UKC

Moon photography

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
There's going to be an eclipse of the moon here tomoz, any tips for best way to photograph it?

Cheers,

Gob
 andi turner 14 Apr 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

With a sturdy mount and long focal length. Focus using zoomed in on screen manual focusing. Use a remote shutter control or timer.

As for settings, try and keep the iso low as it's a partial eclipse so colours could be good. I'd aim for about 200 and then set the exposure around this. Use the moon itself for metering.

Cheers.

Andi
 london_huddy 14 Apr 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

It moves fast and is brighter than you think!

Think about:
-manual everything, focus and exposure
-the longest lens you can find
-cable release
-mirror lock up
 sbc_10 14 Apr 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

Check on the timings, don't where you are based exactly but you may only get the start or the end.
I don't think it's a good one for the UK.

(see bottom of this)

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/OH/OHfigures/OH2014-Fig01.pdf
In reply to sbc_10:
Thanks to all, if any turn out reasonable I'll link to them. But there will be cloud about.

I have a Canon 70-300 lens and a 2x teleconverter, use the converter too?

(I'm in Canberra sbc)
Post edited at 21:58
 chris fox 14 Apr 2014
In reply to stroppygob

remember the moon is bright, so shoot as for daylight conditions. go onto "live view", manual focus and go to 10x zoom, then tweak the focusing to get the moon sharp.
In reply to stroppygob:

Try 300 on its own. You'll probably need mirror lock up to use the teleconverter with the lens on maximum zoom and this will slow the lens right down and the long focal length will make it susceptible to vibrations.

...Still, digital film is cheap so try various combinations and see what comes out. The eclipse lasts for over an hour so no hurry.

Iso 200 and F5.6 will be about 1/250 seconds as a starting point for experimentation.
 Mikkel 14 Apr 2014
In reply to chris fox:
i took some a while ago after getting my 150-500mm lens, i could not get it sharp manually just not enough details to see on the screen or through viewfinder, auto worked a treat though (will depend on the lens) and i did the pictures handheld at 500mm on a crop sensor.
Post edited at 23:04
In reply to stroppygob:

Thanks again people, some sound advice.
 The Potato 15 Apr 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

please post/link to any good shots you get
 Durbs 15 Apr 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

There's the "Moony 1's" rule (the nocturnal version of "Sunny 16"

f11, 1/100, 100 ISO - works well on a full moon
 The Potato 15 Apr 2014
In reply to Durbs:

and 1000mm lens?
In reply to ow arm:

Didn't get any

There was total cloud cover in the east, and not a sign of the moon.

But!! What do I see on my way to the gym at 6.00am today? Clear blue sky, and the man in the moon laughing at me. Wanker.

Went up here to try to get the best view; http://www.telstratower.com.au/

So did may others; https://twitter.com/The_Gob/status/455974150239047680/photo/1/large

Took these images while up there;

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/2oJMeOhwYWQDKzqRdYvBaZVon5oUVcAbMSJKm5lYz...

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-2zVX9f8osdQ/U02c8zHEjBI/AAAAAAAADSg/rJd2...

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-cnJZdfdb2HE/U02c9fXzkTI/AAAAAAAADSo/rO7p...





 The Potato 15 Apr 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

sorry have to say it, thats no moon....

nice wide angle shots tho
In reply to ow arm:

For a distant object like the moon, the focal length of the lens does not change the exposure; the F number, iso and exposure length are sufficient.
If you had an F5.6 300mm lens it would be 53mm across its front element. An F5.6 1000mm lens would be 179mm across and would gather more light to compensate for the larger image and the overall exposure would look the same.

However, some lenses have many additional optical elements or thick lens parts which all attenuate the available light to some extent and cause a dimmer image for a given exposure. This can be measured with the T stop which is a modified (higher) F number.
 The Potato 16 Apr 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

I understand I think, but surely a longer focal length would give you a better image of the distant object?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...