Moon Pics. Got it figured out

[Michael.]

I've tried taking them before but it just turned out all flared and stuff.

Manual mode, i thought it was at 200mm but it focused to 185, iso 200, f5.6, shutter 1/200 (thats the key, set the shutter to 1/xxxx of what the iso is) and i just had the aperture as open as i could...

Original:
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc32/usf_ND50/Moon%20Pics/CampusNights079.jpg

Cropped:
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc32/usf_ND50/Moon%20Pics/MoonCrop.jpg

[.:Chris:.]

The one thing you didn't mention is the white balance. It should be set to sunlight, since the moon is reflecting sunlight.

Your shot looks great. It sort of goes against everything you learn to shoot at 1/focal-length at night, but it's right.

I calculated the focal length that you would need to get a full frame (aps-c sensor) moon shot a few months ago. I think it was about 1200mm IIRC.

[Hoosier Daddy]

So the moon isn't made of swiss cheese.....

Darn punk kids.

[Michael.]

The one thing you didn't mention is the white balance. It should be set to sunlight, since the moon is reflecting sunlight.

Your shot looks great. It sort of goes against everything you learn to shoot at 1/focal-length at night, but it's right.

I calculated the focal length that you would need to get a full frame (aps-c sensor) moon shot a few months ago. I think it was about 1200mm IIRC.

ahh yeah white balance was just auto. i have to admit i havnt really gotten into playing with my W/B. however now that you mention it, setting it to Sun would make sense. I'll try it tomorrow night at the meet possibly, if I go, if not i'll take it from my patio.

and yes about the full frame, a lot of people on the canon forum i'm on had a whole thread for this and they were shooting will TC's and through telescopes and shit and it was amazing seeing what they captured

[96whiteknight]

Pics look pretty good to me! I should be getting my telephoto lens tomorrow. :D

[Michael.]

how telephoto is it?

i wanna shoot with it!

[Mars_302]

they came out well. but like mentioned more focal length. If you got a decent telescope you can a T mount and mout the camera directly to the scope. Though I was try and incorporate some other elements with the moon. its a little hard though, a lot of the film guys back in the day would do a multi-exposure to achieve this

[96whiteknight]

http://a1672.g.akamai.net/7/1672/116/20071101/www.ritzcamera.com/graphics/products/5-56/large/541164356_bg.jpg

As if I need something else to learn on this camera. :crack:

[EroticA]

http://a1672.g.akamai.net/7/1672/116/20071101/www.ritzcamera.com/graphics/products/5-56/large/541164356_bg.jpg

As if I need something else to learn on this camera. :crack:


holy hot karl. what are you planning on checking the color of the grass on mars? hahhahah

[3drwhore]

that lens just looks like overly done or something, my 70 - 300 isnt even that big.

[.:Chris:.]

200mm isn't that long... usually though, when lenses are big (like the grey one looks above) then they're better (build and image) quality and able to reach a larger aperture than something smaller.

With that being said I really know nothing about Canon lenses.

[Green_Lantern]

Very Nice Job man! I've found it hard to get some really good clean shots of the moon. But Rep for some good shots man.

[Michael.]

yeah if thats the exact lens what are the specs? obviously if it is, its L glass which is amazing, L glass canon lenses are pretty much the best out there, and most expensive.

the "white" helps distinguish a canon. and tell me its not a 2.8 lens, if it is I hate you and I wanna shoot with it and i'll teach ya what i can about it!!!

[.:Chris:.]

yeah if thats the exact lens what are the specs? obviously if it is, its L glass which is amazing, L glass canon lenses are pretty much the best out there, and most expensive.

the "white" helps distinguish a canon. and tell me its not a 2.8 lens, if it is I hate you and I wanna shoot with it and i'll teach ya what i can about it!!!


Are you offering to teach me? It's not my lens. :lol:

[Mars_302]

that looks like the cheaper brother in the picture, the F4 IS. Thew new F4 IS has a claimed 4 stop increase in anti-shake vs the 2-3 of the older 2.8 IS. You really need a 500+. Teleconverters work, but you need to spend the cash ona good one. And if you get a 2x, on a normal f5.6 lens, that really the cuts down the light a lot, it i will bring it way past F11 I recall.

