 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / November 2006Moon Photography Tips?
I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma 70-300mm DG lens any tips? Other than buying a real lens? tx blah > I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma 70-300mm DG > lens any tips? Other than buying a real lens? tx blah Wait until the moon is not so full, the craters show up much better then. And use a tripod and the mirror lockup function with the self timer. Bracket your exposures by a lot. Scott > I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma 70-300mm > DG lens any tips? Other than buying a real lens? tx blah Not much to offer aside from the bleeding obvious: * tripod essential * moon as high as possible to avoid atmospherics * bracket widely. "Sunny sixteen" is theoretically optimal, but not always the best. * long exposures (over 1/2 sec) will show movement * 300mm is definitely marginal * don't trust the infinity setting on your lens. At wide open it may be off. * full moon is the least impressive phase. Craters are unimpressive then, but the mare can be pretty * very young moon (~2-3 days) can be very nice, if you expose for earthshine * anywhere between 3-12 or 16-26 days old will show the terminus craters nicely (i.e. you want a crescent moon) Others will disagree, but I wouldn't bother with teleconverters. I've found them to be the "digital zoom" of SLRs. Here's a few of mine with a 600mm mirror lens: http://faxmentis.org/html/jovebyday.html (daylight, with Jupiter) http://faxmentis.org/html/moonbyjove.html (night-time, with Jupiter and *his* moons) http://faxmentis.org/html/earthshine.html (2 days old - with earthshine) http://faxmentis.org/html/science7c.html (*Not* dSLR - montage of el-cheapo webcam shots) These pages have links to many more. The moon is a fun subject. Its unlikely you'll capture anything truly original, but it is very satisfying nonetheless. Post processing will be essential - but don't oversharpen as I always do. -- Jeff R. > I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma 70-300mm DG > lens any tips? Other than buying a real lens? tx blah A Photographic Image Quality Test Using the Moon http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/moon-test1 (uses 300 mm lens.) Roger > I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma 70-300mm DG > lens any tips? Other than buying a real lens? tx blah You'll probably need to use manual exposure as I have found the 2 stop compensation on the 350D/Rebel XT not enough. You can see a result (cropped) with my 350D and Canon 100-400 lens at: <http://digitalimagemakerworld.com/2006/04/11/moon-with-my-canon-350d-and-100-400 mm-zoom/> Use mirror lockup and a good tripod. My exposure was 1/125 sec at f11 and 100ISO Cheers, Wayne  SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ >> I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma 70-300mm DG >> lens any tips? Other than buying a real lens? tx blah [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >(cropped) with my 350D and Canon 100-400 lens at: ><http://digitalimagemakerworld.com/2006/04/11/moon-with-my-canon-350d-and-100-400 mm-zoom/> >Use mirror lockup and a good tripod. My exposure was 1/125 sec at f11 >and 100ISO Out of curiosity, could you not have handheld it at f/8 and 1/250? You don't need much depth of field for the moon. I don't see too much difference between ISO 100 and ISO 200 on my 300D. With your lens I'd likely have opted for ISO 200, f/8 at 1/500. ---- Paul J. Gans >>> I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma 70-300mm DG >>> lens any tips? Other than buying a real lens? tx blah [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > ---- Paul J. Gans Of course. Just a matter of choice. I had it on the tripod because I prefer to work that way much of the time. And yes I could have used 200ISO. I prefer working on tripod for such subjects as it allows me time to consider, carefully place the autofocus point, try and exposure, examine it then try again. Cheers, Wayne SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ > I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma 70-300mm DG > lens any tips? Other than buying a real lens? tx blah Bracket, use a "hat trick" for exposures. Lock up the mirror, open the shutter, hold a piece of dark cardboard in front of the lens and use it as the shutter for exposures of 1/10 sec or slower. Here's a shot taken with an Olympus and a 1000mm, no drive. http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/65063908 >> I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma 70-300mm >> DG [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Here's a shot taken with an Olympus and a 1000mm, no drive. > http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/65063908 Never heard such rubbish in my life. then you obviously have no experience in long exposure photography/imaging. > Never heard such rubbish in my life. > then you obviously have no experience in long exposure > photography/imaging. Perhpas Pete was noting (in contrast to Rich's advice) that there is no need for long exposures when shooting the moon. Rich implies otherwise, but he is wrong. Quite the opposite. An unobstructed moon is itself nearly as bright as a sunny day, and need only be adjusted for slightly more exposure. Sunny 16 minus no more than a stop or so it enough. >> Never heard such rubbish in my life. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson An unobstructed moon is itself nearly as > bright as a sunny day, and need only be adjusted for slightly more > exposure. Sunny 16 minus no more than a stop or so it enough. Which reminds me of Ansel Adams' comment about shooting "Moonrise over Hernandez, New Mexico." He was in a hurry to shoot it since the light was fading. So rather than take the time to meter, he simply referred to the rule of thumb for shooting on a sunny day (I don't recall what it was, but based on the speed of the film, it was a specific aperture/shutterspeed combo). His logic: "It's a sunny day on the moon, right?" He also said he's glad he acted so quickly because the light on the cemetery crossses had faded before he had chance to reload his view camera and take another shot. > An unobstructed moon is itself nearly as >> bright as a sunny day, and need only be adjusted for slightly more [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > cemetery crossses had faded before he had chance to reload his view camera > and take another shot. Sunny 16 rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny_f/16_rule Moony 8 rule http://www.tipsfromthetopfloor.com/library/doku.php/glossary:moony11 http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t9092.html >then you obviously have no experience in long exposure photography/imaging. > >> Never heard such rubbish in my life. 1/10 s is not long; the hat works well for tens of seconds to tens of minutes, and up but for a tenth of a second... Besides that is far to long for bright sunlight unless you have a very low ISO setting (I don't think any non-astronomical digital camera goes that low), or the aperture is so small you can not resolve anything). SignatureIan G8ILZ Since when is the moon long exposure? Get a grip man! > then you obviously have no experience in long exposure > photography/imaging. > >> Never heard such rubbish in my life. > Since when is the moon long exposure? Get a grip man! During eclipses - Roger's 4 second example: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.astrophoto-1/web/eclipse_c11.09.200 3_IMG_0992-0133-utc.c-0.67x-872.html although it's an unusual situation. David >> Since when is the moon long exposure? Get a grip man! > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > David I accept it for then but not otherwise. ;-) >>>Since when is the moon long exposure? Get a grip man! >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I accept it for then but not otherwise. ;-) I posted this yesterday but it seems to have gone unnoticed: This page, http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/moon-test1 shows near first quarter, best exposures around 1/50 sec at f/8 at ISO 100. With telescopes and more magnification, and lower speed (e.g. ISO 50 which many digital cameras have), one often gets in the 1/5 to 1.4 second range near the terminator on the moon. Even the above 1/50 at f/8, ISO 100 becomes 1/6 at f/16 ISO 50. At extreme magnifications, above about 1500 mm, even with mirror lock-up, a shutter actuation could cause vibration unless the mount and telescope/lens is massive. Roger >>>>Since when is the moon long exposure? Get a grip man! >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Roger Yes sure but how does this help the OP? Cheers. Pete D > Since when is the moon long exposure? Get a grip man! When the moon is a thin crescent and you want to show the Earthshine. Then exposure times at f/5.6, iso 100 can be longer than 1/4 second. Roger >> Since when is the moon long exposure? Get a grip man! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Roger Sure but this is hardly basic moon photography that the OP asked for. Perhaps I should quote Martin Pughs site if you want to know how to do celestial photography from your backyard? http://www.martinpughastrophotography.id.au/ >>>Since when is the moon long exposure? Get a grip man! >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Perhaps I should quote Martin Pughs site if you want to know how to do > celestial photography from your backyard? Pete: Crescent moon with earthshine: Canon 10D, 500 mm f/4 lens + 1.4x TC (700 mm total), ISO 800, f/8, 1/3 second: http://www.clarkvision.com/tmp/mooon.earthshine.c12.25.2003.IMG_3306.c-700.jpg This is a good case for an HDR image. The correct exposure for the bright crescent was 1/5 second at ISO 100, f/8. The point is you went off the deep end over the "hat trick" idea. The hat trick idea for longer exposures works quite well. There are conditions with normal lenses and normal ISOs where the hat trick exposure can be used effectively resulting in improved image quality, including the moon. Also try moon rise/set pictures where the moon is shining through a lot of atmosphere and you want foreground detail, like city lights. Exposures are often a second or more. Or try photographing the moon with background stars (the moon passes through the Pleiades soon). Then you'll need longer exposures to get the stars, and a short for the moon, combined in a HDR image. So, here are the numerous cases where exposures with the moon can be equal to or longer than 1/10 second: 1) Quarter moon with ISO 50, f/16. 2) crescent moon (main crescent): 1/5 second ISO 100, f/8. 3) earthshine: 1/3 second ISO 800 f/8. 