ran some threads of this a while ago (last year) and nobody was able to determine the cause of the Hard Vignette with this camera+ lens combo.
.
I'll be sure to test the camera with the Distortion Correction ON.  Whilst this will crop the image slighty (however much "slightly" is), hopefully it will render this lens more useful on the Ra - in the sense that I can crop in-camera.  Though cropping at home makes a lot more sense since I'll have more control.

gianstam wrote:

Dear Marco,

I'm asking for your permission to hang this photo on my wall.

Thank you

I have no objection.  Nice edit, btw.

The black area outside of an image circle isn't attributed to vignetting.  The EF 24 f/1.4L II was designed for digital bodies that have distortion correction, which means that like most wide angle lenses, very similar to those on fixed lens cameras, it is designed to actually not fully cover the sensor in the corner but instead relying on correction to crop and then correct the extreme distortion around the edges.

So like the G1X and G7 X, if you go find a viewer that will show the uncorrected RAW file you'll see black corners on the wide angle end.  MOST modern digital wide angle lenses are designed with image circles that don't fully cover the sensor.

Marco Nero wrote:

Thomas A Anderson wrote:

Marco Nero wrote:

Larawanista wrote:

Dude, your 8th photo is CHAMP!!! Everything else is of course very good!

And I thought the EF24mm 1.4L isn't for astro?

I shot at f/2 (to eliminate some of the coma) with an 8 second exposure using ISO 2500. The EF 24mm f/1.4L II was recommended to me by Canon for photographing the night sky, especially with Auroras. I have not yet had the chance to test that out yet. But I suspect this lens will eventually be superseded with an obscenely expensive RF version before long.
.
The really strange thing about this lens is that it Vignettes quite stongly on the EOS Ra but not the EOS R6. The EOS Ra is simply an EOS R with two modifications. The vignetting on that camera makes no sense to me, and it's quite disappointing. It can't be corrected and simply must be cropped. Or another lens used instead. Canon have not been able to explain why this happens and seem to think it might be "caused by the use of a lens adapter". Yet the R6 uses the same adapter and lens with no vignette. It's a bit puzzling to me.
.

EOS Ra with the same lens (unedited) showing hard vignetting, even without a filter or a lens hood on the lens. Quite a mystery.

Looks like Distortion Correction is turned off. If it was vignetting there would still be something in the corners, but rather than just dim it's absolutely black. If one camera had distortion correction on and the other off this is what you'd get. As noted in the R manual on page 111 the image is cropped when Distortion Correction is enabled.

I just checked. Here's my settings for the EOS Ra with the EF 24mmL lens (which is recognized by the camera):
___________________________
Peripheral Illumination Correction = ON
Distortion Correction = OFF
Digital Lens Optimizer = ON
.
This isn't Light Falloff (soft vignetting), this is Hard Vignetting. And Canon's wasn't able to explain why it's happening with just this camera. I note that some models of the EOS 5D (3?) would also vignette harder with this lens than the EOS 6D did. Since the EOS Ra is simply an EOS R with two differences (30x magnification + Modified Sensor), the menu is the same. We ran some threads of this a while ago (last year) and nobody was able to determine the cause of the Hard Vignette with this camera+ lens combo.
.
I'll be sure to test the camera with the Distortion Correction ON. Whilst this will crop the image slighty (however much "slightly" is), hopefully it will render this lens more useful on the Ra - in the sense that I can crop in-camera. Though cropping at home makes a lot more sense since I'll have more control.

My assumption (as stated in another response) is that it's not just cropping but also doing some correction around the edges. I kind of wonder if some cameras keep Distortion Correction switched on by default, but maybe you switched yours off upon initial setup? I typically turn off corrections when I'm setting up the camera.....although now that I'm thinking about it if DC was set to on I'm not sure I would have turned it off. Now I'm going to have to go check on that. Anyway, the first thing I thought when I looked at the image was stacked filters or a generic hood that was too long, but since that's not the case the next thing I thought was "that looks like an uncorrected image from a point and shoot with a wide angle zoom."

Vignetting to me implies there's still some light in the corners of an image.  It may be strong or weak, but light falloff in the corners implies there is still some of the image circle in the corners, just dimmer than the center of the image. If there's no light any more it's just outside the image circle, not a dim perimeter of an image circle that only appears to be "in the corners" because rectangular sensors crop a round image projection.

I think this is why it would be hard to diagnose such a problem.  Most people when they see an EF lens would never assume that the image circle doesn't cover the entire imaging frame.  However, EF lenses designed in the last ten or so years certainly catered to digital bodies in so many obvious ways (AF accuracy and controlling where the plane of focus is in the DoF, AF speed, and even RF lenses have a lot of improvements over EF counterparts while having darker corners that relies on in-camera correction).  So I find it plausible that more modern EF lenses actively rely on correction for digital shooting.