Lunar eclipse - how did different cameras go

[John Cozijn]

I must admit that I found it much more challenging than I expected once the total eclipse began. As a first step I had to remove my teleconverter, since I just couldn't afford the two stops.

Anyhow, this pic was taken with an e500, iso200, f/5.6 @ 2s, using an OMZ 300mm - within a minute or so of totality (ie minimum light). Shot in RAW but no real pp applied except to the mandatory levels adjustment. No noise reduction software or other fancy stuff.



Would be interested to know how the e1's and e510's coped.

John

 

[John Cozijn]

Still interested in how the Kodak CCDs performed vs the nMOS. My suspicion is that the CCDs are more forgiving with such radical low light. Anyway, this is at the end of total eclipse, and at the point that DR starts to become a serious problem.

All the same as before, except now at 0.5s (enough light to hold down motion blur).



And by the way looking at the main Moon group on flickr (5000 members), everybody seems to have a lot of trouble, regardless of camera (though there are a large number of horrible photoshop jobs trying to make something out of nothing).

I would also be interested to see what our specialist astrophotographers made of it, and what advice they have to offer.

Cheers, John

 

[pamastro]

I was up bright and early for the eclipse as well. It really was more difficult than I imagined. I had kind of an idea of what to do until totality but then it was all new for me. And all I had to work with was the 40-150.

Here I didn't see the end of the eclipse. I was fighting the rising sun. Luckily Detroit is way too far west to be truly in the eastern time zone so that afforded me some extra time as opposed to people on the east coast. But by 620 the sunlight had completely washed out any sight of the moon. Even a 30 second exposure couldn't reveal it. And shortly after that it would have dipped below the tree and house line anyway.

I look forward to seeing what others got as well.



f4.5 1/400 iso100



f4.5 1/500 iso100



f4.5 1/640 iso100



f4.5 1/500 iso100



f4.5 1/100 iso100



f4.5 1/25 iso100



f4.5 2.5 sec iso100



f4.5 1.6 sec iso100



f4.5 4 sec iso100



f4.5 4 sec iso100

--
Paul

 

[pamastro]

Nice job getting that rusty redness John. How was manual focusing? I gave it a shot at one point but with only 300mm and the ability to use autofocus I decided it did a pretty good job.
--
Paul

 

[John Cozijn]

And not easy with such a relatively short focal length. Well done!

From what I can tell, everyone was having a pretty hard time of it, and printable shots at any reasonable size are pretty far and few between. I think it took us all by surprise how difficult this would be at totality.

(The manual focus, btw, was not a big problem since I've done a couple of hundred Moon shots over the past year, I kinda know where the sweet spot is for focus on my (lovely) legacy lens.)

For me, this was a real event in the natural world that is a source of wonder. At one point I had a couple of people standing aroung me, who were reporting that masses of people downtown (walking distance away) were standing in the streets transfixed by what was happening in the sky.

So it's one of the few occasions that colour fidelity is important, so people can look at the print and say: "Yes, that's what it was like."

Cheers, John

ps which camera?

 

[Raist3d]

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=24574455

You are right, things are more challenging once the whole thing start. First there's the issue of hyper-contrast- the moon is clearly burning one side and very little light on the other. The other issue is once it's all dark, that when you hit those slow shutter speeds, the moon just moves too fast! You start getting blur.

--
Raist3d
Photography Student & Tools/Systems/Gui Vid Games Programmer
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) at the 1990 interview
'Photographers — idiots, of which there are so
many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a
Leica, I could make great photographs.” That’s the
dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s nothing
but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and
interest. That’s what makes a good photograph. And
then rejecting anything that would be bad for the picture.
As I say, the wrong light, the wrong
background, time and so on. Just don’t do it,
not matter how beautiful the subject is.'

 

[trisweb]

Since you seem to be prejudiced toward nMOS cameras I thought I'd post some of mine for comparison.

Just the kit (new) 40-150, sadly













I do not believe it had an inherent disadvantage in "radical low light", in fact, two of these were ISO200, can you tell without looking at EXIF? The noise filter is turned off, too. I can see lots of noise in your two posted shots, though not bad.

The light capturing between them is hard to differentiate, they look about the same to me. It's going to be hard-to-impossible for any camera to capture those two extremes in one frame though, and I don't think either of us did too bad

 

[John Cozijn]

But what I am specifically interested in here is how different sensor/lens combinations have performed, and how people utilized them. Given we all went "whoops" when the lights went out (so to speak), it is how the issue was dealt with technically that interests me - and is the reason for this thread.

cheers, john

 

[John Cozijn]

(and I'm kicking myself for not doing a "context shot" as you did so nicely, even though I brought along a lens specifically for that purpose - damn!)

