# my moon shot



## paigew (Feb 8, 2012)

With all these moon pics I just had to try. The moon was SOOOO bright last night and just calling my name . Honestly, I'm only happy with my shot because its the best shot _I _have ever take of the moon :mrgreen: but not so happy because looking at everyone else's it seems less sharp and with no crater things. Do I need a better lens? Or can I do something different? 


f 5.6; ss 1/125; iso 100
shot with Canon EF-S 18-135mm  (just realized I should have used the 55-250mm lens :x....I'll have to try again tonight with that)



IMG_4120 by paige_w, on Flickr

also, I tried metering off the moon and it did NOT work. My meter said the shot was under exposed (even though I metered off the moon). So I just had to adjust exposure by 'eye'.


----------



## rgregory1965 (Feb 8, 2012)

1. bigger zoom  300mm or as close as you can get
2. spot metering-ISO 100
3. try f/8 to f/11
4. use meter and shoot, then under expose one stop shot again and do this till you get the detail you want.

That is the method I use..here is my last attemp.

Was taken with the  NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR


----------



## paigew (Feb 8, 2012)

/\ nice shot! You think a 250mm lens will be big enough for a decent pic? That's as big as I have. I'm excited to try again and get way more detail. Though I do think my shot is a pretty good representation of what it looked like in 'real life'. You know...to the naked eye.

funny how your pic is way more grey than mine...maybe b/c mine is over exposed?


----------



## rgregory1965 (Feb 8, 2012)

That is after lightroom......but real close out of camera.

I like to shoot a little underexposed in camera then work it in lightroom


----------



## Aloicious (Feb 8, 2012)

paigew said:


> With all these moon pics I just had to try. The moon was SOOOO bright last night and just calling my name . Honestly, I'm only happy with my shot because its the best shot _I _have ever take of the moon :mrgreen: but not so happy because looking at everyone else's it seems less sharp and with no crater things. Do I need a better lens? Or can I do something different?
> 
> f 5.6; ss 1/125; iso 100
> shot with Canon EF-S 18-135mm  (just realized I should have used the 55-250mm lens :x....I'll have to try again tonight with that)
> ...



thats a pretty good shot all due considering....if you want to get crater definition you don't want to shoot when the moon is full. the lighting on a full moon just flattens everything out. try to get like a 3/4 or 1/2 for some good harsh sidelighting. its best to just do everything full manual. 

do you have live view on your camera (I'm not too familiar with canons)...if so use the live view zoomed in all the way to focus, then use ~f8-f11ish and around 1/125-1/250 shutter speed, you can adjust the settings to get it how you like, and atmospheric conditions can change what is ideal...

to get it ideal, get a telescope. but a long lens (like 300+mm would do decently too)...it's 235,000 miles away give or take...the bigger the lens, the more detail you'll get...

I've posted this several other places, so I apologize if you've seen it before, but this is out of a ~1200mm f/6 telescope, I think it's around 1/150s, some PP, but not tons...


----------



## paigew (Feb 8, 2012)

Great tips! thanks  your photo looks great! I wont be buying a new lens ay time soon so I'll just have to make due with what I got 

and yes I have live view...I'll try that tonight


----------



## Aloicious (Feb 8, 2012)

yeah, live view helps out alot with astrophotography. look in your local classifieds for telescopes, I have 2, my ritchey-chretien was kindof expensive, but the one I used to take that pic was like 25 years old, and I got it locally for $150...it works well for the moon, and observing, but its unguided so taking long shots with it really doesn't work, but hey, for $150 who can complain...it's huge though, its like 4 feet long and 9" in diameter, and that is just the optical tube, the mount is pretty large too.

if you have a good fast wide angle lens, you can do some wide angle astrophotography too if you have an area with dark skys close to you.


----------



## rgregory1965 (Feb 8, 2012)

You could also get a 2x tele converter to get closer


----------



## paigew (Feb 8, 2012)

tonights attempt 

f 5.6; iso 200; ss 1/250
used 55-250mm lens



2nd attempt moon  by paige_w, on Flickr


----------



## brush (Feb 8, 2012)

I got a pretty decent moon shot last night... Kit lens at 135mm, 1/640, f/5.6 ISO 100.




IMG_1282 by Bill Rush, on Flickr


----------



## paigew (Feb 9, 2012)

looks good!!


----------



## brush (Feb 9, 2012)

Thanks! I wanna get the kind of detail Aloicious got...I'm lookin' forward to the half moon now!   Thanks for starting this thread, good info. I'm going to try the spot metering & the tighter aperture & everything next time too, can't wait to see the results.