4) eclipses: 1 to 30 seconds at ISO 100. 5) Telescope, high magnification (f/16 and higher) terminator views, any phase: 1/5 second and longer. 6) moon rise/moon set with foreground detail: can be several seconds. 7) Stars by the moon: many seconds. > http://www.martinpughastrophotography.id.au/ Or my own: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.astrophoto-1 http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/moon-test1 http://www.clarkvision.com/astro Roger >>>>Since when is the moon long exposure? Get a grip man! >>> [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > Roger Roger, While all the above is great stuff it has little to do with the OP and the method and example that Rich gave is not very helpful to the OP, he simply wanted to take a basic photo of the moon, how confused do you think he is now? > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> >>> http://www.martinpughastrophotography.id.au/ >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > OP, he simply wanted to take a basic photo of the moon, how confused > do you think he is now? I'd have to agree with you on that particular point... :) Roger is extremely well-versed in the technical side of photography, and surely leaves some confused/overwhelmed by/with technical over-load at times. Roger's insights are useful and helpful, but perhaps so much to the OP. When responses are written here, it is often beneficial to lurkers, and others who are following along... After all...if ONLY the OP of each thread benefited, would we read long? -Probably not very often. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > After all...if ONLY the OP of each thread benefited, would we read > ong? -Probably not very often. Have not actually seen the OP poke his head back in since the first post, hope he reads one of my other posts with some good detail and examples. >>>I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma 70-300mm >>>DG [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Never heard such rubbish in my life. Actually it's not rubbish. It is an old method since the dawn of the camera age. I have old astrophoto books that actually refer to the method as the "hat trick exposure" showing a person with the style common in the first half of the 20th century using his hat to cover the front of a telescope. Regarding exposure, sunny 16 refers to full moon. This page, http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/moon-test1 shows near first quarter, best exposures around 1/50 sec at f/8 at ISO 100. With telescopes and more magnification, and lower speed (e.g. ISO 50 which many digital cameras have). one often gets in the 1/5 to 1.4 second range near the terminator on the moon. Even the above 1/50 at f/8, ISO 100 becomes 1/6 at f/16 ISO 50. At extreme magnifications, above about 1500 mm, even with mirror lock-up, a shutter actuation could cause vibration unless the mount and telescope/lens is massive. Note, however, exposures longer than about 1/10 second begin to show motion blur due to the rotation of the earth (1/10th at high magnification), so you need a tracking mount. Roger >>>> I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma >>>> 70-300mm DG [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Regarding exposure, sunny 16 refers to full moon. Note I said sunny 16 plus a stop or so. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) skrev: > >>Bracket, use a "hat trick" for exposures. Lock up the mirror, open the > >>shutter, hold a piece of > >>dark cardboard in front of the lens and use it as the shutter for > >>exposures of 1/10 sec or slower. > > Never heard such rubbish in my life. > Actually it's not rubbish. It is an old method since the > dawn of the camera age. Yes, but you wouldn't contemplate using it for photographing a full moon without a telescope, right? > Regarding exposure, sunny 16 refers to full moon. Yes. And the OP, we can safely assume, wants to shoot the moon now. And today the moon is full. Jan Böhme > Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Jan Böhme Hmm.... Fuller moon than you'll see this month: 4 seconds at f/8 ISO 200. Guess what method I used for exposure? Yes, it was the old "hat trick" with a telephoto lens and a DSLR. http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.astrophoto-1/web/eclipse_c11.09.200 3_IMG_0992-0133-utc.c-0.67x-872.html ;-) Roger >> Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) skrev: >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Roger Nice shot Roger but I am guessing that the original poster does not has a tracking mount and probably does not want to wait for the next eclipse so not "really" fuller for exposure purposes. >Jan B?hme wrote: >> Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) skrev: >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> >> Jan B?hme >Hmm.... Fuller moon than you'll see this month: >4 seconds at f/8 ISO 200. Guess what method I used for exposure? >Yes, it was the old "hat trick" with a telephoto lens and a DSLR. >http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.astrophoto-1/web/eclipse_c11.09.200 3_IMG_0992-0133-utc.c-0.67x-872.html >;-) Nice. I love the red. The color is typical earth-atmosphere red, as one would expect. ---- Paul J. Gans [] > Hmm.... Fuller moon than you'll see this month: > 4 seconds at f/8 ISO 200. Guess what method I used for exposure? