 |
 | 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 2006shooting the moon
Hi ... Not sure if this is the right group. If not, please just direct me kindly to the right one. I want to take pictures of the moon with my Nikon D70s. Trouble is, I can't get it to fire. When I push the button partway down, the auto-focus goes in and out, and then I push the button down the rest of the way, and nothing happens. I'm sure this is covered in the manual somewhere, but I can't seem to find it. I could probably just turn off auto-focus, and set focus to infinity. And there are pretty simple guidelines for how to manually expose the moon, but I forget what they are. If I do that, will my D70s get on with it? What lens are you using? May be too small to focus on, in that case you will have to manually focus. > Hi ... Not sure if this is the right group. > If not, please just direct me kindly to the right one. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > but I forget what they are. > If I do that, will my D70s get on with it? > I want to take pictures of the moon with my Nikon D70s. > Trouble is, I can't get it to fire. > When I push the button partway down, > the auto-focus goes in and out, > and then I push the button down the rest of the way, > and nothing happens. The moon is too bright and without enough contrast to allow the auto focus to work. Do as you said - set the focus to manual and infinity. >> I want to take pictures of the moon with my Nikon D70s. >> Trouble is, I can't get it to fire. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The moon is too bright and without enough contrast to allow the auto focus > to work. Do as you said - set the focus to manual and infinity. My Pentax DS AF focuses perfectly with a 1.4x converter and a 70-300mm lens set to 300mm, it does have spot metering though and with AE locked to AF point may make the difference. >>>I want to take pictures of the moon with my Nikon D70s. >>>Trouble is, I can't get it to fire. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > set to 300mm, it does have spot metering though and with AE locked to AF > point may make the difference. Yes, it's certainly not too bright or low contrast. In fact my D200 easily autofocuses on it (it also focuses on stars). So does a Dimage Z3 I have, so I imagine the D70 should also have no problem. But there is no need for AF in this situation, so I guess the OP could just swicth to manual, focus and shoot. >>>>I want to take pictures of the moon with my Nikon D70s. >>>>Trouble is, I can't get it to fire. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > AF in this situation, so I guess the OP could just swicth to manual, focus > and shoot. One problem with many AF lenses though is that the focus ring is not granular enough, small movements make large adjustments, makes for fast focusing in AF mode but hard to use in MF mode. >> My Pentax DS AF focuses perfectly with a 1.4x converter and a 70-300mm >> lens set to 300mm, it does have spot metering though and with AE [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > easily autofocuses on it (it also focuses on stars). So does a Dimage Z3 > I have, so I imagine the D70 should also have no problem. I have no problem with my 20D either, but regardless of what *our* equipment does, the *OP's* equipment is searching for focus and not finding it. >>> My Pentax DS AF focuses perfectly with a 1.4x converter and a 70-300mm >>> lens set to 300mm, it does have spot metering though and with AE locked [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > equipment does, the *OP's* equipment is searching for focus and not > finding it. Others with the same camera don't have the same problem, could point to a setting problem, I did ask what lens the OP was using but did not get an answer. >> (. . .) the *OP's* equipment is searching for focus and not (. . .) Er, what does "OP" mean? I've seen it in several posts across several ng's lately, but can't dope it out. > Others with the same camera don't have the same problem, could point to a > setting problem, I did ask what lens the OP was using but did not get an > answer. Sorry, I must have missed the message in which you asked me that. I have a Tamron 18-200mm Di-II. >>> (. . .) the *OP's* equipment is searching for focus and not (. . .) > >Er, what does "OP" mean? >I've seen it in several posts across several ng's lately, but can't dope >it out. Original Poster.  SignatureCharlie... http://www.chocphoto.com >>>> (. . .) the *OP's* equipment is searching for focus and not (. . .) >> Er, what does "OP" mean? >> I've seen it in several posts across several ng's lately, but can't dope >> it out. >> > Original Poster. Sometimes other person. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons >>>>> (. . .) the *OP's* equipment is searching for focus and not (. . .) >>> Er, what does "OP" mean? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Greg Or original post. >>> (. . .) the *OP's* equipment is searching for focus and not (. . >>> .) > > Er, what does "OP" mean? > I've seen it in several posts across several ng's lately, but can't > dope it out. Well that's your problem right there - smoking dope makes you slow, so it's harder to figure these things out! :-) Original Post(er). >>> (. . .) the *OP's* equipment is searching for focus and not (. . .) >Er, what does "OP" mean? >I've seen it in several posts across several ng's lately, but can't dope >it out. OP means "original poster". ---- Paul J. Gans >>> (. . .) the *OP's* equipment is searching for focus and not (. . .) > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Sorry, I must have missed the message in which you asked me that. > I have a Tamron 18-200mm Di-II. This could be the problem, it is not a very fast lens at 200mm, try sliding down to say 150mm to see if it focuses. Using my Sigma DG APO 70-300mm gives me F5.6 at 300mm so with a bright moon it still focuses even with a 1.4x converter. F6.3 may be just to small an aperture for your particular camera. Here is a few I have taken with mine. http://www.flickr.com/photos/pete_with_pentax/ Cheers. Pete >>> (. . .) the *OP's* equipment is searching for focus and not (. . .) > > Er, what does "OP" mean? > I've seen it in several posts across several ng's lately, but can't dope > it out. "orignial post" or "original poster" >The moon is too bright and without enough contrast to allow the auto >focus to work. Then focus on the edge. Derek Fountain <nomail@hursley.ibm.com> wrote: >>The moon is too bright and without enough contrast to allow the auto >>focus to work. That does not follow my experience. I've never had trouble using autofocus for the moon, be it quarter, half, or full. I've shot it with a Nikon D70s, Canon XT, and older film cameras too. I haven't tried it with my new D80 yet because the weather hasn't cooperated here, but I have no doubt it'll focus without issue too. I would guess the real problem is user error...perhaps the focus points are not actually covering the moon? > Derek Fountain <nomail@hursley.ibm.com> wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I would guess the real problem is user error...perhaps the focus > points are not actually covering the moon? We may be looking under the wrong rock -- he said the auto focus ran in and out but it would not take a picture. It may be an exposure issue - if the D70s is in the normal mode, seems to me it will not shoot if it is not happy with the exposure ? I know it normally will not shoot unless you have the focus lock. I normally shoot in continuous focus and shutter priority (kids soccer games) so mine will shoot even if it is not focused ... or has focused on the fence 30 feet behind my subject. Sigh. I think there are several things that can keep it from shooting though. mikey > We may be looking under the wrong rock -- he said the auto focus > ran in and out but it would not take a picture. It may be an exposure > issue - if the D70s is in the normal mode, seems to me it will not > shoot if it is not happy with the exposure ? Hi. Me again. Exposure would be my guess, along with (as someone said) user error. >>>>The moon is too bright and without enough contrast to allow the >>>>auto [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> tried it with my new D80 yet because the weather hasn't cooperated >> here, but I have no doubt it'll focus without issue too. As a follow-up, I was out yesterday briefly to snap the moon with my D80. It was a bit hazy but autofocus worked fine with both the 18-70 and 80-200 lenses. The moon was just past half full, and focus was correctly set by the camera. I also did a few long exposures around the neighbourhood after dark and no problems with focus there. Indoors, I've managed to use autofocus in near total darkness without the focus assist light using the relatively slow 18-70 lense. Sensitivity obviously isn't a problem. >> I would guess the real problem is user error...perhaps the focus >> points are not actually covering the moon? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > will > not shoot unless you have the focus lock. The camera doesn't care if the exposure settings are right or not, it will still release the shutter. It will indicate an exposure issue on the scale or with the flash indicator, but if it's set to one-shot and it can't lock focus, then the shutter will not release. > Hi ... Not sure if this is the right group. > If not, please just direct me kindly to the right one. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > but I forget what they are. > If I do that, will my D70s get on with it? Autofocus won't work with everything, although it should. Just use manual and focus to infinity. As for the exposure start by setting your shutter speed to equal your ISO setting, and then use f:16 to start with. It's just a big rock lit by the sun. If you are using a really long lens a tripod is a good idea, too. > Autofocus won't work with everything, although it should. Just use manual > and focus to infinity. As for the exposure start by setting your shutter > speed to equal your ISO setting, and then use f:16 to start with. It's just > a big rock lit by the sun. If you are using a really long lens a tripod is > a good idea, too. There we go! Somebody else confirmed my notion of just manually focusing on infinity, and you've confirmed it again. I think the zip-zoop of the zoom is just a red herring. But invoking (and re-explaining) the Sunny 16 rule is what I was trying to remember. Thanks! I'll try that. Scenic > When I push the button partway down, > the auto-focus goes in and out, > and then I push the button down the rest of the way, > and nothing happens. IHMO there is no reason to use auto-focus with moon photos. Use manual focus and manual settings and test what works best. My moon photos: http://www.pbase.com/whig/moon http://www.petrilopia.net/moon/ SignaturePetri Lopia :: petri.REMOVElopia@iki.fi.invalid Lightnings, StormChasing, Moon, Nature: http://www.petrilopia.net/ http://www.pbase.com/whig/ >> When I push the button partway down, >> the auto-focus goes in and out, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > http://www.pbase.com/whig/moon > http://www.petrilopia.net/moon/ Manual focus is a great idea, assuming of course that the lens you have suits manual focusing, many modern lenses do not because the adjustment for manual focus is too granular to be as accurate as we would like. > >> When I push the button partway down, > >> the auto-focus goes in and out, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > suits manual focusing, many modern lenses do not because the adjustment for > manual focus is too granular to be as accurate as we would like. Because manual focus by wire is FAR cheaper to include in an AF lens than a manual focus mechanism with fine adjustment. >> >> When I push the button partway down, >> >> the auto-focus goes in and out, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Because manual focus by wire is FAR cheaper to include in an AF lens > than a manual focus mechanism with fine adjustment. Actually some of them still do not have a focus motor in the lens of course so that is not actually true generally. > Manual focus is a great idea, assuming of course that the lens you have > suits manual focusing, many modern lenses do not because the adjustment for > manual focus is too granular to be as accurate as we would like. Meh. I think the moon is far enough away to qualify as "infinity" as far as a lens is concerned. So I can do that. >> Manual focus is a great idea, assuming of course that the lens you have >> suits manual focusing, many modern lenses do not because the adjustment [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > as far as a lens is concerned. > So I can do that. You sure about that, manual lenses stop at infinity, AF lenses focus past infinity, not so easy. >>> Manual focus is a great idea, assuming of course that the lens you have >>> suits manual focusing, many modern lenses do not because the adjustment [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You sure about that, manual lenses stop at infinity, AF lenses focus past > infinity, not so easy. Don't be too sure. I have at least two manual focus lenses which focus past infinity. -- Jeff R. >>>> Manual focus is a great idea, assuming of course that the lens you have >>>> suits manual focusing, many modern lenses do not because the adjustment [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > -- > Jeff R. Any manual focus lens that focuses past infinity will be problematic as well. Which ones do you have, all my MF lenses stop at infinity. > Any manual focus lens that focuses past infinity will be problematic as > well. Which ones do you have, all my MF lenses stop at infinity. :-) Sigma, Vivitar (and Meade!) catadioptrics. A nuisance, for sure, but easily dealt with. -- Jeff R. >> Any manual focus lens that focuses past infinity will be problematic as >> well. Which ones do you have, all my MF lenses stop at infinity. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -- > Jeff R. And can you show us how well they focus by showing us some of your work?? Cheers. Pete D >>> Any manual focus lens that focuses past infinity will be problematic as >>> well. Which ones do you have, all my MF lenses stop at infinity. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Pete D OK. (reprising) http://faxmentis.org/html/jovebyday.html http://faxmentis.org/html/moonbyjove.html http://faxmentis.org/html/earthshine.html Above, only the Sigma. Haven't used the Vivitar much - (only 500mm, so no need yet) Will be breaking in the Meade (f/10, 2500mm) real soon now. The older Meade: (f/13.8 1250mm) http://faxmentis.org/html/science3.html (be kind - it's 7 years old) This time an f/8.3 1000mm: (not a cat) http://faxmentis.org/html/science7b.html through a webcam http://faxmentis.org/html/transit3.html through a Mavica and a 50+ y.o 35mm SLR That'll do for now... -- Jeff R. >>>> Any manual focus lens that focuses past infinity will be problematic as >>>> well. Which ones do you have, all my MF lenses stop at infinity. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > -- > Jeff R. Which Sigma? If you are not using the Vivitar that is so easy to manual focus, send it to me. The meade is not exactly a standard AF camera lens. >> (reprising) >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Which Sigma? If you are not using the Vivitar that is so easy to manual > focus, send it to me. The meade is not exactly a standard AF camera lens. Sigma 600mm f/8. Send the Viv to you? What are you offering? (Anyways - take it easy! I'm in a "too-many-toys, not-enough-time" situation right now. Ask again next year.) Both my Meade cats, whilst not built specifically as dSLR accessories, are functionally identical to the Sig and the Viv - only exceptions being that the camera mount is cobbled together from bits, rather than being integral - and that the focus is via a knurled knob on the back of the lens, rather than a huu-u-uge knurled ring around the barrel of the lens. Otherwise - same setup. Are we arguing, or swapping anecdotes? I can't read printed body language. -- Jeff R. >>> (reprising) >>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > -- > Jeff R. Bit of both really, enjoying your shots but you said it was easy to manual focus the AF lenses but have not shown me otherwise yet, you seem to only have MF lenses. I had a cheap old 400mm MF lens, can't remember what aperture it was, probably an F6.3 that I played with years ago and that was easy to manual focus but it had a very fine manual adjustment, must see if that sort of lens is still available, maybe in a 500mm or bigger might be fun to play with. The 600mm Sigma is that the mirror lens? Did I show you some of my astral photography? Few shots here, I think they are all on the first page. http://www.flickr.com/photos/pete_with_pentax/ >> Are we arguing, or swapping anecdotes? I can't read printed body >> language. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Bit of both really, enjoying your shots but you said it was easy to manual > focus the AF lenses but have not shown me otherwise yet, Actually, I was referring to MF lenses there (my cats). No matter though. I don't find it real easy (nor enjoyable) to manually focus AF lenses, but that is mainly because I don't see eye-to-eye (so to speak) with the modern viewfinder(s). > ...you seem to only have MF lenses. Oh no - I've plenty of AF lenses. I'm not real impressed with the Pentax AF, though. Seems a bit slow and noisy, and hunts a bit. Mind you, I didn't really notice that too much until I got my Nikon, which is an order of magnitude better in focussing. I am a late convert to AF, and would prefer to MF if the friggerty viewfinders of my two dSLRs were a little better than just plain awful. My 1971 Pentax Spotmatic was more *satisfying* to focus than my 21st century marvels. I miss the microprism and split-image, but thats another thread and another set of spats. >...I had a cheap old 400mm MF lens, can't remember what aperture it was, >probably an F6.3 that I played with years ago and that was easy to manual [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The 600mm Sigma is that the mirror lens? Yes. All the MF lenses I referred to earlier are catadioptics. I have some old regular (refractor?) lenses around 3-600mm, but they are currently suffering mushroom infestation internally (not to mention iris oil on the elements...) One day I'll summon the nerve to strip them down. They're not quality glass - Hanimex or some such, so no urgency. > Did I show you some of my astral photography? Umm - forgive me, I forget. (Senior moment) Possibly. (Just had a look) Don't remeber seeing them. Astral? The mmonrises? (Am I missing something, as usual?) V. pretty though. > Few shots here, I think they are all on the first page. > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/pete_with_pentax/ >>> When I push the button partway down, >>> the auto-focus goes in and out, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > suits manual focusing, many modern lenses do not because the adjustment > for manual focus is too granular to be as accurate as we would like. Last I knew, the moon is locate way beyond the inifiti focus point of any camera lens ever manufactured short, of perhaps the Hubble. Set the lens at inifitiy and be done with it. I can't imagine how much "granularity" one needs to focus the lens at infinity. SignatureJim <jen....not....home..remvdots...@....yahoo >>>> When I push the button partway down, >>>> the auto-focus goes in and out, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > lens at inifitiy and be done with it. I can't imagine how much > "granularity" one needs to focus the lens at infinity. Jim, How many AF lenses do you have? Many AF lenses focus past infinity to allow the AF to hunt if needed, finding the correct point can be problematic with some lenses when manually focusing, if you do not have a problem with your lenses then that is great. Pete D |
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.