Moon Pics. Got it figured out

Michael. · 11-20-2007, 11:34 PM

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:

Cropped:

**.:Chris:.** · 11-20-2007, 11:54 PM

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 · 11-21-2007, 12:13 AM

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

Darn punk kids.

Michael. · 11-21-2007, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 94TurboGSR

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 · 11-21-2007, 12:55 AM

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

Michael. · 11-21-2007, 01:59 AM

how telephoto is it?

i wanna shoot with it!

**Mars_302** · 11-21-2007, 02:04 AM

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 · 11-21-2007, 02:04 AM

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

oASHo · 11-21-2007, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 96whiteknight

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

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

3drwhore · 11-21-2007, 07:03 AM

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

**.:Chris:.** · 11-21-2007, 09:07 AM

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** · 11-21-2007, 10:00 AM

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. · 11-21-2007, 11:23 AM

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:.** · 11-21-2007, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by civickid04

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.

**Mars_302** · 11-21-2007, 12:38 PM

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.

11-20-2007, 11:34 PM	#1 (permalink)
Michael. Back To The "H" Car: 97 EK Coupe My TRGarage Bradenton/Tampa : 1063437499	Moon Pics. Got it figured out 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: Cropped: Last edited by Michael. : 11-20-2007 at 11:37 PM.

11-20-2007, 11:54 PM	#2 (permalink)
.:Chris:. Doesn't steal from flickr Car: Turbo Teal GSR My TRGarage Saint Petersburg, Florida : 853762725	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.

11-21-2007, 12:13 AM	#3 (permalink)
Hoosier Daddy American Muscle Car: Dakota My TRGarage Spring Hill : 986401617	So the moon isn't made of swiss cheese..... Darn punk kids.

11-21-2007, 12:55 AM	#5 (permalink)
96whiteknight aka SiR Bumpers Mike Car: 96 ej8 My TRGarage Behind the camera : 1020614243	Pics look pretty good to me! I should be getting my telephoto lens tomorrow.

11-21-2007, 01:59 AM	#6 (permalink)
Michael. Back To The "H" Car: 97 EK Coupe My TRGarage Bradenton/Tampa : 1063437499	how telephoto is it? i wanna shoot with it!

11-21-2007, 02:04 AM	#7 (permalink)
Mars_302 Race Photographer Car: My TRGarage : 2147483647	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

11-21-2007, 02:04 AM	#8 (permalink)
96whiteknight aka SiR Bumpers Mike Car: 96 ej8 My TRGarage Behind the camera : 1020614243	As if I need something else to learn on this camera.

11-21-2007, 07:03 AM	#10 (permalink)
3drwhore Pending.... Car: Audi A3 My TRGarage Sarasota : 220840516	that lens just looks like overly done or something, my 70 - 300 isnt even that big.

11-21-2007, 09:07 AM	#11 (permalink)
.:Chris:. Doesn't steal from flickr Car: Turbo Teal GSR My TRGarage Saint Petersburg, Florida : 853762725	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.

11-21-2007, 10:00 AM	#12 (permalink)
Green_Lantern I <3 Lindsey!!! Car: 97 Jetta GLX & 90 gst My TRGarage St. Petersburg, FL of USA : 323288639	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.

11-21-2007, 11:23 AM	#13 (permalink)
Michael. Back To The "H" Car: 97 EK Coupe My TRGarage Bradenton/Tampa : 1063437499	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!!!

11-21-2007, 12:38 PM	#15 (permalink)
Mars_302 Race Photographer Car: My TRGarage : 2147483647	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.