Since you seem to be prejudiced toward nMOS cameras I thought I'd
post some of mine for comparison.

I would be intrigued to know what PP you did on shots 2 and 3 in particular (I ask because though I can get something similar, it is only by layering multiple exposures).

[edit: specifically, I suspect that shot 2 had a rather nasty magenta/purple fringe which you have removed, leaving the halo effect. But I may be wrong.]

Cheers, John

 

[trisweb]

I certainly didn't mean to sound accusatory, sorry about that. I'm interested as well especially being not entirely convinced with my new camera and all its capabilities. I like it so far though

To answer your question, these are all out-of-camera JPEGs, only cropped. No other photoshopping whatsoever, not even levels adjustment.

That should be revealing both about the sensor and the excellent characteristics of the new kit telephoto, which I like very much. CA is very well controlled.

Ah, I just remembered that I removed the Hoya HMC UV filter from the lens after I noticed some ghosting. I guess that's to be expected with that kind of contrast, but it's easy enough to just take the offending glass out of the equation

 

[Jay Turberville]

I got up right as the full eclipse began and did not get a chance to establish good foc us - which was the plan. As it was, I had difficulty getting good focus. My best results came from using my C7070 afocally coupled to a 1000mm f/10 Rubinar mirror lens shooting at ISO 80. Not great results though. I'll post them later tonight.

I think optics tend to matter more with these kinds of shots than anything else. The best shots will be taken with the best optics and or tracking systems.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

 

[John Cozijn]

To answer your question, these are all out-of-camera JPEGs, only
cropped. No other photoshopping whatsoever, not even levels
adjustment.

and stand up very well against a lot of pics I've seen that have had a lot more glass thrown into action, and much more expensive cameras. Well done

Regards, John

 

[John Cozijn]

I think optics tend to matter more with these kinds of shots than
anything else. The best shots will be taken with the best optics and
or tracking systems.

I think tracking is the key. Certainly the best images I've seen have had exposures in the order of 20-30s with cameras attached to scopes with tracking devices, ie at least 10 stops beyond what one can do on a tripod.

Without that however virtually no glass is both long and fast enough to deal with the very low light of totality (although I sure could have done with the extra 2 stops from the ZD 300mm). So then the noise-handling characteristics of the sensor start to play a bigger role, I reckon.

Anyway, another image from about 20 minutes after the total eclipse finished:



Cheers, John

 

[Raist3d]

I got up right as the full eclipse began and did not get a chance to
establish good foc us - which was the plan. As it was, I had
difficulty getting good focus. My best results came from using my
C7070 afocally coupled to a 1000mm f/10 Rubinar mirror lens shooting
at ISO 80. Not great results though. I'll post them later tonight.

I honestly don't know how good a shot like that could be taken at ISO 80 and F/10 given the long shutter speed you need for it, - unless you were tracking the moon somehow with some special tripod/device.

I think optics tend to matter more with these kinds of shots than
anything else. The best shots will be taken with the best optics and
or tracking systems.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

--
Raist3d
Photography Student & Tools/Systems/Gui Vid Games Programmer
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) at the 1990 interview
'Photographers — idiots, of which there are so
many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a
Leica, I could make great photographs.” That’s the
dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s nothing
but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and
interest. That’s what makes a good photograph. And
then rejecting anything that would be bad for the picture.
As I say, the wrong light, the wrong
background, time and so on. Just don’t do it,
not matter how beautiful the subject is.'

 

[Charlene_S]

I went to bed last night at 22:30 and had my daughter wake me up at 0130 so I could try and shoot the eclipse. I have been up ever since (had to work)I used my E-500 and 40-150 kit lens. While doing research on the NASA site for what time the eclipse would occur in my area, I found a link to web site of a photographer who is pretty experienced in photographing lunar eclipses. The site is:
http://www.mreclipse.com

Here are a few of my images. I followed Mr. Eclipses advice. I turned on the NR once the moon started to get dark. I also used the mirror lock. Can't tell on some of the shots if I have hot pixels or stars. You can help me decide. The images have very little pp. I zoomed in on the moon then cropped the image.



