Shooting the moon

Walczak Photo wrote in post #5345379
These are pretty decent for a first attempt, but if I may make a suggestion...

Since you're not actually using a telescope, you might want to try shooting several shots in a row and then "stack" them with a program such as "Astro Stack" or something similar (Astro Stack is still a freebie last time I looked). You can get some really nice stuff by stacking the images.

This wasn't actually taken this evening, but here's my contribution to this topic...

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

This one was taken through a telescope...my 5" Orion Mak. It was actually shot with my old Sony H1 hand-held thru the telescope's eye piece (40mm Owl Optics) and it's a stack of 4 images. Incidentally, this particular shot was rotated/reoriented for artist reasons so for you experienced moon gazers out there, if it looks a little out of sorts...it's not your imagination . I have a framed copy of this shot hanging in my upstairs hallway.

If your interested in astrophotography, you can do a lot with image stacking and it's very well worth checking out.

Peace,
Jim

I dont think that "stacking images" is needed to get good Moon shots. Here are a couple of mine without any stacking. And think they came out decently.

30D-500MM-1.4 Extender, Manual exposure, Manual focus,Mirror lock, Remote shutter
1/250th
F.11
ISO 250

JuZ wrote in post #5346100
Why? When you can get a perfectly good shot of the moon without.

I agree

Nighthound wrote in post #5354440
Very nice work everyone.

Here are a couple pages of single exposures. The eclipse shots were taken with a Vixen 8" Newtonian though thin clouds so the resolution/detail is lacking. Others beyond those were taken with a Meade 10" Schmidt-Cassegrain that I no longer own. I miss the FL but not the telscope design so much. Even so, I'll likely get another large SCT someday for small object deep-sky work.

I enjoy the short exposure times and low ISO settings allowed by shooting Lunar, sure is a whole lot less work than I'm used to now.

http://s3.photobucket.​com …aphy/Lunar%20Ph​otography/

NH

Steve you" DA MAN "when it comes to Astrophotography

Here are a couple of old shots that I have taken.

First was taken on my 350d using 600mm + 1.4x converter

think it was a 100% crop but can not be sure

ISO 100
SS 1/160
A f/5.6

Think the second was on my 1dmII with just the 600mm during the eclipse.

no crop

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Nice shots everyone ! Hey JuZ & Raikyn , very nice images you two ! Mind sharing what equipment you used to take these images , and did you do any PP or are these unedited ??

Mine was taken with my 1D MkIII and Sigmonster + 2x TC + 1.4x TC
Exif is

Camera Model: Canon EOS-1D Mark III
Image Date: 2008:02:16 18:41:07
Focal Length: 1600.0mm
Exposure Time: 0.017 s (1/60)
Aperture: f/18.0
ISO equiv: 400
White Balance: Auto
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual

The 1.4x TC doesn't show up, so the actual focal length was 2240mm, taken on a tripod with MLU, remote release and focused with 10x live view (I've finally found a use for it!!)

At the risk of sounding rude, let me tell you what I'm seeing here. andrewhuxman's shot's, based on the equipment he has listed in his signature, were taken with a Canon 500mm L lens (with a 1.4x extender). Jux's shot's were taken with a Sigma 600mm lens. Now looking at today's prices on Adorama, that Canon 500mm f/4 L goes for just over $5600 and Jux's 600mm Sigma is $7000. In mitch's case it was a $7000 Canon 600mm IS L. In any of these cases, no you probably don't need stacking software but the problem is many, if not most of us don't own those lenses. In fact I'd bet it's safe to say that the greater majority of people on this forum have never even seen one of those $5000 - $7000 surface to air missiles, let alone actually own one! In Sidx's case, his longest lens in his equipment list is a Sigma 70-300...what...a $200 lens? In Viktor's case he doesn't have his gear listed, but I'd be willing to guess it's probably something similar. In my case, my longest lens is a Tamron 70-300mm that I got on Ebay for $65. While some of you folks are sitting there saying "you don't need stacking software", you've failed to mention how people are supposed to get comparable images using more meager equipment!

Believe me if money weren't an issue, being an amateur astronomer I'd have a decent 22" scope with something like an SBIG astro camera and then I wouldn't "need" stacking software either (although I'd probably still use it to get the most out of my images). I'm also sure that images from such a rig would be quite superior to what any of you have posted here. But that's not really a fair comparison is it? In andrewhuxman's case, we're comparing images that were taken with a $5000+ premium lens versus a $300 camera and a $300 telescope using stacking software...yet he's sitting here saying that you don't "need" stacking software...is that really a fair comparison?

