Tips On Photographing The Moon

[mrclark321]

I left work this morning and the moon looked larger and sharper than normal.
I was wondering how you would go about capturing some images of it. I just got my
28 -105 and was wondering if this lense would do for a good shot of the moon.
Any suggestions for settings would be appreciated.

Thanks everyone
Dan

[Belmondo]

Forgive me, but don't forget to say, "Cheese."

Hopefully you have a tripod somewhere to shoot off of. If not, shoot from a steady support of some kind. I'd shoot Av or P mode wide open, and let the camera set the shutter time. The most important thing is to keep the camera still.

[mrclark321]

I have a tripod.
Can you be more specific about wide open ( checking my handy dandy instruction manual, a larger aperture is a lower f number, is this what you mean)
Also will the 28-105 do?

Dan

[Dante King]

it will do but something longer will yeild better results. As well, experiment with shutte rtime. I found my best pics with the most detail to be around the 250 to 400 range.

[Kiernan]

You won't get a lot of detail with anything less than 300, unfortunately. I have a 28-135 that doesn't give much at all. And, if you shoot the moon by itself, you'll be left with a photo looking like a thumbnail when you crop out the excess.

I have a few moon threads on here. Take a look at my settings and see if you like the results I've had. Work from there to adjust to how you want the photos to look. But, at least you'll know what certain settings look like in different moon phases.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=68011

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=69408

Hope that helps.

[ron chappel]

If you are using the picture for the web only you can show the picture at 100% pixels onscreen to get it as large as possible (but even then it will only be about 2 inches across ).

If you print the image the moon will apear less than half that size ,because printers need at least twice the number of pixels as a screen

To make the moon look bigger you'll need a longer lens for sure. A 300mm lens shows the moon about 4-5 inches across onscreen while a 500mm lens shows it about 9 inches.
Here is a 500mm example at 100% pixels -http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/pages/kimunor%20500mmf8%20%5B233k%5D.html

Remember if you want to print the pic it will come out less than half those sizes on the paper

One other thing nobody's mentioned yet -you will have to use manual mode because the metering on the camera see's a tiny white moon in a huge dark sky and tries to make it all grey (that's how meter's work ,they're not very good at all black or all white subjects)
Set you camera to 'M' and dial in about ISO400 / 200th shutter speed / f8 aperture more or less.Experiment and see what the moon looks like on the computer screen.Even with the tiny image the 28-105 lens will give ,you still should be able to see some detail

[Pb2Au]

I got this one tonight at 400mm with a lot of trial and error. I think the 1.4x TC is next...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v683/pb2au/_MG_4297.jpg

[Wildewinds]

Funny, I was out earlier tonight taking pictures of the moon. Used an older Tamron 70-300 4-5.6 at 300mm on my Rebel XT.

http://www.pbase.com/wildewinds/image/42436482.jpg

Nothing spectacular at 300mm. At 105mm it'll probably be too small to see decent detail.

[Simon Spiers]

When i took this picture of the moon a few months ago, i under exposed the shot my almost three stops to get the detail in the craters and scaring on the surface.
Shot taken with a Canon 75-300 which is not famous for it's sharpness:(


http://hometown.aol.co.uk/SSpiers/images/the+moon.jpg

[felix21685]

i tried shooting the moon tonight and it was my first try. im having a hard time getting it sharp..any hints? autofocus is out of the question with my cheapo teleconverter..

you think i might have better luck without it and just magnifying it more?

im attempting to add an ex as an attachment

any comments appreciated

[Simon Spiers]

i tried shooting the moon tonight and it was my first try. im having a hard time getting it sharp..any hints? autofocus is out of the question with my cheapo teleconverter..

you think i might have better luck without it and just magnifying it more?

im attempting to add an ex as an attachment

any comments appreciated
Try a smaller aperture and a bit of USM;)

[ggreene]

The moon was the first thing I photographed when I got my 400 5.6. I used
the 1.4x TC with it to fill the frame as much as I could. It was tripod mounted
using the remote release but no mirror lockup. I took a serious of exposures
at F11 from about 1/60 to 1/1000 at 400 ISO. Manual focus for all of them.

This was the best of the bunch:

http://wildcats.unh.edu/galleries/seacoast/11022003/11.jpg

In retrospect I probably should have used RAW for it's superior highlight and
shadow recovery and I also could have shot a lower ISO as I didn't need 400.
The biggest problem I had was getting the manual focus spot on, you can't
just set it to infinity.

Make sure you pick a relatively clear dry night to take the photo and wait for
the moon to rise up in the sky so you are going through as little atmosphere
as possible.

Good Luck.

Greg

[cfcRebel]

I left work this morning and the moon looked larger and sharper than normal.
I was wondering how you would go about capturing some images of it. I just got my
28 -105 and was wondering if this lense would do for a good shot of the moon.
Any suggestions for settings would be appreciated.

Thanks everyone
Dan
Hi Dan,

Why don't u give it a try with your 28-105mm? It might surprise you. Use the 'M' mode, set your shutter speed to 1/100s ~ 1/250s, f8 (or f11). And of course, a tripod. If it is still overexposed, increase the shutter speed. Well, everybody knows a 300mm will make a whole lot of difference. But this what I got even with something like EF nifty fifty. :D Check it out!

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=68583&page=3 (at the bottom of page 3)

[PhotosGuy]

A "normal" exposure for the moon is 1/ISO @ f/16, but you don't need the DOF at f/16 'cause it's at infinity, so I'd go for a high shutter speed to minimise the effect of vibration when the mirror slaps up. Try shooting a sequence of 3 & one might be clearer than the others.

[ron chappel]

I'm really surprised some are having problems with focus:eek: :eek: !

The moon is so bright that any old camera wil have no problems at all.