----------



## hartz (Feb 10, 2012)

I also tried to take photos of the moon a few nights ago, using the Nikon 55-200mm.  I struggled a lot with focus, but I was trying to get the leaves of the tree in front to be in focus at the same time.  These were moving in the breeze, which meant I had to use a faster shutter, which meant I had to push up ISO way way in order to get enough depth of field.

None of the photos came out right.  I am going to have to try again (focus all soft).  First I am looking for a higher tree (closer to the moon/further away from me)


----------



## Aloicious (Feb 10, 2012)

brush said:


> Thanks! I wanna get the kind of detail Aloicious got...I'm lookin' forward to the half moon now!   Thanks for starting this thread, good info. I'm going to try the spot metering & the tighter aperture & everything next time too, can't wait to see the results.



you did really good on that shot, I'm suprised that it was onlt 135mm...you'll get more detail from a harsher sidelighting for sure, but don't expect it to be as detailed as a telescope shot, there are alot of advantages to a telescope, for example, that image I posted isn't even close to a 100% crop, the moon pretty much filled the frame...here is a 100% crop from an image that I shot the same night:





you can see my focus in that shot was a little soft, but also remember we're shooting through the atmosphere which causes alot of issues too. but a telescope will give you alot more ability to play with the image, and more leniency, where with a shorter lens you won't have that option.

I want to get back out there with my nicer Ritchey-Chretien scope (RC scopes are made for imaging, in fact the hubble space telescope is a Ritchey-Chretien scope) and get some more pics...maybe some deep space objects too, those are MUCH harder though.

if you want to see when the moon will be in difference phases, check out a moon calander like this one:
Moon Phases Calendar / Moon Schedule

my next nights off are monday and tuesday, looks like good moon lighting those days, if the weather cooperates I might have to shoot the moon again...


----------



## Aloicious (Feb 10, 2012)

also it hasn't been mentioned yet, but make sure you're using a good tripod, and a remote shutter release, or set the timer. 

also, here is what I use mainly. 

This is the telescope that I used to take those pictures of the moon. it's the one thats 25 years old and cost me $150...for reference, that floor lamp is a little over 5 1/2 feet tall...this type of telescope is a newtonian reflector. typically they're pretty good for general imaging, and usually pretty cheap for the most part, but they can be big. this one is a 8" diameter primary mirror, with a speed of f/6, and a focal length of 1200mm (with the crop factor on my D90 it's equivalent length is around 1800mm), with telescopes, the bigger they are the more light the collect, nothing this size is required for the moon, a much smaller one would work out just as well. 





this one is my Ritchey-Chretien, I haven't had this one out to image a whole lot yet, but hopefully I'll be able to take it out a few nights soon. it is built completely different than a newtonian reflector which makes it alot more compact, but they're usually quite a bit more expensive. that small scope mounted on the top of it is a small refractor scope, it is used as a guide scope to help the mount accurately compensate for the earth's rotation (and other movements), to allow long exposures without getting movement blur. it is also an 8" diameter primary mirror scope, but it's speed is f/8, and focal length is 1600mm (around 2400mm equivalent with the crop factor). this kind of setup is more for deep space stuff, nebulas, etc...and it's alot more complex than a regular lens or simpler telescope, with it's computerized guiding and such, honestly I'm still trying to get the hang of it. I'll really try to go get some moon shots with it this monday or tuesday and post them up, should be fun...





I know I sound like a telescope salesman, and I don't mean to, I just want to help anyone who may be interested in the info...honestly, you guys are doing really well with regular lenses, alot better than I did when I first started out, which actually wasn't that long ago, I think I tried shooting the moon with my 200mm lens for the first time only ~2.5 years ago or something, I've just been hooked on astrophotography since then...so, I feel like I've been posting alot in this thread, so sorry paige, I'm not trying to take over your thread or anything.

keep posting up your shots, I like this thread


----------



## momo3boys (Feb 10, 2012)

My son has a telescope but I don't know how to use my camera with it.  Is it possible to use a camera with a telescope. I've heard of people doing it but I'm not sure how..


----------



## StringThing (Feb 10, 2012)

I think you are looking for a T-mount adapter.  I'm getting this one for my 8" scope and D3100.

Amazon.com: Celestron T-Ring / T-Mount Adapter f/Nikon: Camera & Photo


----------



## Aloicious (Feb 10, 2012)

I've got one of these...it is a little bit better than a T ring and mount:
CAMERA ADAPTERS for TELESCOPES & MICROSCOPES!

that's for a 2" telescope eyepiece ports though, they have a different one for the more standard 1.25" that is less expensive....that's for prime focus shooting (basically using the telescope as your camera lens), there are other ways to photograph with a telescope like projecting the telescope image through a standard camera lens but that is a bit different....I like prime focus, its far less complicated, and IMO gets better images.


----------