Hux and Jux are sitting there with their mega buck lenses preaching to the choir "you don't need, you don't need..." but I haven't seen any images from either of you yet using equipment like I what I did...and based on your equipment list, you're really giving people the wrong impression. Again the shot I posted wasn't taken with a $5000 - $7000 lens and a $1000 to $5000 camera body (depending on which camera body was used), it was taken with a $300 Sony EVF p&s and a $300 Orion telescope. Are you really trying to say that if people can't afford the same toys you can that we shouldn't take pictures of the moon at all?

For the sake of fairness...and don't let it be said that I'm not fair...-if- you are using a $7000 lens, than no, you probably don't "need" stacking software to shoot pictures of the moon. I never meant to imply or insinuate otherwise. With that said though, please explain to me exactly how I and others are supposed to get comparable images using tools such as my meager little Sony H1 or even my Rebel XT with my Tamron 70-300mm lens without the use of something like stacking software? Instead of telling us that we don't need the stacking software, please tell us how we're supposed to do this without it...and without using those expensive lenses. Please...put the "big toys" back in the toy box and "show the rest of us how it's done" using ONLY more modest equipment! Please...let's compare apples with apples here. Where's your p&s moon shot's guys? Where's the shots you guys took with a $100 lens? Come on over to my house guys, we'll have a little star party and I'll let you use my H1 so you can show me what I'm doing wrong!

This is one of the points I was recently making over in the lens forum. Folks with gobs of money to fart out on stuff like this always seem to assume that everyone else does too! They always seem to forget that not all of us are that lucky and that many of us have to "make do" with what we have to work with. Further and again at the risk of sounding rude, folks like them always seem to look down their noses at us when we can produce comparable results. The bottom line though is that the image I posted from my $300 Sony H1 using stacking software is quite comparable to the shots that andrewhuxman posted (perhaps even a bit sharper) at only a fraction of the cost of his lens alone.

I'm sorry that hux and Juz seem to frown on all of this, but personally I'd rather have shots like the one I posted, rather than nothing at all simply because I don't have the same kind of money as them to spend on expensive toys...and I don't think that's illogical or irrational at all. That shot I posted looks really d*mn nice framed and hanging in my hallway and I am quite proud to have taken it. More over I produced an image that's comparable to those posted here for less than 1/10 of the investment in equipment....exactly how does that make me so wrong about this? Please...someone explain this to me!!! To me this shouldn't be a competition about who can take the nicest pictures with the most expensive equipment in the least amount of shots and it's certainly not about "he who dies with the most, most expensive toys wins". It's about producing nice images and as I've said before, I use (and will continue to use) whatever tools I have at my disposal, including stacking software and I encourage others to do the same.

If you have the nice toys and don't think you "need" to use something like stacking software, good for you...don't use it. My original post wasn't aimed at you to begin with. My post was aimed at folks like Sidx01 and Viktor061 and others who could seriously benefit from the use of stacking software. Now if someone wants to come out here to Ohio and give me one of those expensive lenses (and give Sid and Viktor one as well), I'll happily shut up but until then again we need to compare apples to apples...please...agai​n show me your moon shots that you took with a 5 megapixel point and shoot! I've left the floor open here...please show me your images that compare with my stacked image that you took with a p&s or the cheap lenses.

In regards to both hux and jux...perhaps you should have worded your responses as "-If- you have a $5000+ lens, than you don't need $50 stacking software"...seems to make a lot more sense and it's certainly a lot more honest.

My apologies to the rest of the good folks reading this thread...I just wanted to illustrate a point that some of these people really don't seem to get at all.

Peace,
Jim

It's Juz

Oh my ... Well here is another Moon shot I took last Fall of the Harvest Moon 9/28/2007
This one was taken with my "meager" 100-400 MM 4.5-5.6 and again no "stacking" software needed............ Peace

30D-100-400MM-1.4 Extender ( 5k or 7k equipment?? ...dont think so)
1/250th
F.11
ISO 250

And again you're using a $1400 Canon IS L lens and your extender still cost more than my main lens (and almost as much as my Sony)! You're getting closer but you're still missing the mark! Dude...where's the point & shoot shots? Where's the shots with a cheapy Sigma or Tamron lens? Come on, like I said...apples to apples please. Break out that old Canon S3 EVF and show us what you got!

