Moon and trees (E.T. Phone Home)

[Performance Imagery]

http://performanceimagery.com/gallery/albums/astro/moontrees001.jpg


Shot with a 20D, 500mm F4 plus 1.4TC for an effective 1120mm. 1/125 @ F5.6
I was a few miles away from the tree line going up the side of the mountain. The distance and long focal length really compressed the trees to make them look huge!

[obnoxiousmom]

Geez! That was just one shot? Thats amazing

[Performance Imagery]

Thanks, yep just one shot! The trees needed a lot more sharpening then the moon though.

[Adrena1in]

Very nice, as is your other image.

I've read that the full moon's going to be very low to the southern horizon in the UK on the 7th, though looking at it the past few days I can't quite see *how* it's going to be really low. But I've always wanted to try a shot with something sihlouetted in the foreground, so perhaps this Sunday is going to be the time to give it a try!

Thanks for the inspiration...

[Celestron]

Beautifully done !

[Performance Imagery]

Thanks Adrena and Ron.

[Soco3kgt]

Was that a shot with a telephoto lens? How did you make the moon appeare to be so large?
Gorgeous photograph!

[troypiggo]

Excellent use of perspective. Love how huge it makes the Moon appear.

[Layyz]

agreed excellent image, how did u get the moon soo large?

[Performance Imagery]

Thanks guys. The moon was large to begin with that night, but the very long focal length, 1120mm, really compresses things. That makes objects in the background appear to be much larger in relation to objects in the foreground.... kind of the opposet of what a wide angle lens does. It's also cropped down some as you can see from the square format of the image.

[MidnightSun]

Very cool shot, I like it..!!

[jm4ever]

That's a super shot! I thought it was two shots combined for sure when I first saw it.

[dcad10]

awesome photo! congrats on the great capture!

[Mike Salway]

Beautiful work.

[jmx]

Fantastic. Now I know what I'm gonna shoot next. :)

[MT Stringer]

Very nice, indeed.
Mike

[Bill Boehme]

Very nice image, but 500 mm lens and 1.4X TC is 700 mm FL. Sensor size is irrelevant except in the comparative size context of printing an uncropped image onto the same size paper as the uncropped image from a FF camera.

[Performance Imagery]

Thanks everyone.

[Performance Imagery]

Very nice image, but 500 mm lens and 1.4X TC is 700 mm FL. Sensor size is irrelevant except in the comparative size context of printing an uncropped image onto the same size paper as the uncropped image from a FF camera.


So, if I "print" my uncropped image from a 20D at 600 pixels, and I "print " one at 600 pixels from a FF body... it would be relevant correct? Same image outputted to the same destination size. My point being, had I shot that with a FF body and cropped it the exactly the same, the moon and trees would appear smaller.

But this debate will go on forever. lol

[Bill Boehme]

So, if I "print" my uncropped image from a 20D at 600 pixels, and I "print " one at 600 pixels from a FF body... it would be relevant correct?

That is not I meant -- If I were to print both on 4 X 6 inch paper ignoring the number of pixels, that is the comparison that I was referring to.

However, the whole magnification factor is marketing hype to make it sound like a smaller sensor is actually a bonus feature. If there were any validity in that argument then we might expect to see a race between manufacturers on who can build the smallest size sensor instead of the other way around. Changing the size of the sensor behind the lens can't change the diffraction limited resolution of the lens nor the DOF at a given FL and aperture, nor the perspective distortion.

[A.S.I.G.N. Observatory]

Fantastic Keith! I have often wanted to try this when I see shots like yours. I have no idea why I haven't yet, other than I never think of it when I have the camera with me....

I must plan it I think.

Well done.

Baz.