lemme see your shots for the moon! this is mine btw captured with canon 2000d 55mm i can not remember my camera settings i gave it some edit with lightroom this is first time with DSLR
>>4461140 Can't remember the ISO really, but part of those are prolly hot pixels due to me being a retard and snapping quite a few long exposure shots before this one. Will try again soon.
>>4461148 I usually dont do hot pixel removal and then i pixel peaked at one of my recent photos and immediately saw one. Literally unseeable once it gets noticed
>>4461199 fast shutter speed on manual which will lower the exposure, boost all that in post on like dark table and then crop it. see how that comes out
>>4461199 for me it is the kitlens the camera was a gift from a kind person and I tried to shot it using a narrow aperture and high shutter speed also lowest iso then I edited it with lightroom crop and fix the color the moon was like enabled night shift XD
>>4461343 Not that Anon, but... The darkened part of the Moon is illuminated by the Earth. The bright part is lit by the Sun. As seen from the Moon, the Earth would look gibbous (more than half-lit). The thinner the crescent, the closer to the line from the Sun to the Earth, the fuller the Earth, the more "earthshine" lights up the Moon. Sailors used to guess coming weather - the brighter the earthshine, the cloudier the weather to the west, from where the prevailing winds come. Yeah, not very accurate, but you know. Here's a hot I took of the crescent Moon on April 10, 2024. That's Jupiter next to the tree. If you zoom in you can see some of its moons! The file is not quite original. Right off the camera, the file size exceeds /p/'s limit, so I shrunk it to quarter the size (half the original side dimensions of 6048 x 4024) but was able to keep the exif from the original. This is the exif: Nikon D780, Nikon 18-120mm lens at 55mm, f/7.1, 10 seconds, ISO-100
>>4466266 good thing too, tomorrow is the last night of a big moon and it's gonna be next to neptune and saturn you have the opportunity to put us all to shame hope you find this information useful friend
>>4468257 >had a total lunar eclipse just a week ago >I was busy the entire time >Only came home when it ended and was able to snap this Feels blyad man.
>>4473198 But here's a photo of an eclipse that happened a while ago. In person it was more blue. I glimpsed it for a fraction of a second because I was scared of going blind or frying my eyes; though I heard it was safe to stare during totality.
Also, you might be of thinking this is speck of shit on lens. But no. Is luna. Small luna also luna, da? Is qualifies? Is okay if no qualifies. Love from Moscow.
>>4474435 The power of reach, once again proving pixel pitch matters when it comes to reach. You couldn't take that image with an a7RIV and a 100-400...
>>4475055 Because of pixel density. The same size crop on the Sony is actually lower resolution. The Sony sensor is lower resolution in fact, if you look at it like it's film (line pairs per mm). You'd need a 470mm lens to produce the same resolution image on an a7RIV.
Nikon Z7ii Nikkor 180-600mm 1.4x TC 840mm f/11 iso 64 ss 1/60 about 130 images stacked using 50% lucky imaging. First try at autostakkert. Overdid it on the slider tweaking in lightroom. I should have used a higher ss and taken off the UV filter to get it sharper.
I forgot this thread exists. >>4472561 >a6000 w/ Vivitar 90-230mm Same setup, found another pic I took a week or two before that previous one. Not as happy with this, feel like a lot of detail was lost and it's overexposed. I like the general vibe of it though.
There is a LOT of detail to be had in that lens if you stop it down, insane detail, I have one for my F3HP, it's basically a macro lens that zooms and it's made for ridiculous subject detail.
Play with it a little more, stop it down and use a tripod if you have to. That lens is a well-kept secret.
>>4499384 Overexposed. With moon shots just keep the ISO at a minimum and shutter speed relatively high. Camera is trying to expose 18% middle grey for the whole scene which includes the inky black sky = it's trying to find detail in the sky and overblowing the very bright moon.
>>4499383 Illuminated part of Moon is a dark grey subject in bright sunlight. Full Moon is considerably brighter than half. I don't recall what I used when last snapped moon years ago but I'd start from ISO100 1/400 f 5.6.
(Oct 4 2004, 16:33 at 68 N. Pentax Optio 43WR, ISO 50, f3.9 1/160, digital zoom 4)
>>4499442 Very patchy cloudcover here in Hawkes Bay NZ, but got a good 30 minutes of photography in totality, more clouds rolled through just now. Though with my 2010 DSLR's stock lens I barely got 40 pixels of moon width, and without a fancy mount I was only getting 5 second exposures before motion blur started kicking in. Was still fun, I'll sift through the photos in the morning.
I'm the poster with the Vivitar 90-230mm. I'm actually kinda happy with this pic, especially when you consider that it's an ancient consumer-grade telezoom lens built in the same year as the first Moon landing.
>>4499542 I hadn't heard about the Series 1 range prior to your posts so I did a bit of research and I don't think they ever did a Series 1 variant of the 90-230. It's definitely the 90-180 you must be thinking of.
