the Moon

<p>What is a good focal length for shooting the Moon?</p>

<p>the uplaod is unedited. Shot with 300mm f/8 1/125 or 250(?)</p>

It initially surprised me that in a moon shot your starting exposure will follow the "sunny f/16" rule: but it does

meet the criteria for that exposure. I actually found I had to underexpose from there to get best detail.

 

And don't use long exposures. There is enough movement that those longer values (as I remember, a second

or more) cause motion blur. Another thing that surprised me at first.

 

Finally, I have made my most satisfying moon images using my longest lens — my 80 - 400. Aiming for the

moon seems appropriate when thinking of a 400mm f/2.8!

<p>A 1000mm (2X500mm) lens will fill about 2/3 of the frame on a cropped body. If using a doubler, the speed loss alone would suggest starting with a prime lens.</p>

<p>I think it depends on how much detail you're after. Here's a lunar eclipse shot with an 80mm F/11 refractor with a Nikon DX camera at prime focus. </p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2827818-lg.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="600" /></p>

<p>That is crazy Michael, I would love to have a go at that.</p>

<p>All depends on how close you want to get. 600mm on an APS-C sensor will pretty much fill the frame of a full moon. If you want closer, then you're getting into the realms of telescopes.<br>

<a title="Super Moon 2011 by Bladeflyer, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladeflyer/5546623518/"><img src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5058/5546623518_bf8c01acf9_z.jpg" alt="Super Moon 2011" width="640" height="428" /></a><br>

<strong> ED80 telescope with 5mm Hyperion eyepiece, mounted to D200. 1/10th, ISO800 F/7.5.</strong></p>

<p>Ian, your setup was afocal, right? (magnification will depend on the eyepiece)</p>

<p>My shot above was made with a 900mm F/11 (long tube 80mm objective) @ prime focus (no eyepiece, D70 T-mounted to telescope). </p>

<p>Simon, that's a blended shot; the contrast was too great for a single exposure. </p>

<p>Michael, yes, mine setup for that shot was afocal. My scope is a 80x600mm f/7.5, so at prime focus I get this close...</p>

<p><a title="Super Moon 2011 by Bladeflyer, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladeflyer/5546605986/"><img src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5051/5546605986_81dc282d27_z.jpg" alt="Super Moon 2011" width="640" height="480" /></a></p>

<p><img src="http://www.photochimps.com/pp/data/500/medium/eclipse3b.jpg" alt="" />Exposed at 2 minute intervals with a Speed Graphic camera and a Kodak Ektar f/7.7 203mm at about f/16 and 1/60 second on one sheet of 4x5 T-Max 400 film. The eclipse had already begun before moonrise. The sunny 16 rule is sometimes recommended for lunar photography. However, the moon is actually rather darker than ordinary terrestial scenes, but we perceive it as being much brighter. The Loony 11 or Loony 8 rule works better for me. Exposure is increased further when the moon is low in the sky due to light loss through a greater amount of atmosphere.</p>

<p>Don't forget that shorter focal lengths are also useful for moon work. You can use them to include the moon within a scene...</p>

<p>70mm on a D200.</p>

<div></div>

<p>To fill a 35mm frame (or full-frame digital) with a full frame and just a little room to spare, I use a 2000mm focal length.</p>

<p>To fill an APS digital camera frame with a full moon, I use a 1000mm focal length but a 1200mm would be better.</p>

<p><a href=" </div>

<p>Every time I see people's pictures from doing this I feel the calling, that is ridiculous Ian, unbelievable. How do people get those far away colourful galaxies I see pictures of sometimes?</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"How do people get those far away colourful galaxies I see pictures of sometimes?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Simon, it takes patience, planning, dark skies, and the right gear. </p>

