evil_yoda
Guest
roddy said:
Thats a really bad photo of M42, the Orion Nebula. IMG_2199.jpg is a slightly better one. They were through a small telescope though, same camera.
Camera question...
- Thread starter Bryn
- Start date
Thats a really bad photo of M42, the Orion Nebula. IMG_2199.jpg is a slightly better one. They were through a small telescope though, same camera.
alimey4u2
Registered user
Cheating.....1000mm MTO with a 2x Nikon converter, on a not so clear night.
Lunar Eclipse & yes.....that's the true colour.
Lunar Eclipse & yes.....that's the true colour.
Frisky
Guest
Tsiklonaut said:Problem: your camera can't measure the light correctly. It measures full frame mostly (if you haven't selected "centre weightened" or "spot" metering). The camera overexposures the Moon coz it measures the darkenss around it.
Solution: go to manual mode of camera (if you have one?). Focus it to infinity (i.e. landscape mode). Then put aperture some f5.6-11 and try shutter speeds at 1/125, 1/500 or even 1/1000 second at lowest ISO50-200 sensitivity you have. You can do it from HANDS, because the shutter speed is so fast!
After taking pic zoom in from picture preview mode to see if the Moon got any details or not. Then you'll see if the Moon is overexposured or underexposured, then adjust shutter speed accordingly [if too bright, no detals -> faster shutter speed (i.e. you had 1/125 then put 1/500 or 1/1000 second)] [if too dark, nothing visible -> put slower shutter speed] till you get the result that is comparable with your own eyes.
Lemme know if it got better!
Cheers, Margus
Thanks for that Margus, I went out this morning and tried a few shots .I would have tried a slower shutter speed instead of a faster one!
This was at 1/250th F5.6 with a EOS10D and a 300 mm lens.
Cheers Dave
Attachments
Binoculars idea got me interested as well
Now this is what i call a bit of achivement: just few minutes ago came up an idea to put the only CHEAP Tesco (10£) binoculars i have onto my old 3 megapixel Nikon coolpix crap with duct tape. Wow, the moon almost covered 1/4 of the frame!
Tho, simple optical law states the resolution of details you get out of the pic is accordingly the diameter of diafragma (the diameter of lens), but that binocular has few centimetres of diametre - a very small binocular, but gave it a try and experimented...
First thing you see the Moon was green (= shite and not well aligned optics, improper lens coating), but other than that it was relatively SHARP if focused well that i didn't expect from that kind of extra-small diameter equipment.
So after some post-adjustment (white-balance and additional sharpening) i got this out @ ISO 100, 1/15s, f-facor unknown due dunno the brightness factor of those shiite binoculars, probably some F11 in the end), some NOISE from old-type CCD in the shadow areas, but the mission was to get some details to suck out at least which it did more than i expected:
Now this is what i call a bit of achivement: just few minutes ago came up an idea to put the only CHEAP Tesco (10£) binoculars i have onto my old 3 megapixel Nikon coolpix crap with duct tape. Wow, the moon almost covered 1/4 of the frame!
Tho, simple optical law states the resolution of details you get out of the pic is accordingly the diameter of diafragma (the diameter of lens), but that binocular has few centimetres of diametre - a very small binocular, but gave it a try and experimented...
First thing you see the Moon was green (= shite and not well aligned optics, improper lens coating), but other than that it was relatively SHARP if focused well that i didn't expect from that kind of extra-small diameter equipment.
So after some post-adjustment (white-balance and additional sharpening) i got this out @ ISO 100, 1/15s, f-facor unknown due dunno the brightness factor of those shiite binoculars, probably some F11 in the end), some NOISE from old-type CCD in the shadow areas, but the mission was to get some details to suck out at least which it did more than i expected:
Attachments
Frisky said:
Add more sharp and a very small bit of contrast to that pic and you'll get much better pic out of it. You'll get a lot more details due good equipment (half-frame(?)) CCD with nowadays low-noise profile supported by bright and sharp optics) that sure makes some serious results
Attachments
evil_yoda
Guest
Damn you guys, you've got me wanting a telescope again.
Just been out for a play. Taken with a Canon EOS20D with a 70-200mm lens and a 1.4x TC. 1/250th at f/5.6
Just been out for a play. Taken with a Canon EOS20D with a 70-200mm lens and a 1.4x TC. 1/250th at f/5.6
http://www.unhinged.eclipse.co.uk/photos/moon.jpg
EOS300D I think with a 50-500mm Sigma zoom near the 500 end, handheld with lens resting on window sill. I can recommend this book which is the best real world book I've found on exposure. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...072644/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/026-1843660-5604443.
EOS300D I think with a 50-500mm Sigma zoom near the 500 end, handheld with lens resting on window sill. I can recommend this book which is the best real world book I've found on exposure. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...072644/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/026-1843660-5604443.
Similar threads
