Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

My first Moon Shot

Tags:
Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 4:13:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ok so here it is. http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38898682

It's not the best but IMHO not too bad for my first attempt.

This was shot w/ my Canon 300D and a EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III w/ 2x extender
all mounted on tripod and using a remote shutter release. I did not use the
mirror lockup.

The sky was just a bit hazy.

So not my questions.
Re: Focus. Am I seeing poor focusing, camera shake, results of the 2x
extender, or even possible not using the mirror lockup?
Re: Camera Settings. I've read a lot about lunar 11 and sunny 16 but this
shot is shot at f/8 and a shutter speed of 1/40. Am I doing something wrong
or is the 11/16 thing just a guideline to start out with?

Any other suggestions or comments?

Thanks.

--

Rob

More about : moon shot

January 22, 2005 6:42:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>
> The sky was just a bit hazy.
>
> So not my questions.
> Re: Focus. Am I seeing poor focusing, camera shake, results of the 2x
> extender, or even possible not using the mirror lockup?
> Re: Camera Settings. I've read a lot about lunar 11 and sunny 16 but this
> shot is shot at f/8 and a shutter speed of 1/40. Am I doing something
> wrong or is the 11/16 thing just a guideline to start out with?
>
> Any other suggestions or comments?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
>
> Rob
>
>

I took some photos of the moon last night with 400mm + 1.4x (560mm). At 100
ISO exposure was 1/125 at f8.0
You will find the quality of the image will vary considerably as atmospheric
conditions change, took lots of pictures and choose the best.
I find the 75-300 soft at the 300 end.
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 6:42:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"dylan" <no@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:csts9e$hu3$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>>
>> The sky was just a bit hazy.
>>
>> So not my questions.
>> Re: Focus. Am I seeing poor focusing, camera shake, results of the 2x
>> extender, or even possible not using the mirror lockup?
>> Re: Camera Settings. I've read a lot about lunar 11 and sunny 16 but this
>> shot is shot at f/8 and a shutter speed of 1/40. Am I doing something
>> wrong or is the 11/16 thing just a guideline to start out with?
>>
>> Any other suggestions or comments?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>
>
> I took some photos of the moon last night with 400mm + 1.4x (560mm). At
> 100 ISO exposure was 1/125 at f8.0
> You will find the quality of the image will vary considerably as
> atmospheric conditions change, took lots of pictures and choose the best.
> I find the 75-300 soft at the 300 end.
>


I did take a bunch of shots and this one turned out the best.
Unfortunately, I only have the 75-300. I'm saving my pennies for the
100-400.

--

Rob
Related resources
January 22, 2005 8:06:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>
>
> I did take a bunch of shots and this one turned out the best.
> Unfortunately, I only have the 75-300. I'm saving my pennies for the
> 100-400.
>
> --
>
> Rob
>

Consider the 400 f5.6L, may not zoom but it is cheaper, see
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgot...
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 8:06:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"dylan" <no@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:csu16t$ic4$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>>
>>
>> I did take a bunch of shots and this one turned out the best.
>> Unfortunately, I only have the 75-300. I'm saving my pennies for the
>> 100-400.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Rob
>>
>
> Consider the 400 f5.6L, may not zoom but it is cheaper, see
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgot...
>

I read that review. It does make one think. It will be a while before I
can afford it so I'll have time to find other reviews and seek out others
opinions.

--

Rob
January 22, 2005 8:18:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

uploaded my version of last nights moon image to alt.binaries.pictures.astro
for comparison, not the best possible.
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 8:34:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Shoot at f/11. Set speed to 1/ ISO. Do manual focus to infinity.
and make sure you have a solid tripod n not a windy night :) 

here is one that I shot a while back.
http://www.fotografer.net/lf/?id=86734&kode=b3e87f34bca...