Thanks for making me aware of the existence of the Series 1 lenses, I'll have to keep an eye out for them in future. There's always a few people each month selling their dead boomer grandpa's old photography gear on Marketplace for the equivalent of a slab of beer, most of it's trash but there's a few diamonds to be found and I imagine sooner or later I'll spot one of these lenses in a listing.
>>4499447 Yeah not brilliant. Kinda want to make a sidereal mount using an arduino and stepper motor now, seems like it’s not too difficult of a project, but getting it positioned properly seems like it could be a hassle. I’d also want some sort of exposure meter that works in very low light levels, though maybe a simple guide/calculator tool would be sufficient. Years ago I attempted to disassemble my cheap remote flash button and add a digitally controllable timer for long exposures, but at some point I gave up and assembled it again.
>>4499453 Chilly here, 10C days when it was over 20C just a few days ago. But I had my long johns on.
Were you anywhere close to the city centre? I tried some long exposure star photography in the Auckland Domain 7 years ago when I was at uni there, but I never really got any worthwhile results. Too impatient, too cold, and definitely a lot of light pollution. Havelock North is definitely less bad, but it would be much better 5km out or more.
>>4499561 Wait since when is my camera configured to save as .jpeg??? I bet it reset, it kept wanting me to set the time so the clock battery must have died and taken other settings with it.
>>4499561 Nowhere near the center, I'm south but not as far as Pukekohe, I wonder if you can get some decent dark skies in the rural areas around there. I always see a hell of alot of light pollution coming from the north when I look out the window at night. If you have an opportunity to go to the dark sky reserve near Lake Tekapo, it's well worth it. Pic related from 2022; even though I had even less of an idea of what I was doing then than I do now, it's quite stunning. 25s f/4 +1 EV can't remember ISO, no other edits
>>4499567 Yeah the south side of Te Mata Peak should be pretty dark. My co-worker got some good star shots at Waimarama beach. But none as good as what you’ve taken there, wow that’s nice. 25s is getting long, but I guess zoomed out like that it doesn’t make much of a difference. I should get into the camera math and calculate what exposure times result in 1 pixel of star blur at different zooms.
>>4499613 >Nikon D3100, DX sensor with F-mount >4608 x 3072 pixel sensor for 14.2MP >has stock 18-55mm lens >lunar day = 89,428.3 seconds >at 55mm, moon takes up 49 pixels across >at 18mm, moon takes up 17 pixels across >moon size = 31 arcminutes = 31/(60*360) = 0.00143519 of a full rotation >if the moon = 49 pixels, then 1 pixel is 29.2895E-6 rotations, then it takes 2.62 seconds to blur through a single pixel >if the moon = 17 pixels, then 1 pixel is 84.4227E-6 rotations, then it takes 7.55 seconds to blur through a single pixel Interesting, guess I was baking it a bit long with 5s. Which implies that with any decent telephoto lens, and with any halfway modern image sensor, your exposures are going to be decently short if you want to avoid blurring pixels, and so getting enough light becomes an issue. So the extra-wide aperture lenses would start to make sense, and it also explains all the image stacking I'm seeing here because nobody was autistic enough to make a motorised sidereal mount.
If I want to make a motorised sidereal mount capable of even my current lens, it would need to remain stable to within 38 arc-seconds. A common 1.8 degree stepper motor with a 256-microstepping driver gets me to 25 arc-seconds direct-drive, it could be lower using a belt reduction or a 0.9 degree stepper. Though using some magnets and a magnetic encoder like Diffraction Limited does in his XYZ micro-manipulator seems like it would be a cheap way to make it far finer, enough for even hundreds of mega-pixels. It's the motors that are the expensive part. I wouldn't normally bother with this sort of side-project, but it is a nice intermediary step in my existing precision motor driving journey, so it might be worth $100USD. I hope a lazy susan bearing is good enough.
>>4499654 >worms on the moon >all that posterization and softness >color shifts >apparent focus miss (green border = OOF CA) Worms on the moon aside $2k camera and you couldnt even turn the jpeg compression down and zoom in to manually focus bruv?
maybe the teleconverter is shit and ruining your photos, try without it and see. you must have a defective unit. camera lens or teleconverter even with autofocus on the moon i get sharper images than yours and all my 3 lenses combined cost les then yours (all new)
>>4499959 The noise pattern of xtrans sensors looks like a bunch of little worms. Very apparent in >>4499654. If you can't see it then you should see an optomertrist.
The older Series 1 manual focus stuff is better, after a while they threw Series 1 on everything they had like what BMW did with the M brand.
I have a few, the 90-180, 35-85, 70-210/3.5, and 90 macro. They are very well made and the optics are superb.
