posted 04-17-2014 10:45 PM                    

quote: Randy Stankey

---

You still have to consider that, during even a 1 sec. exposure, the moon would have moved enough to blur the picture. Unless the camera was on an equatorial mount with tracking gear, you are bound to get some motion blur.

---

posted 04-18-2014 09:49 AM                    

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Nevertheless, that's another reason to shoot that moon shot using a bigger aperture, like f/8. Much shorter exposure time and reduced chance of blur.

---

Consider that the moon is 300,000 miles away and I don't think you have to worry much about DoF. Your two-fifth and three-fifth calculations come out to something like 120,000 and 480,000 miles. With a range of more than half a million miles, I don't think DoF means squat.
(Okay, okay... I know those calculations are baseless. That was humor. )

Point being, at astronomical distances, I don't think aperture and DoF have much bearing. Use whatever aperture is necessary to get the picture you want. I don't think that, in astronomical photography, it would be a problem to leave the aperture wide open, if necessary. (Or just one stop short of wide open.)

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Crank the ISO up a little (say 640) and you could leave the shutter at 1/60 or faster.

---

I wouldn't go any faster than that, even with film, unless I was shooting with a format large enough that grain wouldn't be an issue. Even with a 4x5 I wouldn't want to go much above 400.

I would also leave the camera outside for at least an hour or two in order to let it cool down to ambient temperature, preventing heat from causing sensor noise.

When shooting black and white film, you don't have to worry about reciprocity drift causing colors to shift. So, leaving the camera outside to cool to ambient would help prevent distortion from heat inside the camera.

Still, for just walking outside and taking a picture of the moon, Leo's picture ain't bad.

posted 04-18-2014 05:51 PM                       

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I've been thinking about the 7D as a back-up camera for my 5D Mark II.

---

quote: Randy Stankey

---

I wouldn't go any faster than that, even with film, unless I was shooting with a format large enough that grain wouldn't be an issue. Even with a 4x5 I wouldn't want to go much above 400.

---

posted 04-19-2014 10:49 AM                       

quote: Randy Stankey

---

You still have to consider that, during even a 1 sec. exposure, the moon would have moved enough to blur the picture. Unless the camera was on an equatorial mount with tracking gear, you are bound to get some motion blur.

---

posted 04-19-2014 12:51 PM                    

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

I'll try again, both with a smaller aperture...

---

A smaller aperture number which would give a larger aperture opening. Right?

posted 04-25-2014 10:16 PM                       

quote: Randy Stankey

---

A smaller aperture number which would give a larger aperture opening. Right?

---

Sorry, yes, smaller number / bigger hole (as the actress said to the bishop).

There are times when cellphone cameras have their uses, though. About 2-3 weeks ago there was a slightly more than trivial earthquake: near the epicenter (somewhere near Long Beach IIRC) it caused serious damage to a couple of buildings and quite a bit of more minor damage. Where we are, about 40 miles away, it was enough to have ceiling lights swinging. By the following day, the local Home Depot had already spotted a business oppportunity! The manager there was certainly quick off the mark.



I would have stood out somewhat trying to take this with an SLR.