<p>Something like the<a href="http://www.google.ca/search?gcx=w&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Andromeda+galaxy"> Andromeda galaxy (M31) </a>can be made with a <a href="http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=how%20to%20photograph%20andromeda%20galaxy%20telescope&gs_sm=sc&gs_upl=3515l10847l0l15034l27l14l0l11l11l0l381l2573l0.11.2.1l23l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&biw=1370&bih=794&pdl=300&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw&ei=GWfiTvyGDMPo0QGmpOTyBQ#pq=how+to+photograph+andromeda+galaxy+telescope&hl=en&cp=15&gs_id=1m&xhr=t&q=80mm+short+tube+refractor&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=80mm+short+tube&aq=0&aqi=g1g-v2g-m1&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=c88023601f958b5&biw=1370&bih=794">80mm short tube telescope</a> on a solid <a href="http://www.google.ca/search?gcx=w&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=equatorial%C2%A0mount">equatorial mount</a> (as seen in John's picture above). I've seen many excellent backyard photos using stacked (5 minute) exposures at high ISO, with exposure times totalling upto an hour. </p>

<p>You can probably do it on the cheap if you're resourceful but the mount and its tracking accuracy makes all the difference. </p>

<p>I like a 700-750mm on a full frame. It can do double duty as a solar eclipse lens, ie enough room around the sun to capture lots of corona.<br>

steadiness is the key. The Moon and Sun require short exposures usually, but deep sky stuff...separates the men from the boys (I am a boy). Those shots require tracking and your budget just exploded, not to mention your patience.</p>

<p>If you are to get interested in astrophotography there are some inexpensive books on the subject that cover it well. And you should go to a "star party," a big one like Texas Star Party or Stellafane, to see how it's done.</p>

<p>For scale the rule of thumb is that for every 100mm of focal length the diameter of the moon at the focus plane will be .9mm.</p>

<p>Therefor at 500mm the diameter of the moon will be 4.5mm at the focus plane. At 1000mm it would be 9mm etc. The moon covers 1/2 of 1 degree wide (as does the sun) so for other astronomical objects I would just compare their angular diameter to arrive at the focal length for the photo you want. This works for the final image also. If you are going to make an 8 X 10 as the final print of a full frame negative or sensor then with a 500mm lens the full moon image would be 8 X 4.5mm or 45mm in diameter. With a reduced sensor size, say 16 X 22mm the enlargement to 8 X 10 would be about 12X so then the final moon size would be 12 X 4.5mm or 54mm. A little simple math is all you need.</p>

<p>This is a 35% crop with a 600mm + 1.4x on a 1.3 crop body, more details below<br>

<img src="http://www.robertbody.com/arizona10/images/2010-08-13-powell-moon-crescent-23368.jpg" alt="" /><br>

2010-08-13-powell-moon-crescent-23368.psd - Canon 1D Mark IV<br />2010-08-14 19:39:01 - (lens: EF 600mm f/4L IS USM +1.4x)<br />1/320s <a title="Sunny-16 f/stop, aperture, ISO table" href="http://www.robertbody.com/answers/support/fstop.html" target="_blank">f</a>/5.6 - ISO-200 - 840mm (x1.3=1092mm)<br />Exp: Man.Multi-segment. +0 step. (Flash:Off)<br />AdobeRGB - CR2(raw) - 1632 kB - 4200K<br />Size: 2910x1940 pixels - 35% crop<br />Orig: 4896x3264 pixels - Res: 240x240dpi</p>

 

6% crop with a 300mm lens and 1.6 crop body

<img src="http://www.robertbody.com/animals08/images/2008-08-10-riparian-moon-40d_14209.jpg" alt="" />

2008-08-10-riparian-moon-40d_14209.psd - Canon EOS 40D<br />2008-08-10 19:25:49 - (lens: EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM)<br />1/1500s <a title="Sunny-16 f/stop, aperture, ISO table" href="http://www.robertbody.com/answers/support/fstop.html" target="_blank">f</a>/5.6 - ISO-400 - 300mm (x1.6=480mm)<br />Exp: Man.Multi-segment. +0 step. (Flash:Off)<br />AdobeRGB - CR2(raw) - 1236 kB - 4100K<br />Size: 936x624 pixels - 6% crop<br />Orig: 3888x2592 pixels - Res: 240x240dpi

 

 

<p>This is a shot from last week with a 500 mm prime and a 1.4x TC on a Nikon D7000. It's also cropped about 50% in the vertical:<br>

<img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7012/6472766713_172a5ed5df_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="618" /></p>