The Moon

[Groucho]

I'm not sure that I agree with JR6ooo4's observations on film vs digital. You can't really take two 8x10s, one film and one digital, and make any conclusions. Film can be enlarged, cropped, etc, however the photo shop wants to make it look nice on an 8x10, and one made from digital can be modified and printed at a variety of DPIs. In other words, at 150dpi a picture might be shrunk, 300dpi it might be nearly 1:1, 600dpi would be stretched, etc.

In other words, you can't make a simple comparison of an analog media (like film) and a digital one. Besides, size is only one measure of film, different films have different levels of grain, etc.

 

[0bli0]

here is one i took a few years ago with my 10D. ISO 400 - 1/125 @ F9.5
this is my desktop photo on my work laptop.

and no, it's not upside down (we are...)

 

[JR6ooo4]

I wouldn't worry about the exposure level. Just try a lot of different exposures and keep the one you want. Obviously, it's not going anywhere, so you have plenty of opportunities to get the shot.

For the best sense of depth, don't shoot the moon when it is full. You don't get any shadows.



This can indeed be very confusing. When you say that there will be no greater detail, you are making the assumption that the pixel density between the two sensors (full frame and 1.6x) are the same. However, if both sensors have the same number of pixels, the moon will cover more pixels and have more detail on the 1.6x camera rather than the full frame camera.

The subject gets really confusing really fast.

Ya, the math is big here. But the overall point is that you don't realy get any closer because of the crop factor.

Mikeeee

 

[Groucho]

here is one i took a few years ago with my 10D. ISO 400 - 1/125 @ F9.5
this is my desktop photo on my work laptop.

Very nice, what kind of focal length was that? How about cropping?

 

[0bli0]

not cropped. it was shot with the bigma @ 500mm - so with the 10d's 1.6 crop factor, it's the equiv field of view of 800mm on a 35mm piece of film. i have some taken with my 6" scope somewhere....

 

[jtimmons]

This is perfect. This is the kind of picture I want to take.

here is one i took a few years ago with my 10D. ISO 400 - 1/125 @ F9.5
this is my desktop photo on my work laptop.

and no, it's not upside down (we are...)

Thanks to everyone for the help!!!

 

[Groucho]

not cropped. it was shot with the bigma @ 500mm - so with the 10d's 1.6 crop factor, it's the equiv field of view of 800mm on a 35mm piece of film. i have some taken with my 6" scope somewhere....

You just can't beat a long lens for this kind of thing.

What's the story on the scope? I'd be really curious to hear "real world" experience of hooking a DSLR into a telescope.

 

[0bli0]

ah, sorry - just looking at the master image again and it is slightly cropped, but not significantly

re: the scope - i have an EOS adapter which holds an eyepiece. it's great for taking shots of the moon but since it's not a tracking scope, it's no good for taking shots of jupiter, and other cool bodies in space.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

But the overall point is that you don't realy get any closer because of the crop factor.

Here's a related comment that most people either get instantly or have a really, really hard understanding: Neither the sensor size nor the focal length of the lens affect the perspective. Perspective is determined entirely by where the focal plane is relative to the objects in the picture. Changing focal length or sensor size simply changes the field of view, not the perspective.

 

[handicap18]

Our Moon has a reflectance of about 10% average. As 0bli0 pointed out, the "sunny day rule" is about right since it is designed for a reflectance of 18%. Bracket one stop around that and the results should be pretty good.

Our camera meters are about worthless for getting a reading of the Moon since there is so much dark sky in the picture (unless you're sporting a 1000+ mm lens).

Anyway, Moon shots are fun, the best days are supposed to be about two days before full, with the sky a nice shade of deep blue instead of black.

I don't completely agree with the meters being about worthless for getting a reading of the moon.

If you have the right lens (upwards of 300mm and higher) and a camera that has spot metering then getting a very good reading is pretty easy. Combining the spot metering and a 300mm focal length, the moon will take up almost all of the area that the spot meter reads. Its been quite a few months since I was taking moon shots, but I do recall the moon filling my spot meter's area. If I get a chance as the next full moon approaches, I'll try it again to be sure.

You are right about moon shots being fun. I missed the harvest moon. and the previous full moon as well. There was one day driving into work early in the morning where I swear the moon look liked it was right next to me. It was huge. Of course it always works out that when the moon is in its best and you have the ultimate view you DON'T have your camera. I can't even count how many times its happened to me. DOH!!

 

[boBQuincy]

I don't completely agree with the meters being about worthless for getting a reading of the moon. If you have the right lens (upwards of 300mm and higher) and a camera that has spot metering then getting a very good reading is pretty easy.

Us poor folks don't have a spot meter. Or a 300+ mm lens... yet. Once I get a 30D and longer lens that should change my mind about the spot meter.

Of course it always works out that when the moon is in its best and you have the ultimate view you DON'T have your camera. I can't even count how many times its happened to me. DOH!!

It's very tricky to tell when and where the moon will appear, trickier yet to remember to bring the camera (I have much experience with this). A really nice program, Ephemeris, is a great help for planning a moon shot, with times and compass settings.

But it doesn't do squat for when it rains on the (otherwise) perfect night.

 

[handicap18]

Us poor folks don't have a spot meter. Or a 300+ mm lens... yet. Once I get a 30D and longer lens that should change my mind about the spot meter.


It's very tricky to tell when and where the moon will appear, trickier yet to remember to bring the camera (I have much experience with this). A really nice program, Ephemeris, is a great help for planning a moon shot, with times and compass settings.

But it doesn't do squat for when it rains on the (otherwise) perfect night.

Agreed Bob, thus the 'don't completely agree' line.

Also agree about the moon's appearance. That being said, when I did my moon shots earlier in the year, I just payed attention to where it was each night for a few nights. Also, the biggest problem I had with myself in missing the last few really good moon's was that it was mentioned a few times on the evening news' weather reports. In my area at least, I've found the moon to be at it largest in the month of September. I believe thats why they call it the harvest moon, because it is bigger than normal thus giving more light to be able to harvest crops long into the evening.

There are other "name's" for the moon, like Blue moon, and each name has its time of year. So if someone is really interested this information might be very helpful in taking moon shots. Like you mentioned, however, those clouds can really put a damper on things though.

 

[Virgo10]

Can't do craters or mountain but I can do PINK!

M O O N spells moon. Did anyone else think of Stephen King when they saw the title of this thread?

 

[MarkBarbieri]

thats why they call it the harvest moon, because it is bigger than normal

I believe that it only looks bigger because of an optical illusion. It still takes up the exact same amount of space in the sky (or your photograph). The difference is that when the full moon is closer to the horizon, you see it in the context of objects on the ground and it looks big. When it is high in the sky, you see it without context and it appears to be smaller.

 

[Master Mason]

I believe that it only looks bigger because of an optical illusion. It still takes up the exact same amount of space in the sky (or your photograph). The difference is that when the full moon is closer to the horizon, you see it in the context of objects on the ground and it looks big. When it is high in the sky, you see it without context and it appears to be smaller.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the moon's orbit aliptacal rather than circular... therefore at certain times of the year it is actually closer than others, and that gives it the apperence of being larger?