=bob=



"Robert R Kircher, Jr." <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vMednQW_5MOzcmzcRVn-hw@giganews.com...
> Ok so here it is. http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38898682
>
> It's not the best but IMHO not too bad for my first attempt.
>
> This was shot w/ my Canon 300D and a EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III w/ 2x
> extender all mounted on tripod and using a remote shutter release. I did
> not use the mirror lockup.
>
> The sky was just a bit hazy.
>
> So not my questions.
> Re: Focus. Am I seeing poor focusing, camera shake, results of the 2x
> extender, or even possible not using the mirror lockup?
> Re: Camera Settings. I've read a lot about lunar 11 and sunny 16 but this
> shot is shot at f/8 and a shutter speed of 1/40. Am I doing something
> wrong or is the 11/16 thing just a guideline to start out with?
>
> Any other suggestions or comments?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
>
> Rob
>
>
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 8:34:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"[BnH]" <b18[at]ii[dot]net> wrote in message
news:41f1f3da$0$31117$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Shoot at f/11. Set speed to 1/ ISO. Do manual focus to infinity.
> and make sure you have a solid tripod n not a windy night :) 
>
> here is one that I shot a while back.
> http://www.fotografer.net/lf/?id=86734&kode=b3e87f34bca...
>


I was able to do that w/o the extender,
http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38900253, but once I put the extender on
I had to change the setting to get a decent exposer.
--

Rob
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 2:21:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Robert R Kircher, Jr. <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Ok so here it is. http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38898682
>
>It's not the best but IMHO not too bad for my first attempt.
>
>This was shot w/ my Canon 300D and a EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III w/ 2x extender
>all mounted on tripod and using a remote shutter release. I did not use the
>mirror lockup.
>
>The sky was just a bit hazy.
>
>So not my questions.
>Re: Focus. Am I seeing poor focusing, camera shake, results of the 2x
>extender, or even possible not using the mirror lockup?

I'd guess that you're up against the limitations of the optics.
Really sharp photos of the moon require real telescopes with
sizeable apertures. It's not widely known in the photo field,
but there are theoretical limitations regarding the amount of
detail you can get form a given aperture, and the 75-300 has only
a 2" primary.

>Re: Camera Settings. I've read a lot about lunar 11 and sunny 16 but this
>shot is shot at f/8 and a shutter speed of 1/40. Am I doing something wrong
>or is the 11/16 thing just a guideline to start out with?

Just a guideline.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 12:36:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ray Fischer wrote:

> Robert R Kircher, Jr. <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Ok so here it is. http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38898682
>>
>>It's not the best but IMHO not too bad for my first attempt.
>>
>>This was shot w/ my Canon 300D and a EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III w/ 2x extender
>>all mounted on tripod and using a remote shutter release. I did not use the
>>mirror lockup.
>>
>>The sky was just a bit hazy.
>>
>>So not my questions.
>>Re: Focus. Am I seeing poor focusing, camera shake, results of the 2x
>>extender, or even possible not using the mirror lockup?
>
>
> I'd guess that you're up against the limitations of the optics.
> Really sharp photos of the moon require real telescopes with
> sizeable apertures. It's not widely known in the photo field,
> but there are theoretical limitations regarding the amount of
> detail you can get form a given aperture, and the 75-300 has only
> a 2" primary.
>
>
>>Re: Camera Settings. I've read a lot about lunar 11 and sunny 16 but this
>>shot is shot at f/8 and a shutter speed of 1/40. Am I doing something wrong
>>or is the 11/16 thing just a guideline to start out with?
>
>
> Just a guideline.
>
This is a good point.
A 2-inch aperture has a Dawes limit of 2.7 arc-seconds.
The Dawes limit which is just a few percent MTF, is
a strong upper limit to image detail.
The moon is about 1800 arc-seconds, so an image
size of ~1800/2.7 ~ 660 pixels pretty much
gets all you can possibly get from that aperture,
assuming perfect optics. With adaptive image
restoration on a high signal-to-noise image, you might
improve on that a little.

Roger
http://www.clarkvision.com
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 4:02:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Robert R Kircher, Jr. wrote:
> This was shot w/ my Canon 300D and a EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III w/ 2x
extender
>
> Re: Camera Settings. I've read a lot about lunar 11 and sunny 16 but
this
> shot is shot at f/8 and a shutter speed of 1/40. Am I doing
something wrong
> or is the 11/16 thing just a guideline to start out with?

With your 2x, f/8 becomes effectively f/16.
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 6:41:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>A 2-inch aperture has a Dawes limit of 2.7 arc-seconds.
>The Dawes limit which is just a few percent MTF, is
>a strong upper limit to image detail.
>The moon is about 1800 arc-seconds, so an image
>size of ~1800/2.7 ~ 660 pixels pretty much
>gets all you can possibly get from that aperture,
>assuming perfect optics. With adaptive image
>restoration on a high signal-to-noise image, you might
>improve on that a little.

