Lunar eclipse tomorrow night

I found it quite a challenge once the eclipse had properly set in to get a decent enough shutter speed to avoid motion blur. This is one of my better efforts (using a 180 lens and cropping like hell) I think at 1/2s, ISO200, f2.8.

DSC_0005_14.jpg
 
2.jpg


Shakey tripod, means getting a close up quite difficult, will check later
 
Here is my interpretation. EF 500 f 5.6L + Ef extender 1.4 II and Kenko Pro DG 2X:

redmoonxr5.jpg
 
Wow thats some zoom Doug :clap: Very nice. I've just looked though my shots and most are prety poor :(
 
Wile E. coyote said:
I've just looked though my shots and most are prety poor :(
Click to expand...


Without pointing a finger at anyone I think its fair to say none of us got the pin sharp pictures we were looking for last night...:(

Maybe we could discuss the reason hoping for a better attempt next time..:shrug:
 
busterboy said:
Maybe we could discuss the reason hoping for a better attempt next time..:shrug:
Click to expand...

Yeah nice idea, the next one is in August I think, maybe we all can better results then.
 
:clap: at Steep for Saturn - love the rings!!

Haven't got mine off the camera yet but I have a feeling that I have the same "wrong shutter speed" problem as most others here. I had intended to look back here and remind myself of the right settings prior to setting up but we'd been out all day and didn't have the chance in the end - it was already 50% underway by the time we got home.
 
busterboy said:
Without pointing a finger at anyone I think its fair to say none of us got the pin sharp pictures we were looking for last night...:(

Maybe we could discuss the reason hoping for a better attempt next time..:shrug:
Click to expand...

I think its simple really. The moon was dark so you needed a long exposure or high iso to get the shot. With long exposure it would be blurred. With high ISO it would be noisy when you crop. antc's shot proves its possible to get a nice shot of the normal moon. I think the red version was just too dark.
 
busterboy said:
Without pointing a finger at anyone I think its fair to say none of us got the pin sharp pictures we were looking for last night...:(

Maybe we could discuss the reason hoping for a better attempt next time..:shrug:
Click to expand...

It was nice and easy before that bloody shadow came over it :)
It's always going to be a tough ask... small, very dark moving subject, and a heck of a long way away (with a fair amount of moisture in the atmosphere).

Looking around at the results on the web, I'm amazed at the quality achieved by so many :clap:


cheers,
Andy
 
petemc said:
I think its simple really. The moon was dark so you needed a long exposure or high iso to get the shot. With long exposure it would be blurred. With high ISO it would be noisy when you crop. antc's shot proves its possible to get a nice shot of the normal moon. I think the red version was just too dark.
Click to expand...

thanks. im really happy with it. i have never shot the moon before until SDK reminded me about the eclipse last night so i thought i would have a crack at it. i didnt really think my lens would be long enough to get anything good but it really did me proud :D
 
busterboy said:
Without pointing a finger at anyone I think its fair to say none of us got the pin sharp pictures we were looking for last night...:(

Maybe we could discuss the reason hoping for a better attempt next time..:shrug:
Click to expand...

cyk summed it up well.
Standard moon shots are easy to get; just buy a long lens and stick a few extenders on it.
The problem with the moon in full shadow is you need a long, super-wide (F1.2) aperture lens and they don't exist :thumbsdown:

I'm not sure of the quality of telescopes and camera adapters but perhaps they can achieve better results :shrug: . I certainly won't be investing in any of that gear for the once in a blue moon :)lol:) use they'll get.
 
petemc said:
I think its simple really. The moon was dark so you needed a long exposure or high iso to get the shot. With long exposure it would be blurred. With high ISO it would be noisy when you crop. antc's shot proves its possible to get a nice shot of the normal moon. I think the red version was just too dark.
Click to expand...
Yep. Before the eclipse I did some test shots and settled on ISO 100, f11, 1/100s or thereabouts. Everything was groovy (or as groovy as it could be given that my longest lens is a 180/2.8)

Once the shadow was in place though, anything over about 1/2s was coming out seriously blurred due to motion.
 
think I found as everyone else did - exposures were just too long. the moon moves very fast - and at 400mm it makes a difference. its in the shadow of the earth so we have to be able to increase the exposure somehow - iso up, greater aperture without compromising shutter speeds. next time....
 
