The best moon pic you can take?

[SonicIce]

Should be a full moon now. The best picture I can take with my Canon A540 is this:
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/SonicIce/moonpic.png
I cropped it to remove massive black space .

 

[jpeyton]

Tips for moon pictures:

1) Longest quality lens you can afford
2) Tripod!
3) Use manual settings if your camera has them (low ISO, large aperture, manual focus)

 

[soydios]

mine
body: Nikon D50 at ISO200 at 1/125sec
lens: AF-S Nikkor 400mm f/2.8D with TC-20E at f/8 equivalent
Each axis is cropped by about 35%, with a resulting final resolution of 1904x1266. Do the math and you get a 1200mm equivalent focal length in full-frame format before digitally cropping. Sadly, the lens is not mine.

 

[xanis]

Originally posted by: soydios
mine
body: Nikon D50 at ISO200 at 1/125sec
lens: AF-S Nikkor 400mm f/2.8D with TC-20E at f/8 equivalent
Each axis is cropped by about 35%, with a resulting final resolution of 1904x1266. Do the math and you get a 1200mm equivalent focal length in full-frame format before digitally cropping. Sadly, the lens is not mine.

Dear God man... could you zoom in any more?

 

[SonicIce]

Originally posted by: soydios
mine
body: Nikon D50 at ISO200 at 1/125sec
lens: AF-S Nikkor 400mm f/2.8D with TC-20E at f/8 equivalent
Each axis is cropped by about 35%, with a resulting final resolution of 1904x1266. Do the math and you get a 1200mm equivalent focal length in full-frame format before digitally cropping. Sadly, the lens is not mine.

Whoa... How much did you zoom in? When was that taken? The moon is full tonight. Do you think you could make out some detail of other planets with that setup?

I don't think one really needs a tripod badly. A full moon is actually very bright.

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: SonicIce

Originally posted by: soydios
mine
body: Nikon D50 at ISO200 at 1/125sec
lens: AF-S Nikkor 400mm f/2.8D with TC-20E at f/8 equivalent
Each axis is cropped by about 35%, with a resulting final resolution of 1904x1266. Do the math and you get a 1200mm equivalent focal length in full-frame format before digitally cropping. Sadly, the lens is not mine.

Whoa... How much did you zoom in? When was that taken? The moon is full tonight. Do you think you could make out some detail of other planets with that setup?

As he mentions in the post you just quoted, he is zoomed in to 400mm using a 2X teleconverter, giving him a focal length of 800mm. Add in the 1.5X crop factor on Nikon DX format, 800 X 1.5 = 1200mm. Nice.

Originally posted by: SonicIce

I don't think one really needs a tripod badly. A full moon is actually very bright.

His lens alone, without the TC, weighs in at 10.2 lbs.

At such a long focal length, slow aperture and huge lens, the shake produced by hand holding wouldn't make for a sharp photo.

And I thought my 500mm (750mm w/crop factor) shot of the moon was close.

 

[stevf]

From an astronomy point of view the full moon is a little boring - it is best either waxing or waning as you can see a lot more detail at the shadow line - look how the mountains and craters on that line pop out as the high areas get sunlight.

I dont think that focal length will get you any detail on the other planets. Perhaps some details on venus or mars when they are as close as they can get but i doubt it. It probably will let you get jupiter's or saturn's moons as you can resolve those with good binoculars

 

[Anubis]

this was on a D70 with i think a crappy 70-300

http://rootminus1.com/photo/al...cs/normal_DSC_1769.jpg

 

[Fardringle]

I'm not sure why, but the focus at infinity tends to "creep" a bit on my Fuji S6000fd when I'm taking moon or star pictures so I haven't been able to get a sharp picture of the moon yet. It starts out focused but moves slightly out of focus while taking the picture so I always end up with a fuzzy halo around the moon, and some craters are visible but aren't sharp. It doesn't happen in brighter light even if I force long exposures so I think it has to do with the way the camera reacts to having so much black in the night sky shots. This is the best moon shot I've been able to get so far with my camera...

 

[QuixoticOne]

Yeah I was just about to mention problems with focusing to infinity as being a nuisance.
Short of the user adjusted white paint mark or glue + hard stop solutions, or buying a lens that has the infinity stop perfectly preadjusted, how do you all focus accurately at infinity on hard to see targets in the dark?

Of course you can set it at f/32 or whatever high stop you have and find a streetlight 1000 meters away or whatever within the same DOF area as infinity and call that focus "good enough", but that's not always easy / possible especially lacking a bright large terrestrial object or the desire to use a high F/stop.

I suppose it is easier if you have a split ring focus design and a significant viewfinder magnifier extension, but so few cameras have either these days.

These may interest you:
http://spaceweather.com/
http://www.inconstantmoon.com/
http://www.google.com/moon/
http://www.google.com/sky/
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/
http://webcam-astrophotography.com/
http://www.davesastro.co.uk/

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: stevf
From an astronomy point of view the full moon is a little boring - it is best either waxing or waning as you can see a lot more detail at the shadow line - look how the mountains and craters on that line pop out as the high areas get sunlight.

I dont think that focal length will get you any detail on the other planets. Perhaps some details on venus or mars when they are as close as they can get but i doubt it. It probably will let you get jupiter's or saturn's moons as you can resolve those with good binoculars

A focal length of between 1200mm and 1800mm would be perfect for moon photos, but wouldn't be only barely long enough to get slight detail out of planets. And you're absolutely right, a full moon is a boring moon, because there are no shadows to highlight the terrain features.