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Roger Brilliant! David Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) skrev: > > [..] the OP, we can safely assume, wants to shoot the moon now. And > > today the moon is full. > Hmm.... Fuller moon than you'll see this month: > 4 seconds at f/8 ISO 200. Guess what method I used for exposure? > Yes, it was the old "hat trick" with a telephoto lens and a DSLR. > > http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.astrophoto-1/web/eclipse_c11.09.200 3_IMG_0992-0133-utc.c-0.67x-872.html Great shot. I'm surprised that you didn't need an even longer exposure. Still, that shot would be out of reach for the OP right now for several different reasons... Jan Böhme > >> I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma 70-300mm > >> DG [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Never heard such rubbish in my life. Tsk, tsk. The sad, sad bleating of the clueless. The "hat trick" has been used for decades by people seeking to isolate high power lenses from any vibratation. The "shutter" is completely isolated from the lens and camera, thereby inducing zero vibration. >> >> I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma >> >> 70-300mm [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > The "shutter" is completely isolated from the lens and camera, thereby > inducing zero vibration. So does my MLU. Tell you what, I took a shot of the full moon last night with my method, posted here, show us yours Rich. http://www.flickr.com/photos/pete_with_pentax/263239993/ >>>>> I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma >>>>> 70-300mm [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/pete_with_pentax/263239993/ What is that? A ball of cheddar cheese you threw up in the air? Greg Was almost red earlier, see Joans pictures. >>>>>> I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma >>>>>> 70-300mm [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Greg > >> >> I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma > >> >> 70-300mm [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/pete_with_pentax/263239993/ I thought I had? http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/65063908 >>>>>> I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma >>>>>> 70-300mm [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > I thought I had? > http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/65063908 Did you shoot that image? SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>>>>>> I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma >>>>>>> 70-300mm [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Did you shoot that image? I have my doubts but there you go. We have no way of checking unless Rich posts the picture with the EXIF data, interesting that there was no data at all. >>> >> I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma >>> >> 70-300mm [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> The "shutter" is completely isolated from the lens and camera, thereby >> inducing zero vibration. >So does my MLU. Tell you what, I took a shot of the full moon last night >with my method, posted here, show us yours Rich. >http://www.flickr.com/photos/pete_with_pentax/263239993/ Nice shot. Can you pass on some technical data? By the way, you've got some nice detail between noon and two o'clock on the largest photo. The moon evidently wasn't *quite* full... ---- Paul J. Gans >>>> >> I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma >>>> >> 70-300mm [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > ---- Paul J. Gans Sadly it was a little underexposed at ISO 200, F8.0 and 180th of a second, with a Sigma 70-300mm DG APO lens and a Tamron 1.4x converter (Camera still auto focused), used my Pentax Ds, used MLU and a tripod of course. I had been doing some experimenting and had the camera set to jpeg rather than RAW, it was interesting to note that the full file was only 280kb before I cropped, 100% crop of course. Anything else you would like to know? Almost full moon is not the most spectacular shot but it was a pretty bright orange and was probably quite red a little earlier. Here is a better one of a part moon I took last year with pretty much the same gear as the OP has. This one probably without the 1.4x converter. http://www.flickr.com/photos/pete_with_pentax/263605584/ Pete, if you had a 1.4 TC on at 300mm why wasn't your image larger than mine? SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : Sadly it was a little underexposed at ISO 200, F8.0 and 180th of a second, : with a Sigma 70-300mm DG APO lens and a Tamron 1.4x converter (Camera still [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] : : http://www.flickr.com/photos/pete_with_pentax/263605584/ Did you look at mine at the larger size? > Pete, if you had a 1.4 TC on at 300mm why wasn't your image larger > than mine? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > : > : http://www.flickr.com/photos/pete_with_pentax/263605584/ Oh yes I see what you mean. Not sure, maybe a senior moment and I had the lens dezoomed a little, mmmmm, strange. Have to have a closer look. > Did you look at mine at the larger size? > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> : >> : http://www.flickr.com/photos/pete_with_pentax/263605584/ Or did you forget to put the TC on? SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : Oh yes I see what you mean. Not sure, maybe a senior moment and I had the : lens dezoomed a little, mmmmm, strange. Have to have a closer look. It was certainly on, was still attached this morning. Might have processed the one without the TC. Just had a look and have posted the real one. :-) http://www.flickr.com/photos/pete_with_pentax/263774304/ > Or did you forget to put the TC on? > > : Oh yes I see what you mean. Not sure, maybe a senior moment and I > had the > : lens dezoomed a little, mmmmm, strange. Have to have a closer look. That's a bit different! SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : It was certainly on, was still attached this morning. Might have processed : the one without the TC. Just had a look and have posted the real one. :-) : : http://www.flickr.com/photos/pete_with_pentax/263774304/ Size does matter! Have to do one with the 2x TC, AF will probably not work and you know how I hate doing things for my self! ;-) > That's a bit different! > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > : > : http://www.flickr.com/photos/pete_with_pentax/263774304/ >>>> >> I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma >>>> >> 70-300mm [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > ---- Paul J. Gans Oh, here is another one taken during the day, handheld, no hat involved. http://www.flickr.com/photos/pete_with_pentax/263625038/ >>>>> >> I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma >>>>> >> 70-300mm [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >> >> ---- Paul J. Gans >Oh, here is another one taken during the day, handheld, no hat involved. >http://www.flickr.com/photos/pete_with_pentax/263625038/ Good shots! I like the partial moon pic the best. ---- Paul J. Gans >> >> I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma >> >> 70-300mm [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > The "shutter" is completely isolated from the lens and camera, thereby > inducing zero vibration. Might also remind you Rich that this is the rec.photo.digital.slr-systems group, not the hat.on.a.a.camera group > >> >> I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma > >> >> 70-300mm [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Might also remind you Rich that this is the rec.photo.digital.slr-systems > group, not the hat.on.a.a.camera group If you are interested in getting the best quality, that's good. If you are only interested in sticking to some weird, undefined photographic "rule," my sympathies. The best shots of the Moon, Sun and other solar system objects that I've seen are taken by lowly web cams made by Philips. They hook them up to telescopes (large lenses for those not familiar with the function) and take thousands of images. Those images are then compiled in a image processing program like "Registax." The combination of hundreds or thousands of images that are then averaged reveals the most detail. >> >> >> I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma >> >> >> 70-300mm [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > hundreds or thousands of images that are then averaged reveals the most > detail. Yes Rich I use Registax but hardly helpful to the OP at this point. The example shot that you gave was not even close to the equipment the OP wanted to use. Here is a shot done using very simlar to the OP's equipment, 6MP D-SLR, Tripod (bigger the better, I used a big Manfrotto), MLU, sunny16 (or moony 8) rule, keep the shutter speed as high as possible to reduce shake/movement and eliminate the effect of a fast moving astral body. With a fuller moon you should be able to use spot metering if your camera supports it and AF should also still work, modern AF lenses may not manual focus well so an older manual focus lens may have an advantage here. http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=263605584&size=o Here is a three minute expouse on the Southern Cross done with the same camera but with a wider lens and Dark Frame Subtraction for noise reduction. The OP could easily do this with his camera and a tripod. http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=264230527&size=o The best shots I have seen taken of the Moon, Sun and other solar system objects were taken in a local backyard without the aid of a hat, this also does not help the OP. http://www.martinpughastrophotography.id.au/ Pete why do you feel the need to constantly inform the group about "hatless" examples? Is there any reason why you just can't say that you didn't know about the 'hat technique'? Get over it and move on.. darkfield > The best shots I have seen taken of the Moon, Sun and other solar system > objects were taken in a local backyard without the aid of a hat, this also > does not help the OP. > Pete why do you feel the need to constantly inform the group about > "hatless" examples? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > darkfield LOL, why do you care that I have a fixation about hats? > Pete why do you feel the need to constantly inform the group about > "hatless" examples? > Is there any reason why you just can't say that you didn't know about > the 'hat technique'? Perhaps because he hasn't got a Pentax hat? >> Pete why do you feel the need to constantly inform the group about >> "hatless" examples? >> Is there any reason why you just can't say that you didn't know about >> the 'hat technique'? > > Perhaps because he hasn't got a Pentax hat? I actually had an Olympus hat but gave it away one morning during a shoot to a kid that wandered over for a look, he had an E300 so his need was greater than mine. I also have an Olympus T-Shirt but found it too droopy to use as a hat. ;-) > >> >> >> I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma > >> >> >> 70-300mm [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > http://www.martinpughastrophotography.id.au/ Now that video image compilations have proven to be the best way to capture detail on solar system objects, the hat trick is no longer needed, if you are using a webcam. However, the hat trick (provided your exposure is long enough to do it) is still the very best way of eliminating all sources of vibration. The shot I showed was 1/15th of a second, wasn't done with a hat trick, but the E-1 has a soft-impact shutter and the "lens" I used weighs about 18lbs. The hat trick can improve image sharpness if your camera-lens-tripod combo is not steady enough for your shutter speed. As always, experiment. Moony 8 rule for exposure, can't go wrong. > I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma 70-300mm > DG lens any tips? Other than buying a real lens? tx blah Thanks for all of you tips I'll try tonight! > I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma 70-300mm > DG lens any tips? Other than buying a real lens? tx blah Thanks again for all of the replys, this is an awesome group! blah > I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma 70-300mm > DG lens any tips? Other than buying a real lens? tx blah > I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma 70-300mm DG > lens any tips? Other than buying a real lens? tx blah Sunny 16: ISO 100, 1/100 s, f/16. Digital sensors are not "bang on" ISO wise so try down to f/11 and up to f/22 or same reciprocals of speed (faster with wider aperture). Use mirror lockup if you have it. Don't expect much of your lens at 300mm. Clean it as much as possible, moonlight is very good at producing flare. f/8 to f/11 is probably the "sharp" zone for your lens. Don't expect miracles. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma >> 70-300mm DG lens any tips? Other than buying a real lens? tx blah [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of speed (faster with wider aperture). Use mirror lockup if you > have it. Actually ISO sensitivity issues apply to Canon cameras which are about 1/3 stop or 25% higher than real ISO levels set by the user. For instance, ISO 100 is actually about 125, and ISO 200 is actually about 250, etc. Oddly enough, Nikon cameras are "bang on" and meter to the correct ISO level set by the user. An ISO 100 setting produces ISO 100 results. >>>I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma >>>70-300mm DG lens any tips? Other than buying a real lens? tx blah [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Oddly enough, Nikon cameras are "bang on" and meter to the correct ISO > level set by the user. An ISO 100 setting produces ISO 100 results. Could be. The reason I suggest a wide range is that some people want the "white" moon, and others want the beige moon. Add the ISO bias of some cameras and ... Chasseur d'Images did a piece on camera "actual" ISO and IIRC Minolta was bang on, at least for 100 - 400 or 800. I don't recall for the other cameras and I'm far too lazy to look it up... but if you google under r.p.d and my name and ISO and Chasseur chances are you'll find the summary I posted. OTOH, some claimed the Chasseur method was suspect/wrong. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>>I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma >>>70-300mm DG lens any tips? Other than buying a real lens? tx blah [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Oddly enough, Nikon cameras are "bang on" and meter to the correct ISO > level set by the user. An ISO 100 setting produces ISO 100 results. I really don't think one can claim such accuracy. The definition of ISO specification has a "constant" that is open to interpretation. See International Standard ISO 2720: Photography - General purpose photographic exposure meters (photoelectric type) - Guide to product specification. First edition 1974. Through photographic history, various manufacturers have used slightly different constants in their definition, all equally valid. Roger > I really don't think one can claim such accuracy. The > definition of ISO specification has a "constant" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > used slightly different constants in their definition, > all equally valid. But that's why we have ISO standards, to use a standard calibration level that all people can use to equalize comparisons. What good is an official published standard that isn't standardized? And where does DPreview come up with this: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos30d/page20.asp "In a new addition to our reviews we are now measuring the actual sensitivity of each indicated ISO sensitivity. This is achieved using the same shots as are used to measure ISO noise levels, we simply compare the exposure for each shot to the metered light level (using Sekonic L-358), middle gray matched. We estimate the accuracy of these results