The Moon - 1D3 vs 50D vs 40D with 100-400 @400mm and Kenko 1.4X

EDIT : The purpose of this thread is to illustrate the resolving power of my 50D vs my 40D and 1D3. Now, I know full well that the 50D will outperform the other two cameras when it comes to pulling out detail, at least with moderate to low ISO settings, but not everybody agrees that the 50D's extra pixels add any real value. I thought this comparative test may demonstrate that the 50D does offer a genuine advantage in the right circumstances.

These were shot on a tripod with MLU and 2 second timer. All were shot raw and tweaked identically in Lightroom for WB, sharpening and clarity. Each image was cropped to the size of the moon within the frame and then output at 800x800 pixels. Best efforts were made to focus as accurately as possible using whatever tools the cameras offered. For the 1D3 that was standard AF and MF at 10X in Live View. For the 40D that was MF at 10X in Live View. For the 50D that was "Live AF" in Live View.

To what extent this invalidates the comparison I am not sure (not much I think) but I shot with the 1D3 at 100 ISO and boosted the exposure in Lightroom by 1 stop. The two xxD cameras were shot at 200 ISO and had no exposure adjustments. The lens was wide open, which makes f/8 with the teleconverter. Shutter speed was 1/200 for all shots.

To my eyes the 50D owns the other two cameras, with ease, and the 1D3 trails a poor third place. Here are the results....

1D3....

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

Interesting. Apparently, at ISO 200, pixel density wins, and there's a true reach advantage. Cool.

This was shot with a 350D and a Sigma 150-500 plus 1.4 TC which I think is better than any of those images. I think you should be able to get better, did you use a remote or timer to limit wobble also try mirror lockup to stop bounce from that.

1/60 f13 ISO-100

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

Artyman: I don't think yours is better than the ones posted here, in fact I think it is of lower quality than the 50D.

tdodd: Nice job doing this to compare, I think the 50D wins.

So far my conclusions about moon shots is that the better the lens the better the results will be. The 100-400 is really ahead of the 150-500 Sigma in optical quality for astronomy use.

Did you try without the 1.4 TC ? I think I tried a 400m prime and the result was better without the TC, but maybe I was comparing vibration management and not optical sharpness.

And this proves what?
That the 50D is better than the other 2 at shooting the moon?
I always knew my 1DMKIII was a piece of crap and this just confirms it.

Alright. Lets get defensive in...
3...
2...
1...
GO!

nicksan wrote in post #8031210
And this proves what?
That the 50D is better than the other 2 at shooting the moon?
I always knew my 1DMKIII was a piece of crap and this just confirms it.

Awesome Nicksan! You win!

tdodd wrote in post #8030750
To my eyes the 50D owns the other two cameras, with ease, and the 1D3 trails a poor third place. Here are the results....

And why shouldnt it? The 50D has more reach than any of the other cameras and if you were to rank them in order of reach, it would actually flow 50>40>MkIII.

Its not surprising that the cameras with more reach take better pictures of things far away. This just proves it.

Correct me if the math is wrong:
The moon moves 0.5 arcmin in 2 sec.
Diameter of moon is ~ 30 arcmin.
So the moon moves 1/60th of its diameter in 2 sec.
If the moon fills the frame of 2400X3600 pixels then the motion blur results in 40 pixels for a 2 second exposure!

Conclusion: Tracking is required to compare camera! (In addition to shutter lock and proper and repeatable focusing)

Ken

kfong wrote in post #8031451
Correct me if the math is wrong:
The moon moves 0.5 arcmin in 2 sec.
Diameter of moon is ~ 30 arcmin.
So the moon moves 1/60th of its diameter in 2 sec.
If the moon fills the frame of 2400X3600 pixels then the motion blur results in 40 pixels for a 2 second exposure!

Conclusion: Tracking is required to compare camera! (In addition to shutter lock and proper and repeatable focusing)

Ken

the images are shot at 1/200 sec. the 2 seconds mention was the timer delay PRIOR TO ACTUATION.

the rim of the moon on the 40d, 50d, and the last one, all look weird, and halo like.

You silly pixel peepers!

Awesome!

AdamLewis wrote in post #8031270
Alright. Lets get defensive in...
3...
2...
1...
GO!



Awesome Nicksan! You win!

Karl Johnston wrote in post #8031893
You silly pixel peepers!

tricks are for kids!

Can the Digital Rebel XTi play, too?

I think that the glass is a much bigger factor than camera body. Here is a single image moon shot from May 29, 2009 made using my Digital Rebel XTi. The lens is a Canon EF 400 mm f/5.6L USM + Canon EF 2X II Extender to give a FL of 800 mm and aperture of f/11. My good solid tripod is broken so I had to use my Velbon Sherpa "Tuning Fork" tripod.

Since the XTi does not have live view, it took some trial and error with a few test shots to get focus nailed.

The image was processed in Adobe Camera RAW and all of the metadata is intact. The image shown is an 800 X 800 resized crop, but you can click on the image to see a 1400 X 1400 100% crop. Cropping and resizing were the only things done in Photoshop after processing in ACR.

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

Bill Boehme wrote in post #8032612
[/B]I agree that Ken's (artyman) moon shot shows fine detail more clearly than the previous three images.

Looks like if you sharpen the 1st three images you will get a similar picture,