[96whiteknight]

Sorry to jack your thread, man. I'll start a new thread about the lense (including pics) when I get back from the zoo on Friday.

...And yes, that's the exact lense. ;) It's the F4 Non-IS...Basically, the entry-level "L" lense, if there is such a thing.

[Michael.]

Are you offering to teach me? It's not my lens. :lol:

no no i was talkin to mike (whiteknight)

and mars: thats cool to know. i really wish i had a canon now, but i think i can easily make due with my nikon for now...

its cool mike, if we go shooting friday night or something we can test it out on the moon! get the btown crew together cause i've missed all the shoots with you guys and i need some

[.:Chris:.]

i really wish i had a canon now, but i think i can easily make due with my nikon for now...

Before long I'll be the only one here not shooting Canon. :nono:
Have you looked at the pro-grade Nikon lenses lately? Check out the various different models of 80-200 F2.8 and the 70-200 F2.8VR before you go switching for L glass. :)

[96whiteknight]

Saturday = full moon. I'll see what the guys are doing and let you know.

[Mars_302]

Sorry to jack your thread, man. I'll start a new thread about the lense (including pics) when I get back from the zoo on Friday.

...And yes, that's the exact lense. ;) It's the F4 Non-IS...Basically, the entry-level "L" lense, if there is such a thing.

$500 for a pro-entry level telephoto is pretty damn good deal, the next one up for that is the F4 IS which is a little over a grand.

A lot of the higher end Canon and nikon telephotos are $$$$$$$$$$$$$$. I mean $4k+ for a lens. If you are really into wanting to get into some strict astro-photography, I wouldnt even buy a $4k telephoto lens thats only good for 400-500, as its only enough to see the moon. $2-3K buy a really nice telescope, and then you can see mars or saturn close up. You can also build your own scope. And believe me, they are some serious amatuer built scopes out there, and you would be amazed at what they can see.

[Michael.]

Before long I'll be the only one here not shooting Canon. :nono:
Have you looked at the pro-grade Nikon lenses lately? Check out the various different models of 80-200 F2.8 and the 70-200 F2.8VR before you go switching for L glass. :)
ohh im sure i'll be with the nikon for some good time. and i havnt looked into much of that yet but i will soon because i'd like to sell my 55-200 and see what i can step up to from that. i'm happy with the range of lenses i have now but i'd like something with a little more distance, clarity, and stability...

and HELL YEAH to saturday night! lol the gf is coming home with me for turkey day cause she cant make it back to NY, so i'll see if she'll be ok with staying saturday night as well then come back to tampa sunday morning. if the other guys cant make it out you and i should plan on meeting up cause i REALLY wanna see your setup now haha

[.:Chris:.]

ohh im sure i'll be with the nikon for some good time. and i havnt looked into much of that yet but i will soon because i'd like to sell my 55-200 and see what i can step up to from that. i'm happy with the range of lenses i have now but i'd like something with a little more distance, clarity, and stability...

The next step up from the 55-200 would be the 70-300mm VR. It's got great clarity, stabilization and more range obviously. It's about $500.

Up from that, you've got the 80-200mm's. There are various different versions (three, I think) and they're all great optically. Some are faster focusing than the others.

The 80-200mm was replaced by the 70-200mm VR which is outstanding optically. It's $15-1700 if I remember.

[Michael.]

The next step up from the 55-200 would be the 70-300mm VR. It's got great clarity, stabilization and more range obviously. It's about $500.

Up from that, you've got the 80-200mm's. There are various different versions (three, I think) and they're all great optically. Some are faster focusing than the others.

The 80-200mm was replaced by the 70-200mm VR which is outstanding optically. It's $15-1700 if I remember.
yeah ive played with the 70-300 VR multiple times and LOVED it. Im pretty sure thats what I'd go to.

I dont think i would go to the 80-200's only cause im not too fond of the range of the 200. its decent, but im now seeing that i could use 300 more, and if i have 300, i obviously can get 200mm. the VR also helps with like 2 f stops or something around that IIRC

[DareDevil]

Before long I'll be the only one here not shooting Canon. :nono:

I think there's a reason for that. :P

[.:Chris:.]