Focal length: 150.0mm
Exposure time: 0.0080 s (1/125)
Aperture: f/8.0
ISO equiv.: 100
Whitebalance: Auto
Metering Mode: spot
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Auto bracketing
Jpeg process: Progressive



Focal length: 150.0mm
Exposure time: 0.025 s (1/40)
Aperture: f/8.0
ISO equiv.: 100
Whitebalance: Auto
Metering Mode: spot
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Auto bracketing
Jpeg process: Progressive



Focal length: 150.0mm
Exposure time: 2.500 s
Aperture: f/4.5
ISO equiv.: 100
Whitebalance: Auto
Metering Mode: spot
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Auto bracketing
Jpeg process: Progressive



Focal length: 150.0mm
Exposure time: 2.000 s
Aperture: f/4.5
ISO equiv.: 100
Whitebalance: Auto
Metering Mode: spot
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Auto bracketing
Jpeg process: Progressive



Focal length: 150.0mm
Exposure time: 0.013 s (1/80)
Aperture: f/8.0
ISO equiv.: 100
Whitebalance: Auto
Metering Mode: spot
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Auto bracketing
Jpeg process: Progressive



Focal length: 150.0mm
Exposure time: 0.0080 s (1/125)
Aperture: f/7.1
ISO equiv.: 100
Whitebalance: Auto
Metering Mode: spot
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Auto bracketing
Jpeg process: Progressive

--
Charlene Ahrens

 

[brucemc66]

Was trying out the 330 , and using B mode live view. NR on .

Ok I realise that I was using way too long exposures , but the results were horrid, banding and noise everywhere at iso 100, with as I said NR on.
The live view must have really heated up the sensor.

 

[Guy Parsons]

Can't tell on some of the shots if I have hot pixels or stars.

I found that with anything over about 1/2 second exposure, motion blur started in. So in the dark phase shots, if the "star" is clear and sharp it is a pixel, if it is faint and streaked a bit then it is a star or a planet. At 2 seconds the movement streak was really obvious for me.

Do pixel mapping and then try another 4 second lens cap on or night sky shot to see what happens. Did you have the dark frame subtraction noise reduction turned on?

I used a Nikon 180/2.8 at f/5.6 or f/2.8 (that's the lens ring setting) together with a Tamron Pro 2x teleconverter on my E-300.

All-in-all a nice experiment and may make me get out and do some stock bright moon shots, plus landscape shots via bright moonlight. If and when I'm around for the next eclipse I may try again but should have better glass by then I hope, and a better camera body.

Plus of course it was really convenient here in Oz, it started at about 10 minutes before 8pm. We saw a few camera flashes go off in the street, so I guess some hopefuls were using pocket cameras.

Regards................ Guy

 

[John Merrill]

This series is great! Nicely exposed. Were you spot metering, or trial/error, or what?
--
John

 

[Jay Turberville]

I think tracking is the key. Certainly the best images I've seen have
had exposures in the order of 20-30s with cameras attached to scopes
with tracking devices, ie at least 10 stops beyond what one can do on
a tripod.

Sure. But once you track well, then aperture size becomes your limiting factor of detail.

Without that however virtually no glass is both long and fast enough
to deal with the very low light of totality (although I sure could
have done with the extra 2 stops from the ZD 300mm).

F/2.8 at 300mm would have been good.

So then the
noise-handling characteristics of the sensor start to play a bigger
role, I reckon.

Sure. The noise floor of the sensor matters more than what we would normally think of as simply the high ISO performance. But there aren't really many dramatic differences there.

Anyway, another image from about 20 minutes after the total eclipse
finished:

Yeah. I'll head home now and see about getting my best image posted.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

 

[Jay Turberville]

I got up right as the full eclipse began and did not get a chance to
establish good foc us - which was the plan. As it was, I had
difficulty getting good focus. My best results came from using my
C7070 afocally coupled to a 1000mm f/10 Rubinar mirror lens shooting
at ISO 80. Not great results though. I'll post them later tonight.

I honestly don't know how good a shot like that could be taken at ISO
80 and F/10 given the long shutter speed you need for it, - unless
you were tracking the moon somehow with some special tripod/device.

I understand your concern. But just because the 1000mm lens is f/10 doesn't mean that was my effective aperture. The effective aperture was probably somewhere between f/4 and f/6. I'll have to check where I actually shot.

Here's a quick overview of how it works. The eyepiece I use has a 32mm focal length. If I shoot with the camera at 13mm (where vignetting becomes an issue) I have a 2.5x reduction factor. So my actual focal length becomes about 400mm (1000mm / 2.5) and my aperture becomes f/4. But because my sensor is so small, my equivalent focal length is about 2000mm.

Furthermore, boosting the ISO doesn't really seem to help so shooting at ISO 80 isn't really the big negative. It doesn't add anything to the number of photons that get captured. I may as well shoot at ISO 80 and bring dig into the shadows of the raw file.

Anyway, I'll post some images later tonight.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com