Druid said:
Yep. Before the eclipse I did some test shots and settled on ISO 100, f11, 1/100s or thereabouts. Everything was groovy (or as groovy as it could be given that my longest lens is a 180/2.8)

Once the shadow was in place though, anything over about 1/2s was coming out seriously blurred due to motion.
Click to expand...

Same problem, once the thing we all were standing outide like idiots to see happended the shutter speed just went crazy. Ah well put it down to experience.
 
I don't feel so bad now knowing some of you also had problems.

Next time (August?) I'll re-read this thread and maybe get something a little better.
 
Seems I had much the same experiences... I have to agree that everyone deserves a pat on the back for their images. In the past I have used ND filters to get normal moon shots, but here used a sigma 70-200 f2.8 with 2x teleconverter, the first shot set to as small an aperture as possible, f45, 1/8th at ISO 100, but by the time of the second shot I found better results at as wide as poss and higher ISO, f5.6, cranked up to 1600 to get an exposure time of 0.4, any slower and there was too much blur. Cannot crop though, far too much noise.

AntC - great shot, can you share the details of how you took it?

DougDarter - so with your set up, does that mean you end up with effective focal length of 1400mm? Very impressed with your shot, would normally only expect that from a telescope on a tracking mount. My wife used to have an
8" scope on an equitorial mount, and used a cccd camera to get planatary images, but due to light polution problems lost interest and sold it all. Could have done with that last night! :bang:

DPP_0001a.jpg


DPP_0009.jpg


Cheers everyone
 
Si240 said:
DougDarter - so with your set up, does that mean you end up with effective focal length of 1400mm? Very impressed with your shot, would normally only expect that from a telescope on a tracking mount. My wife used to have an
8" scope on an equitorial mount, and used a cccd camera to get planatary images, but due to light polution problems lost interest and sold it all. Could have done with that last night! :bang:


Cheers everyone
Click to expand...

Hi,

The total focal length is 1120mm.....

500mm + 1.4X = 560mm x 2X = 1120mm.

If you factor in the crop (1.3) in the 1D, it total up to 1456mm.

The camera and lens setup was securely held on an Arca Swiss ballhead, with a QR plate that can be adjusted longtitudinally (so the lens is in perfect balance), on a Gitzo CF 2228 tripod, with about 20lb weights underslung for stability.
 
50% crop is the best I could do. Here's some of my moons though I wasn't patient enough to get all the different phases. :bonk:

lunar_eclipse_800.jpg
 
dougdarter said:
Hi,

The total focal length is 1120mm.....

500mm + 1.4X = 560mm x 2X = 1120mm.

If you factor in the crop (1.3) in the 1D, it total up to 1456mm.

The camera and lens setup was securely held on an Arca Swiss ballhead, with a QR plate that can be adjusted longtitudinally (so the lens is in perfect balance), on a Gitzo CF 2228 tripod, with about 20lb weights underslung for stability.
Click to expand...

Thankyou, however I'm a little confused by the math. doesn't 500 x 1.4 = 700??
 
Richard said:
It's times like these you realise how crap your Jessops tripod is as well :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know what you mean. I got mine from Argos and it wasn't the sturdiest of things at full height with the breeze and gusts I was getting in my spot. Anyway here was my effort with my Canon 70-300mm at 300mm. F/8 - 2 seconds

I found the lens managed to autofocus on it OK in the dark (I certainly couldn't have manually focused any better)

20070304182957_red-moon-2.jpg
 
Si240 said:
Thankyou, however I'm a little confused by the math. doesn't 500 x 1.4 = 700??
Click to expand...
Yes it does :)

So :
500mm + 1.4X = 700mm x 2X = 1400mm x 1.3 (crop factor) = 1820mm
 
21 February 2008 Total Eclipse Pacific, Americas, Europe, Africa
16 August 2008 Partial Eclipse S. America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia
21 December 2010 Total Eclipse E. Asia, Australia, Pacific, Americas, Europe
15 June 2011 Total Eclipse S. America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia
10 December 2011 Total Eclipse Europe, E. Africa, Asia, Australia, Pacific
 
awsome pics guys, cant believe how close you were able to get though Doug!, i like seeing the detail of the "craters" at the bottom.

heres my attempt anyhoo.

small.jpg
 
SDK^ said:
Yes it does :)

So :
500mm + 1.4X = 700mm x 2X = 1400mm x 1.3 (crop factor) = 1820mm
Click to expand...

No m8 it's just 1400mm the crop factor has no bearing on the magnification. Still 1400mm is nothing to be sneezed at :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top