I think there's a reason for that. :P

You're right, there is a reason: I'm not one to jump on the bandwagon. ;)

If I wanted to shoot sports at a million frames a second: Canon.
If I wanted to shoot something with superior image quality: Oh wait, that's what I wanted and that's what I got! :lol:

Just a bit of humor, don't get upset. http://emoticons4u.com/happy/671.gif :hide:

[Michael.]

You're right, there is a reason: I'm not one to jump on the bandwagon. ;)

If I wanted to shoot sports at a million frames a second: Canon.
If I wanted to shoot something with superior image quality: Oh wait, that's what I wanted and that's what I got! :lol:

Just a bit of humor, don't get upset. http://emoticons4u.com/happy/671.gif :hide:

+1 good call! Which camera do you have again? since all my lenses are nikon, might as well stay nikon for a while till i can sell the set and then front more money on top for a whole new setup ya know? if anything i'll move up to a d80, d200 or MAYBE even a d2x pending the timing and whats available at the time and my funding...

[Mars_302]

Just stick with the camera you have now and get better lenses unless there is some feature you have to have on the other cameras, My XT does my well, only thing it needs for me to be happy is the sensor cleaner, faster shooting speed, and better noise reduction, other than that, it does all exactly what I need

[Michael.]

yeah of course. im PLENTY happy with my d50. and i feel its better than the d40 at times. i wish it had a sensor cleaner as well because mines dirrrrty. i tried cleaning it with the little kit but i cannot seem to get the few little devil specs. i'm going to take it to a photographer friend of ours and see what he can do.

anyone wanna buy my 55-200 Nikkor lens??? I want the 70-300VR :D

[.:Chris:.]

+1 good call! Which camera do you have again?

I shoot a D50 too. I have a few lenses, not a huge collection:

Sigma 10-20mm
Nikon 18-55mm
Nikon 35-70mm
Nikon 50mm 1.8
Nikon 70-210mm

If you're ever thinking of buying a new lens, rent it from Rentglass.com - Lens rentals by mail for Canon and Nikon SLR cameras (http://www.rentglass.com). They're in Orlando, I rented an 80-400VR from them about a year ago. It was a lot of fun, but I'd never use 400mm. I'd love to have a 70-200VR, but I'll likely get the 80-200 2.8 first.

Also, I'd spend the money on a used D200 over a D80.

[Michael.]

I shoot a D50 too. I have a few lenses, not a huge collection:

Sigma 10-20mm
Nikon 18-55mm
Nikon 35-70mm
Nikon 50mm 1.8
Nikon 70-210mm

If you're ever thinking of buying a new lens, rent it from Rentglass.com - Lens rentals by mail for Canon and Nikon SLR cameras (http://www.rentglass.com). They're in Orlando, I rented an 80-400VR from them about a year ago. It was a lot of fun, but I'd never use 400mm. I'd love to have a 70-200VR, but I'll likely get the 80-200 2.8 first.

Also, I'd spend the money on a used D200 over a D80.
very good points. as sweet as the 80-200 2.8 would be, i think i'd still like the 300VR first. the 200 is a decent distance but the extra 100 would be nice, and you could still go to 200 with it...

[.:Chris:.]

very good points. as sweet as the 80-200 2.8 would be, i think i'd still like the 300VR first. the 200 is a decent distance but the extra 100 would be nice, and you could still go to 200 with it...

Yeah but you're talking professional grade vs regular stuff though. The 70-300 looks great from the samples I've seen, but the 80-200 is professional stuff and it really shows with image quality.

With that being said, it's a money balancing act too. If you could get the 70-300 and use the balance ($300ish probably) to buy something else then you may be better served.

I just noticed that the 70-200 is in stock at rentglass.com... I'm *so* tempted. I also see they have D300 rentals coming soon.

[Michael.]

yeah i havnt seen much on the d300. have you?

[.:Chris:.]

Well, there's so much talk of it on dpreview that it's obnoxious. There are a fair number of people there that have the D300 and even a group that have the D3.

The pics from can be great from what I've seen. I say they "can be" because people are posting "new d300 pics!" threads with just random pics out their window. :lol:

Here are a couple from this thread (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1039&thread=25710507):
http://users.bigpond.net.au/terrylane/RLn001.jpg

http://users.bigpond.net.au/terrylane/RLn002.jpg