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: twistedlogic

Originally posted by: SonicIce

Originally posted by: soydios
mine
body: Nikon D50 at ISO200 at 1/125sec
lens: AF-S Nikkor 400mm f/2.8D with TC-20E at f/8 equivalent
Each axis is cropped by about 35%, with a resulting final resolution of 1904x1266. Do the math and you get a 1200mm equivalent focal length in full-frame format before digitally cropping. Sadly, the lens is not mine.

Whoa... How much did you zoom in? When was that taken? The moon is full tonight. Do you think you could make out some detail of other planets with that setup?

As he mentions in the post you just quoted, he is zoomed in to 400mm using a 2X teleconverter, giving him a focal length of 800mm. Add in the 1.5X crop factor on Nikon DX format, 800 X 1.5 = 1200mm. Nice.

Originally posted by: SonicIce

I don't think one really needs a tripod badly. A full moon is actually very bright.

His lens alone, without the TC, weighs in at 10.2 lbs.

At such a long focal length, slow aperture and huge lens, the shake produced by hand holding wouldn't make for a sharp photo.

And I thought my 500mm (750mm w/crop factor) shot of the moon was close.

Yep, the tripod is absolutely necessary. That shot was taken with a Manfrotto 486RC2 head mounted on a 190XPROB tripod. I used the 10-second self timer to let the vibrations settle down after I last touched the camera. The setup is ultra sensitive, simply tapping it makes the image bounce all over the viewfinder frame.

I used the same setup to take some attempts at the lunar eclipse a few months after my first moon shot. The moon was higher in the sky and thus the lens was at a more precarious angle, at the limit of what the 486RC2 head could hold. It's also very difficult to precisely adjust a ball head with such a huge weight on top of it, because as soon as you unlock the ball it just wants to tip over. I have since replaced the tripod and head with an 055XPROB tripod (taller) and a 488RC2 head (stronger, and with an additional panning release lock).

But I still don't own that 400mm f/2.8 lens.

 

[Nohr]

Here's the best I've gotten so far with my Panasonic LZ7 7.2MP P&S. Fear it's 6x optical zoom!
Moon in daylight (cropped)

I know, laughable compared to others in this thread. But it was only a $130 camera. Plus that was a handheld shot.

 

[bondboy]

Originally posted by: soydios

Originally posted by: twistedlogic

Originally posted by: SonicIce

Originally posted by: soydios
mine
body: Nikon D50 at ISO200 at 1/125sec
lens: AF-S Nikkor 400mm f/2.8D with TC-20E at f/8 equivalent
Each axis is cropped by about 35%, with a resulting final resolution of 1904x1266. Do the math and you get a 1200mm equivalent focal length in full-frame format before digitally cropping. Sadly, the lens is not mine.

Whoa... How much did you zoom in? When was that taken? The moon is full tonight. Do you think you could make out some detail of other planets with that setup?

As he mentions in the post you just quoted, he is zoomed in to 400mm using a 2X teleconverter, giving him a focal length of 800mm. Add in the 1.5X crop factor on Nikon DX format, 800 X 1.5 = 1200mm. Nice.

Originally posted by: SonicIce

I don't think one really needs a tripod badly. A full moon is actually very bright.

His lens alone, without the TC, weighs in at 10.2 lbs.

At such a long focal length, slow aperture and huge lens, the shake produced by hand holding wouldn't make for a sharp photo.

And I thought my 500mm (750mm w/crop factor) shot of the moon was close.

Yep, the tripod is absolutely necessary. That shot was taken with a Manfrotto 486RC2 head mounted on a 190XPROB tripod. I used the 10-second self timer to let the vibrations settle down after I last touched the camera. The setup is ultra sensitive, simply tapping it makes the image bounce all over the viewfinder frame.

I used the same setup to take some attempts at the lunar eclipse a few months after my first moon shot. The moon was higher in the sky and thus the lens was at a more precarious angle, at the limit of what the 486RC2 head could hold. It's also very difficult to precisely adjust a ball head with such a huge weight on top of it, because as soon as you unlock the ball it just wants to tip over. I have since replaced the tripod and head with an 055XPROB tripod (taller) and a 488RC2 head (stronger, and with an additional panning release lock).

But I still don't own that 400mm f/2.8 lens.

Is the 055XPROB too heavy for short hikes? I'm considering between the 190XPROB or the 055XPROB. The extra load capacity is nice, but I'm worried about the weight. I'll be using this for short hikes and walking in the city.

 

[soydios]

The 055XPROB is WAY TOO BIG for hikes. Take every measurement of the 190XPROB, and make it about 20% larger. So, NO, do not get the 055XPROB for hiking. Both of them are built like tanks, but the 055XPROB is an excessively large tank for almost everyone except for studio photographers.
For crying out loud, with the legs in the nearest-vertical click, it can support over 180 pounds! I hung from my tripod for a few seconds to test that.
I'd even say that the 190XPROB is only good at most for short hikes. Ask FuzzyBabyBunny for all-day-hike and hiking trip tripods.

I do a lot of stage photography, so when I'm shooting from the audience section in a theatre with the tripod during a dress rehearsal the legs are at all funny angles, so the extra height of the 055XPROB is nice. But that's the only area that I found even the slightest bit lacking with my 190XPROB: over-six-foot height.

Let me put it this way: the 190XPROB tripod will support a lot more than your head will. But I do recommend the 488RC2 head over the 486RC2; because it's stronger, has an additional panning movement mechanism and lock, and angle markings for basic panorama assistance.