I'm glad you can consider that Canon IS L lens to be "meager", but for many of us, that's a small fortune in itself! That sucker costs more than my minivan!

And you still haven't told us how to do it with a p&s or the cheap lenses!!! Come on...enlighten us! You keep saying "no stacking software needed", but your still not telling the rest of us mere mortals how to do it without your toys! I'm leaving the door wide open for ya here bud but you keep tripping over the threshold... Again (and again and again) apples to apples, show me the shots you've taken with a p&s or an EVF without stacking software that compare with the shot I posted!

You've also failed to mention exactly what it is about my shot that is soooooo terrible that people should avoid using this software. I got a great image with the technique I used...I honestly believe that others can too so I recommend it...why is that so terrible? Why am I such a criminal for suggesting it?

Walczak Photo wrote in post #5351293
Well, for one thing because even with a really good lens, it can be a little tough for a lot of folks to get a "perfectly good shot" of the moon.

Peace,
Jim

You might want to rephrase that statement , maybe it should say people with cheap camera gear and lenses will find it hard to get good shots of the moon, since that is what your spouting .

Walczak Photo wrote in post #5356814
And again you're using a $1400 Canon IS L lens and your extender still cost more than my main lens (and almost as much as my Sony)! You're getting closer but you're still missing the mark! Dude...where's the point & shoot shots? Where's the shots with a cheapy Sigma or Tamron lens? Come on, like I said...apples to apples please. Break out that old Canon S3 EVF and show us what you got!

I'm glad you can consider that Canon IS L lens to be "meager", but for many of us, that's a small fortune in itself! That sucker costs more than my minivan!

And you still haven't told us how to do it with a p&s or the cheap lenses!!! Come on...enlighten us! You keep saying "no stacking software needed", but your still not telling the rest of us mere mortals how to do it without your toys! I'm leaving the door wide open for ya here bud but you keep tripping over the threshold... Again (and again and again) apples to apples, show me the shots you've taken with a p&s or an EVF without stacking software that compare with the shot I posted!

Sounds like you have issues with people with nice camera gear,thats not my fault you have what you have or dont have . I never stepped up and told anybody to do anything. I just put up an example of what I have done without stacking software. Lighten up Dude and enjoy the forum. I know I do. I am done with this subject and you .

This thread seems to have gotten a long way off track. How about everyone showing some courtesy to the OP and backing off with the thread-jacking?

And all I did was post an example of what I was able to do with stacking software which I felt was pretty decent all things considered...and I felt like I got my nose rubbed in other peoples money for the effort. And yes, I do take a great deal of offense to that. I'm also not sure why I should feel like the bad guy here simply for making a suggestion (and later defending it) that I honestly thought might help others produce nicer images, but apparently I was quite wrong to do so.

Either way, out of respect for others on this forum I will back out now as well and leave my opinion as it was intended...for the folks who posted those first couple of shots of the moon, stacking software can certainly make a difference with your images. It's your choice as to whether you wish to use it or not.

That's it...I'm done.
Jim

Walczak Photo wrote in post #5351293
Honestly, if you have a 600mm lens or larger that's capable of doing images as sharp or sharper than what I've posted above, I salute you my friend and I'd love to see your results with it (and please include the EXIF data). If you're using a scope and can get some really amazing shots with single long exposures, please share them! For me though, it's simply about using what tools I have available...including stacking software...to get the best images that I can using what I have to work with.

Just my $.02 worth since you asked "why".

Peace,
Jim

Jim, all we did was what you requested, nobody was trying to rub your nose in anything! Sorry if it offended you in any way.

Andrewhuxman's post with the 100-400 was a good example and the cost of that lens is not much different to the original posters 70-200 2.8.

Here is a shot I have from 3 years ago.

This was taken on a 350d with a 70-200 F4

Yes it is an L lens but this is the closest I have to you requirements. This is a 100% crop exif should be intact.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Here is a 100% crop taken with my lowly 70-300mm and a cheap 1.4x extender.

Images taken with my crapy XTi.... 70 300 I think the EXIF is intact on all shots. All shots 100% crops.

Oldest to newest

My first attempt. Back when I didn't know a dam thing about my camera or the lens. It's really kinda poor.