First attempts at moon shot

[rathalian]

Hi Guys,

The following is a shot taken @ 150% size (raw original) and have saved as jpg format.

Shot specs:

F/8
Shutter Speed: 1/400
ISO 400
focal length 200mm
no filter
shaky hands (next comes the tripod)
spot focus

Taken with a 28-200mm Nikon G type lens (I'm thrilled with this lens so far !)

Post processing - sharpen pass/image rezise 150%.



As there is a 1.5x multiplier effect am I correct in saying the true focal length is 300mm ?

Feedback would be much appreciated

[NetMagi]

Great shot. I shot the moon for the first time last weekend at 300mm on a tripod and I think your shot came out better.


Here's mine:

[rathalian]

Is that @ original size Netmagi ?

What 300mm lens ?

Looks like a tad more light might do the trick

I set the spot metering to 6mm and it locked in instantly.

[NetMagi]

That is original size (full pixels)

The lens was Sigma 70-300 APO II

I didn't use the metering. I just guessed at the exposure and then fine-tuned after reviewing the first shot on the LCD.

I did lighten it a bit though, the LCD was deceiving and I could have gone another full stop. In the past I've been VERY happy with the sharpness of this Sigma for the $$$, but your shot looks much sharper.

-Rich

[Nnnnsic]

I think, NetMagi, that you've essentially gotten closer with yours, however it's a hell of a lot less sharp than rathalian's.

They're both quite good images, all in all.

[sirhc55]

Great shots guys - I’ll leap in with mine as well, if you don’t mind

[rathalian]

Ouch - now I want to be sick

What were the details of that shot ?

[sirhc55]

Moon shot originally posted with details

http://www.d70users.com/viewtopic.php?t=4265

[NetMagi]

Ouch - now I want to be sick

What were the details of that shot ?

yeah our shots pale in comparison

[Nnnnsic]

I thought I'd post my quick effort tonight.

I only realised that I was at the wrong ISO setting when I'd brought the gear back inside... Doh!

Shot on the 80-400VR at 400mm, 1/3200, F5.6, ISO 400, handheld because the monopod didn't reach the ground!!!

[Eunosdriver]

Ooh - can I play ?



500mm mirror lens, 1/500" (after a few guesses, as no metering available), tripod, ISO 200

[BBJ]

Ok i will share mine as well taken ages ago when i forst got my 80-400 VR taken at 400mm handheld.

[Killakoala]

Here ya go. Mine from last year when we had a nice bright full moon. It's my favourite moon photo that i have taken. D70 and 500mm F8 + Tamron 2x TC. F8 @ 1/30.

[Nnnnsic]

Fark.

Okay, now who has the Sigma 300-800?!

[KerryPierce]

Shot on the 80-400VR at 400mm, 1/3200, F5.6, ISO 400, handheld because the monopod didn't reach the ground!!!

That's a pretty good shot for hand held. Sounds like you need to either get a longer monopod or stand in a hole.

[sirhc55]

Amazing collection of moon shots - well done to everyone

[rathalian]

Nice one guys - thanks for the replies !

I was talking to a mate last night who is into telescopes heavilly.

Given my interest in photographing the heavens as well as earlthy persuits I think my 28-200 will be ok for now and I'll look at investing the money that could go on an additional telephoto into a proper Meade or Celestron telescope as apparently the D70 is perfect for deep space photography

I noticed someone was using a teleconverter x2 adapter - are these things worth it ? I noticed on ebay they are going for about $400 for the lens I have ($which only cost $450..hmmm).

[nigels]

Hi guys,

My 2 cents worth, enlarged 500%, taken with 70-300 Sigma





regards
Nige

[Killakoala]

Just goes to show how good the SIGMA glass really is (paging Gary).

I would have sworn you were in a spacecraft 100 miles above the lunar surface to take that one

[sirhc55]

Nigel (The Joker) you will blow Gary away with this shot - such brilliant acuity unless one closes their eyes

[Manta]

I think that big crater in the middle was made by the impact of the last Sigma lens Gary had in his hands....

[nigels]

Hehehehe,

Gary, eat your heart out.

Nige

[Oneputt]

I may have posted this before, but..............

[rathalian]

Hi guys,

My 2 cents worth, enlarged 500%, taken with 70-300 Sigma

regards
Nige

Nigels - what sigma lens is that one - the APO II ?

I was seriously considering that earlier

[nigels]

G'day,

Lens worth at least $20,000

Nige

[leek]

My 2 cents worth, enlarged 500%, taken with 70-300 Sigma

Hi Nige... When you say enlarged 500% - How did you enlarge it?

That shot is b^**$y amazing, but then the sky up in Bathurst is probably a lot clearer than it is down here in the smoke...

[Nikkofan]

Question for now (8:12 pm Sydney time) - Has anyone looked outside and seen the moon tonight? It is AMAZING! But this isn't my topic herein - I've just tried to literally "shoot the moon" , as they say, but with very little success. I've tried a number of different combos, starting with the F8 / ISO 400 / 400 shutter speed you used, Rathalian, but no good. I'm trying with a tripod, D70 of course, and Tamron 70 - 300 lens. I notice some of you guys are shooting with 70 - 300 Sigmas, but mine aren't getting your results. All shots look pretty good in small, but when I blow them up, they're blurry and lose detail.

