The Official Shoot the Moon Thread

Not as good as most, but here's what it looked like through my 70-200 and 1.4TC and 5D2. 100% crop so that you can actually see it of course. F8 ISO 200 1/250 handheld.

HTTP response: 400 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

calledthestig wrote in post #12052704

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …calledthestig/5​541068761/

GREAT PIC!!! The perigee moon pic should be taken with something as a size reference. Just a bare moon pic is just a regular moon pic IMHO. But this pic does not how big the moon was.

I went out last night and was only able to get reg moon pics, and with the clouds it was not the best. Not worth posting with your pic.

Contributin to Super Moon, one sharpened and one less sharpened.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/49217915@N04/5​545369064/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/49217915@N04/5​545369008/

super moon 600 f/4

doug waters wrote in post #12059360
super moon 600 f/4

Very nice Doug !

advaitin wrote in post #12055166
Since I only had one very critical response to a separate post, I'm reposting my first shot from last night here. Folks, please understand that this shot is through sea fog and atmosphere. As the moon continued to rise it became less distorted and more sharply defined. Canon 5d2, 600mm L IS x2 TC III.

I can understand your reasoning and i think you did well for the purpose ! It does look like you may have handhelt it , did you ? Reason is because looks like a double image but as i said for a 600mm with a 2x , throught that conditions .... , well you did good !

advaitin wrote in post #12055607
We were waiting quite a while for the thing to appear and that exposure was at 0.6s at f8. That looked to me like camera shake, but the thing was mounted in a tripod (on a wooden walkway, which suddenly became full of people jostling to take a picture of the moon). I think the boards may have moved or the IS, which on the 600 is supposed to sense the tripod, may have been halfway engaged

Here's the second shot, 0.3s at f8, which doesn't have the double image. Perhaps in trying for an artsy image I picked the wrong one

This one is much better ! This is what i expected especially from a lens that size . However with atmospheric distortion like that this is exactly the type image you are going to get . I wouldn't believe a perfect focus on an image like this cause i've never seen one at this low of a horizon . WTG , Good Job !

Here are a couple of pictures I shot testing my newly arrived Canon 70-200 F4 L IS USM + 1.4x TC

Ad midnight:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/bejor77/5555705​662/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/bejor77/5555705​744/

very nice! And without a lot of over processing

Great thread. One with the 500mm f4 with a 1.4x tc.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.mikeswildli​fe.com …Wyk#1011770695_​RCPzn-A-LB

First attempt with my new camera. Live view makes quite a bit of difference for my poor eyesight.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

I need a bigger lens, these were both shot at 250mm.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Tried the 100-400L IS with a 1.4x for the firs time. I was impressed, normally use the 300L 2.8

from 2 nights ago