Just make sure you have only the center focus point set and that it's actually pointed at the moon (easy with the little red light in the focus point)

[jimtfoto]

My apologies if someone else has already pointed to this link for an moon exposure calculator ...
http://www.shaystephens.com/mooncalc.asp

cheers,
jim

[robertwgross]

The other common mistake is to shoot the Moon with a very slow shutter (e.g. seconds).

Without a tracking mount, you will get blur from that since the Moon appears to be moving across the sky.

Although Moon photography is commonly done with lenses of 300mm or 400mm, if you really want to fill up most of the frame, you have to get out to 800mm or 1000mm. For a full-frame camera, about 1500mm does it.

---Bob Gross---

[ron chappel]

Oops-forgot to say that right before ... point the focus point at the edge of the moon so the camera can see the strong difference in contrast

[mrclark321]

I was hoping to try taking a few shots this morning but the snow storm kind of messed

up my plans...LOL

[WestFalcon]

Photoguys is right.....1/ISO @ f16......I remember someone telling once that "it is always a bright sunny day on the moon"

[T_O_M]

The setting I use for shooting the moon is the old film "Lunar 11" rule: 1/ISO @ f11.

[Tom W]

The "sunny 16" rule applies to moon shots, according to most accounts. The "lunar 11" might be pretty close as well (they're only 1 stop apart). If you want to be safe, abide by it, but bracket +/- 1 to 1.5 stops in either direction. And, shoot RAW. This will give you some lattitude with which to extract the best exposure.

Here's another link of moon photog information:

http://home.hiwaay.net/~krcool/Astro/moon/howtophoto/

[Tom W]

Here's last night's result:

http://www.pbase.com/photosbytom/image/42556024.jpg

Shot with 300 f/4 L, 2X teleconverter, and 1.4X teleconverter stacked, (840 mm) ISO 640, f/18, at 1/160th seconds exposure.
Exif data will say 600 mm at f/13, but the camera doesn't "see" the 1.4X teleconverter and does not record its presence in the data.

[Steve Parr]

I shot this about a week ago, using the 70-300mm QCL (at 300mm). ISO was 400, 1/250, f/16:

http://bigsteve.stringdancer.net/images/moon.jpg

Steve

[Tom W]

Nice detail, Steve. That's a keeper.

I know I lose a little with the stack - I've gotten tighter results with the 300 + 2X TC, or the 100-400 + 1.4X TC. The posted image is reduced in size from the original quite a bit and it still has a little softness to it. Hard to tell though since the full moon is quite flat-looking.

I'm still experimenting with pairing up converters, but I don't think I'm going to get much farther with it, at least not with an f/4 lens. I'm running out of aperture, where I can't stop down any more without gaining significant diffraction. I'll have to take a couple of shots with a less-than-full moon where the craters show some contrast and see just how much detail I can get.

[mrclark321]

Excuse my ignorance, but what is a 70-300mm QCL?

Thanks Dan

I shot this about a week ago, using the 70-300mm QCL (at 300mm). ISO was 400, 1/250, f/16:

http://bigsteve.stringdancer.net/images/moon.jpg

Steve

[Steve Parr]

Excuse my ignorance, but what is a 70-300mm QCL?


Hehehehe... "QCL". It's an industry term. It stands for "Quantary Cheese Lens".

Despite its' inherent cheesiness, it still takes the occasional good shot...

Steve

[jimtfoto]

Here's another link you might want to check ... Canon's astrophotography guide
http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/astro/index-e.html

[mrclark321]

OK everyone that helped with this post...

Wife and kids went to sleep so I went out for a few beers, Came home and the moon was ripe!!
Well I tried taking quite a few but like stated I need a better lense for this!
Well here is a couple!
Sure makes me want to ger a 100-300mm.
My wife will kill me thow!!!

ISO 100
TV 1/100
AV 11

[Tom W]

More Moonage - caught this one right after I got home from work this morning:

http://www.pbase.com/photosbytom/image/42691006.jpg

300 f/4 with 2X teleconverter (no more stacking converters), 1/200, f/11, ISO 640, handheld with image stabilizer. This was the best of 5 shots.

[Tom W]

OK everyone that helped with this post...

Wife and kids went to sleep so I went out for a few beers, Came home and the moon was ripe!!
Well I tried taking quite a few but like stated I need a better lense for this!
Well here is a couple!
Sure makes me want to ger a 100-300mm.
My wife will kill me thow!!!

ISO 100
TV 1/100
AV 11

OK, Mr. Clark - Not bad, especially with such a short lens. You need another stop to stop and a half of increased exposure. You might want to bump that ISO up to 200 or 400 and experiment there. Maybe even ISO 800. The XT will still shoot very clean images there. Also, higher ISO will give you a little more room to speed up the shutter a bit to prevent motion from softening the shot. F/8 to f/11 is good for that lens.

[mrclark321]

Thanks Tom...boy do I want a longer lense in the worst way, but I still have to pay off the stuff I just baught. Well I will try playing around in the next few days,I just received the book Understanding Exposure in the mail and have Just started to read it. It's great for a newbie like me. I'll try posting a few shots in the next couple of days.

Thanks again
Dan

[Tom W]

Thanks Tom...boy do I want a longer lense in the worst way, but I still have to pay off the stuff I just baught. Well I will try playing around in the next few days,I just received the book Understanding Exposure in the mail and have Just started to read it. It's great for a newbie like me. I'll try posting a few shots in the next couple of days.

Thanks again
Dan

The great thing with digital is that you can experiment, and the EXIF data remembers your settings for you - no note-taking needed (except for perhaps subject matter, names, etc. if that is important).

[mrclark321]

Forgot to say, those shot are "great"

[bcaloia]

This was my first attemp at the moon. It turned out better than any raw shot I have tried.