The exception is the 100-400 AF they made that was Series 1, with a small red ring on the end, that was actually pretty good. I had one if you bring it down to f/8 you would never know, it can hang with my Canon L lenses and Nikon ED. Almost no color fringing if any at all, very sharp, good detail and contrast.
I have a 300mm on aspc lens. 450mm equivalent on ff Any vintage cheap lenses with more reach and good sharpness for moon shots? I m not totally happy with 450mm, i need more
>>4500132 As far as I know cheap telephotos tend to be either 50's-60's tech potato mashers, mirror lenses or ludicrous toy zooms. If you want cheap and a bit sharper than a $30 vintage potato masher, modern Samgyang (or rebrands) 500mm f6.3 mirror lens should be better than any vintage of same or less price. It's quite fiddly to use and not as sharp or contrasty as a $1000+ tele of course. (There's a 800mm f8 version too. I've not seen any convincingly good photos taken with it.) Mount and seeing matters a lot. Even the best lens will no give a good moon snap through blurry turbulence with camera on a wobbly tripod.
>>4500138 The thing is i want a lens only to get goon moon shots. Most probably all the cheap ones are manual focus so not usable for anything moving. Other than moon shots with or without foreground will not use so i don t want to throw a lot of money at something i ll barley use Tt artisans 500 6.3 cames up but is 450€ new compared to 360$ in us. Lol
It's a Vivitar 420-800mm f/8.3 lens, got it for like 70 bucks and had to buy a ~10 dollar adapter cause it's a T mount.
Lens is what you pay for, no auto focus, which is actually cancer to use when zoomed in at 800mm cause the zoom dial is on the end of the lens. You get green/purple chromatic aberration but taking moon pics I can just grayscale it.
Pretty cheap way to take nice pictures of the moon imo
>>4503422 Got the lens for 66$ with sony e mount and 2x telecomverter from aliexpress but jintu brand. Will arrive first week of may It s 7 times cheaper than the tt artisans i don t think the quality is 7 times shitier. Will see
>only have 50mm lens >moon is tiny What focal length to I need to fill at least 2/3 or 3/4 (within this range regardless of distance since I know it varies) of the height of a full frame sensor?
I'm wondering if I should get a second camera for telephoto shit because full frame lenses are very expensive.
Would be cheaper for you to buy an R6III, an RF 800mm f/11, and an RF 2x converter. >$2500 >$800 >$400
>inb4 the RF 800mm f/11 is bad Then pay $1800 instead of $800 and get the 200-800mm. If budget is starting to get too close to $6k then drop the R6III for an R8 and save yourself $1200.
>>4507125 >>4507140 >im gonna spend 7k on birding equipment for a couple pics of the moon you sirs are retarded, just buy a used maksutov or ask in the nearbiest astro related association to lend you a telescope for a moment, you may need to buy an adapter or 3d print it, pla is much weaker than aluminum so be careful, also can simulate framing on stellarium
>>4507125 >>4507140 >>4507205 Or buy >>4506042 >>4503422 For 70 dolars I got mine for 66 dolars with 2x tc https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005003997944844.html It arrived today and is raining. I will post pics at 800 and 1600 and you make an impression on iq. If ia acceptable for you Took some test shots at 800 and is not that bad. Didn't transfer them to phone to post them maybe later
Magnification (focal length) stays the same but this limits the amount of light that enters the lens, acting as an occluder to block the edges and forcing all light passing through the rest of the system to originate only from the center of the front element. This results in a darker but better (in some ways) image.
Hello Anons, happy to say that this photo won a First Place in the B/W Photography category of a state judged contest today! Taken with a C250D and a SIGMA 150-600mm F5-6.3 + 1.4x magnifier.
I bought this ridiculous fat fucker a couple weeks ago for 100 kangaroo bucks. I had very low expectations of it because >Hanimex and >45+ year old generic telephoto but handheld test shots (of things other than the moon) so far have been surprisingly good, it's reasonably sharp and minimal CA. The big downside is no tripod collar or foot and it weighs over a kilogram, it'll deform the camera body if I try tripod mounting it unsupported.
I've attempted a couple of handheld moon shots propped up on other objects and they look pretty decent in spite of the obvious wobble. I've got a 15mm rod LWS system coming in the mail sometime this week, super excited for it to arrive so I can finally get this brick on a tripod and see what it's really capable of.
>>4507617 Can't remember what stop I used for this. 1/160, ISO 125. Taken standing up leaning against one of my back verandah posts. It's obviously garbage but I was surprised by the level of detail for a handheld shot. I've taken worse shots on a tripod in the past.
>>4507617 Rod supports arrived. Been cloudy and shitty all week here but tonight the skies decided to be kind and all the clouds were gone, took some shots while the moon was still low and yellow. Not the most amazing stuff ever but really not bad for an old generic telephoto lens.
>>4466266 Though I've mostly missed the moon I did take a few pics anyway. I still take moon pics occasionally despite how much it sucks to do so with a 135mm lens on a crop sensor.