to be +/- 1/6 EV." They use the Sekonic meter as a comparison. Does that mean Nikon matches Sekonic and Canon doesn't? >>I really don't think one can claim such accuracy. The >>definition of ISO specification has a "constant" [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > level that all people can use to equalize comparisons. What good is an > official published standard that isn't standardized? That's right, the standard is not one exact standard. "There are many to choose from." > And where does DPreview come up with this: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > They use the Sekonic meter as a comparison. Does that mean Nikon > matches Sekonic and Canon doesn't? Yes, it means that nikon matches Sekonic, but that doesn't mean either is wrong. Then add to the fact that the "standard" was designed for film, and how manufacturers implement ISO in digital is a whole new open ballgame. Roger > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos30d/page20.asp > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > They use the Sekonic meter as a comparison. Does that mean Nikon > matches Sekonic and Canon doesn't? There are a couple of different ways to measure ISO sensitivity, but measuring middle gray is not one of them. If the test is done as described, it is not very meaningful. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com Jeremy Nixon skrev: > There are a couple of different ways to measure ISO sensitivity, but > measuring middle gray is not one of them. If the test is done as > described, it is not very meaningful. It is not really possible to measure ISO this way, I agree. But it is possible to measure the respective sensitivities of two cameras at the same ISO. Thus: Their test is perfectly OK for establishing , for example that Canon's ISO 100 is around 25% more sensitive than the same ISO value in a Nikon camera. However, it can't really be used to determine which, if any, of the two camera makers that have the true ISO100. Jan Böhme > It is not really possible to measure ISO this way, I agree. But it is > possible to measure the respective sensitivities of two cameras at the > same ISO. "Middle gray" is a matter of opinion, affected by gamma correction, among other things. And how do you get "middle gray" in a picture to begin with? A lot of people are under the mistaken impression that metering off an 18% gray card has something to do with it, but if you do that, you are basically guaranteed to get results that vary from one manufacturer to another, since 18% gray has nothing to do with it. You may very well be measuring nothing more than the difference in how Canon and Nikon calibrate their light meters. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> It is not really possible to measure ISO this way, I agree. But it is >> possible to measure the respective sensitivities of two cameras at the >> same ISO. > "Middle gray" is a matter of opinion, affected by gamma correction, among > other things. And how do you get "middle gray" in a picture to begin with? You take a uniform background and (preferrably a good) external light meter and set the camera (in M, naturally)to whatever value it says. > You may very well be measuring nothing > more than the difference in how Canon and Nikon calibrate their light meters. Not with an external light meter. -Wolfgang >> "Middle gray" is a matter of opinion, affected by gamma correction, among >> other things. And how do you get "middle gray" in a picture to begin with? > > You take a uniform background and (preferrably a good) external > light meter and set the camera (in M, naturally)to whatever value > it says. And what does that get you? What are the underlying assumptions with this method? If you're using a reflected meter on the uniform background, you're assuming that the meter is going to put that background on something you consider "middle gray". It may or may not do so; what do you think is "middle gray"? Your answer may be very different from the light meter's, especially if you are under the impression that 18% gray has something to do with it, as many people are. What will you measure in the resulting photograph, and what will you look for in that measurement? The midpoint moves with gamma correction and any tone curve applied to the image, and thus can be different in two correctly exposed images of exactly the same scene in the same light. You could have two cameras whose sensors are identically sensitive and end up with different measurements just because of differences in opinion about "middle gray", exposure, and image processing in general between the two manufacturers. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > I'm trying to take pix of the moon using: A Rebel XT w/ a Sigma 70-300mm DG > lens any tips? Other than buying a real lens? tx blah Don't take photos about full moon... it looks pretty boring. When it's not full you can get photo about those craters etc. Here's some of my moon photos: http://www.pbase.com/whig/moon http://www.petrilopia.net/moon/ Feel free to visit on my homepages to see other photos too =) And please leave some coment about my photos there too. SignaturePetri Lopia :: petri.REMOVElopia@iki.fi.invalid Lightnings, StormChasing, Moon, Nature: http://www.petrilopia.net/ http://www.pbase.com/whig/ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.