How did you guys get those amazing shots??? I feel such an idiot asking you guys who just blithely post such brilliant shots but I can't seem to get the same shots. What am I doing wrong? Please can I enlist some HELP - before the moon disappears tonight, hopefully!

Thanks!

[rathalian]

This is an interesting site - lots of moon pics through digital with their associated settings - out tonight for more learning !

[Nikkofan]

This is an interesting site - lots of moon pics through digital with their associated settings - out tonight for more learning !

Sorry? Is there supposed to be a link here?

[HappyFotographer]

My turn.....

used the settings as listed in first post.....handheld with the tamron 70-300...set at 300 I believe.

Deb

[Manta]

I may have posted this before, but..............

Ahaa..I wondered when the Oneputt signature shot would come out in this thread. The Bigma strikes again!

This is such a great shot John and well worth dragging out every now and then to remind us newbies why we're here picking people's brains.

For those who want to see a different view of Oneputt see <a href=http://www.d70users.net/viewtopic.php?p=59374#59374&sid=f2c8e454f4cb4d747b8310191224cfb6>this thread</a>

[sirhc55]

OnePutt - that is one awesome pic

[leek]

My 2 cents worth, enlarged 500%, taken with 70-300 Sigma

Hi Nige... When you say enlarged 500% - How did you enlarge it?

That shot is b^**$y amazing, but then the sky up in Bathurst is probably a lot clearer than it is down here in the smoke...

OK...OK... I just realised myself... I've been had... Nice one Nige...

[Justin]

Here's my moon shot... Ithink I need a better lense and a photoshop course?

[Ordinary K]

ahhh... what the heck. Here's mine:

- base images were shot on film tho' (from memory, moon shot: Provia ISO100, 1/30s, f8 500mm catadioptric, tripod). Can't wait to drop that cat onto a dSLR (repeats mantra: mortgage first, mortgage first, mortgage first, ...)

Hi Guys,
...
As there is a 1.5x multiplier effect am I correct in saying the true focal length is 300mm ?

ahhh, no.

('True') focal length of a 200mm lens is ... 200mm. Always. Focal length is an attribute of the lens, not the sensor.

Whack that lens onto:
a compact digicam and it'll be a super-tele (~800mm equivalent in 35mm)
a d70 and it's a long tele (~300mm 35mm equiv)
a 35mm camera and it's a medium-long tele (~200mm - d'oh!)
a medium-format camera and it's a short tele (~120mm? equivalent in 35mm)
a large-format camera and it's a standard lens (~50mm? equivalent in 35mm)

Personal opinion: Comparing dSLR focal lengths to the 35mm equivalents is a sign that the dSLR business is still in its infancy. We won't be doing it in ten year's time.

cheers

K

[Manta]

My 2 cents worth, enlarged 500%, taken with 70-300 Sigma

Hi Nige... When you say enlarged 500% - How did you enlarge it?

That shot is b^**$y amazing, but then the sky up in Bathurst is probably a lot clearer than it is down here in the smoke...

OK...OK... I just realised myself... I've been had... Nice one Nige...

This seems to be happening to you with increasing regularity John. Perhaps some mental USM needs to be applied?!

[christiand]

hi everyone,

here is my noom shot:





Cheers
CD

[sirhc55]

CD - everyone else is shooting the moon and you are shooting the noom

[christiand]

noom is inverted moon ?

[leek]

Just as a matter of interest:

On the drive home this evening, facing east, I experienced a very large (almost full) moon low in the sky... As is sometimes the case the moon looked about 3 times as big as it does when high in the sky...
I know that this is an optical illusion, but is it also artificially magnified such that a shot through a (e.g.) 300mm lens would appear equally larger than one shot of the moon when it is high in the sky???

Any definitive answers out there???

[mic]

Leek, I know if the Moon is low over the Horizon, it gets magnified by the atmoshere due to the increased smog & crap down low. As it rises higher the sky the air is thinner & clearer so it doesn't magnify as much.

Thats even if it is inverted as well.

Mic

[christiand]

I have been told by a verified source that the moon illusion exists!

The illusion happens in the following way:

A moon coming up on the horizon, if seen amongst or amidst other objects such as trees, hills etc seems to be several times larger than the moon being high in the sky.
I remember driving up a hill, on the crest of that hill I saw a humongous moon! , naahhh apparently an illusion.

If the moon is high in the sky and no other objects known by size to humans are near it, the moon seems to be much smaller.

Cheers
CD

[Gordon]

Just as a matter of interest:

I know that this is an optical illusion, but is it also artificially magnified such that a shot through a (e.g.) 300mm lens would appear equally larger than one shot of the moon when it is high in the sky???

Any definitive answers out there???

take the photos and you will see that it is actually smaller on the horizon, because its a distance equal to the radius of the Earth further away from you than when overhead.
The atmosphere can distort it when its low on the horizon (because you are looking through the equivalent of 40 atmospheres there!) but it doesnt increase the overall size. Mostly it squashes it flatter.
I have plenty of moon pics though the telescope, but none with the D70 yet (that I can think of offhand) ... maybe one of these days I'll get around to doing one, does 2440mm @ f/5.4 sound good?

Gordon

[christiand]

Hi Gordon,

"does 2440mm @ f/5.4 sound good?" , yes please.

Cheers
CD

[bimborocks]

dragging up an old post here but i took a pic of the moon tonight - first attempt.

pic was taken with 70-300mm nikon ED lens. ISO 200 and shutter 1/500
tripod consisted of my car roof and a block of wood



cheers
James