Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Keeping the Camera Steady...

Ok, first of all I am extremely sorry to revive such an old thread but I recently got some time to finally shoot some pictures of the moon. I did succeed this time but the image lacks detail. Why could this be? Do you think the lens isn't of good quality? I'm using a Mirror lens F8 500mm coupled with a 1.6 tele-converter on a D100 which has a lens-factor of 1.5x. So I get a focal length of around 1200mm.

ISO: 400
Shutter speed: 1/125th
Aperture: F8

This what came out:
Moon.jpg


As you can see the image is pretty soft... not sharp as it should be. Is this the lens? Or are there still some slight vibrations which are causing this?
 
Remember that even with the best of equipment and setup, photos of the moon from the earth's surface can never be quite as sharp as you want them to be, simply because you're shooting through several miles of swirling atmospheric gasses.

They'll be sharpest when the moon is as directly overhead, and therefore you're shooting through the least amount of air.

In general, shooting the moon (haha) tends to be frustrating and not very rewarding (believe it or not, the majority of moon shots look exactly the same! ;) ), but the big advantage of knowing how to do it well is that when there is an eclipse, you're ready. Eclipses are damn cool.
 
The mirror lenses are never that great in quality, Sigma doesn't even make one anymore, so that might be a problem. You could try to shoot the moon when its more on the horizon, thus you can use a shorter shutter speed. Shoot in raw, and then mask out the black and sharpen it up a little.
 
Thank you to both of you for your suggestions. I'll try them tomorrow evening. :)

PS: I have a 80-200mm F2.8 lens, that will translate into a 300mm onto a D100, do you think that will have more detail then this one?

What image would you rather take? The larger, but soft, by the 1200mm or a 4 times smaller but more sharper and detailed by the 300mm?
 
Good grief, I can't believe everyone missed 2 major things here...

1. by using the x-converter you are also changing the F-stop, not just the focal length of the lens.

2. The Moon is a Sun lite object... you should use the same exposure as you would shooting in broad day light here on earth. The higher the shutter speed the better becasue there is movement in the Moon and unless you are using a release cable you will get camera shake. (You can also use the self timer to let the camera shake settle down before the exposure starts.)

Try changing the ISO and bracket the shutter speed 8 or 10 exposures.
 
rjphoto said:
Good grief, I can't believe everyone missed 2 major things here...

1. by using the x-converter you are also changing the F-stop, not just the focal length of the lens.

2. The Moon is a Sun lite object... you should use the same exposure as you would shooting in broad day light here on earth. The higher the shutter speed the better becasue there is movement in the Moon and unless you are using a release cable you will get camera shake. (You can also use the self timer to let the camera shake settle down before the exposure starts.)

Try changing the ISO and bracket the shutter speed 8 or 10 exposures.
Click to expand...
What?
Of course it changes the aperture. Is that not perfectly obvious?

The moon might as well be lit by a candle, what does the light source have to do with anything? It is also obvious to say he should need a relatively fast shutter speed - because the moon is moving. I already said that.
But what you're saying is what we call a logical falacy. Lets say I want to shoot a building under daylight. If the building isn't moving it doesn't matter what shutter speed I use. So just because its lit by the sun doesn't mean you need to use ... daylight exposure speeds?? It should occours to you that that statement is rediculous.

EDIT: I just went back to see Echo was shooting at 1/125. That is fast enough. Unless wind or something is shaking the camera I would think that shutter speed is fast enough to stop the moon's movement.

EDIT2: Looking back at the previous posts again I would have to say you have gotten as sharp as its going to get with that combination. Try without the teleconverter. the 80-200 would probably be shaper, but not when you consider the difference in focal length. You've done everything you can, you're just at the limits of your technology.
 
jared_kipe said:
What?
Of course it changes the aperture. Is that not perfectly obvious?

The moon might as well be lit by a candle, what does the light source have to do with anything? It is also obvious to say he should need a relatively fast shutter speed - because the moon is moving. I already said that.
But what you're saying is what we call a logical falacy. Lets say I want to shoot a building under daylight. If the building isn't moving it doesn't matter what shutter speed I use. So just because its lit by the sun doesn't mean you need to use ... daylight exposure speeds?? It should occours to you that that statement is rediculous.
Click to expand...

No, it is not perfectly obvious to a novis. They think that since they are using an F8 lens that is what they will get. Add the X-converter to the equation and it changes. If they are doing manual calcualtions of the exposure, that has to be factored in. By bracketing the exposure several stops above and below the normal "Day Light" exposure will give decent results.
Logical Falacy? No, I've photograhed the moon many times using this "RULE OF THUMB". Including several hours on my back on the cold ground one November photographing an eclips from begining to end.

f16 at 1/60th of a second with ISO 100...try it and see.

From New York Institute of Photography: http://www.nyip.com/tips/current/eclipse1104.php
Exposure
Since the moon is a sunlit object, the "sunny 16" rule applies. (This is an easy-to-remember trick for photographing any sunlit subject that photographers relied upon prior to the days of autoexposure.) Simply put, the correct exposure for an object lit by bright sun can be a shutter speed of 1/the ISO of the film you're using, with an aperture of ƒ/16. For example, if you're using an ISO 400 speed film, a good starting point for a correct exposure of the moon would be ƒ/16 at 1/400. Since most cameras don't have a shutter speed setting of 1/400, we would suggest bracketing the exposure and making one at 1/250 at ƒ/16, and one at 1/500 at ƒ/16.


Don't trust me, check out:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~krcool/Astro/moon/howtophoto/
 
Oh, and one more thing

See if the lens has a tripod mount on it.

That's a pretting big lens and it is more than likely moving the camera.

Again like jared_kipe said, lose the x-converter and try the other lens.


AND Bracket the exposure.

Tonight should be a good night to shoot the moon........
 
I wouldn't try the 200mm lens. Its just too short.

As to what the above guy is talking about.... for one thing his lens is fixed at f8. And I assume his TC eats just over 1 stop of light. Maybe 1 and a third.

Anyway, he's not having a problem metering for it, its just that its soft. But I really don't think it will get any better even if he boosts ISO to get faster shutter, or just underexposes and does levels in software.

Oh and his lens isn't too big at all, and its really light. Reflex lenses are basically empty air. Think of a mini satellite dish with hollow tube around it.
 
I'm not making any calculations (being a rookie and all! :p). And I know I can bracket, but I just vary the shutter speed manually. That is take 2 shots at 1/30th then 1/60th and so on. Ofcourse I vary the ISO speed as well otherwise the moon would be unexposed. Is there any other advantage to bracketing that I don't know of?
 
Echoes1024 said:
I'm not making any calculations (being a rookie and all! :p). And I know I can bracket, but I just vary the shutter speed manually. That is take 2 shots at 1/30th then 1/60th and so on. Ofcourse I vary the ISO speed as well otherwise the moon would be unexposed. Is there any other advantage to bracketing that I don't know of?
Click to expand...
Just that it does it for you quickly, I don't use it myself, takes too long to setup. Its easier for me to do the way you're doing. Plus I don't know if it can bracket changing the iso instead of aperture.
 
Echoes1024 said:
Now those are STUNNING! I wanna do that :(
Click to expand...
Lens must be the problem then. He's using a modern "nice" lens, and a modern teleconverter. You shouldn't be surprised your old mirror lens isn't up to the task.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back