Where can I read more about this? Sounds interesting. (Or do you
have time to post a summary?)

Thanks.

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free 35mm lens/digicam reviews: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 9:29:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:
>>A 2-inch aperture has a Dawes limit of 2.7 arc-seconds.
>>The Dawes limit which is just a few percent MTF, is
>>a strong upper limit to image detail.
>>The moon is about 1800 arc-seconds, so an image
>>size of ~1800/2.7 ~ 660 pixels pretty much
>>gets all you can possibly get from that aperture,
>>assuming perfect optics. With adaptive image
>>restoration on a high signal-to-noise image, you might
>>improve on that a little.
>
>
> Where can I read more about this? Sounds interesting. (Or do you
> have time to post a summary?)
>
> Thanks.
>
> -Joel

Joel,
If you mean more about adaptive image restoration, see these
pages and references therein:

Image Restoration Using Adaptive Richardson-Lucy Iteration
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/image-restoration1

Saturn with a Telephoto Lens
http://clarkvision.com/astro/saturn.03.02.2004

Diffraction:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.htm

Roger
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 5:23:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>>>A 2-inch aperture has a Dawes limit of 2.7 arc-seconds.
>>>The Dawes limit which is just a few percent MTF, is
>>>a strong upper limit to image detail.
>>>The moon is about 1800 arc-seconds, so an image
>>>size of ~1800/2.7 ~ 660 pixels pretty much
>>>gets all you can possibly get from that aperture,
>>>[...]
>>
>> Where can I read more about this? Sounds interesting. (Or do you
>> have time to post a summary?)
>If you mean more about adaptive image restoration, see these
>pages and references therein:

I meant what the Dawes limit is and why it applies, that is, why
there is such a maximum.

>Diffraction:
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.htm

Missed the "l," (http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html)

But thanks. While this defines the Dawes limit, it doesn't give any
insight into why there might be such a limit.

As you say, it's not "commonly known" in the 35mm photographic
community. It had never occurred to me that there might be such a
limit, so it makes intuitive sense that there would be.

Again, thanks.

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free 35mm lens/digicam reviews: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 10:05:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel@exc.com> wrote in message
news:r3A0e.7380$_Z4.3460@fe10.lga...
SNIP
> While this defines the Dawes limit, it doesn't give any
> insight into why there might be such a limit.

Most often used in Astronomy.
From what can be found on the internet:
"The Dawes criterion is purely empirical, but has at its root the
Rayleigh criterion, which is based on the diffraction limit.
Basically, Lord Rayleigh developed a theoretical criterion for
separating close star images, but Dawed found you can actually do a
little bit better in practice than Rayleigh thought you'd be able to.
So Dawes formula is just a scaled version of the Rayleigh criterion."

Bart
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 10:12:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>> While this defines the Dawes limit, it doesn't give any
>> insight into why there might be such a limit.
>
>Most often used in Astronomy.
>From what can be found on the internet:
>"The Dawes criterion is purely empirical, but has at its root the
>Rayleigh criterion, which is based on the diffraction limit.
>Basically, Lord Rayleigh developed a theoretical criterion for
>separating close star images, but Dawed found you can actually do a
>little bit better in practice than Rayleigh thought you'd be able to.
>So Dawes formula is just a scaled version of the Rayleigh criterion."

Doesn't sound right. There's a limit to what an aperture of a certain
size can do, but no one knows why...?

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free 35mm lens/digicam reviews: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 6:10:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel@exc.com> wrote in message
news:SiE0e.8766$bY7.8076@fe09.lga...
>>> While this defines the Dawes limit, it doesn't give any
>>> insight into why there might be such a limit.
>>
>>Most often used in Astronomy.
>>From what can be found on the internet:
>>"The Dawes criterion is purely empirical, but has at its root
>>the Rayleigh criterion, which is based on the diffraction limit.
>>Basically, Lord Rayleigh developed a theoretical criterion for
>>separating close star images, but Dawed found you can
>>actually do a little bit better in practice than Rayleigh thought
>>you'd be able to. So Dawes formula is just a scaled version
>>of the Rayleigh criterion."
>
> Doesn't sound right. There's a limit to what an aperture of a
> certain size can do, but no one knows why...?

Diffraction?!

Bart
!