bob_helland Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Just got the film back and I'm surprised how SMALL the moon looks. I took several shots of the full moon with my 300mm. Different exposures. Some of the exposures look OK, but it's SO SMALL. Less than acentimeter on my 4x5 print. Focus looks pretty good, but to enlarge it to any decent size at allseems like it would be blurry and grainy. What size lens do you need to get a decent size print?? -Frustrated.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheldonnalos Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 I believe you need about 2000mm on full frame, 1250mm on a 1.6 digital body. Your best bet might be to rent a 600mm lens and a teleconverter or two. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheldonnalos Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Oops, forgot this...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_smith3 Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Your shutter speed is important for moon shots. The moon is moving. You need at least 1/30th of a sec to stop the movement. I use at least a 400mm lens when doing moon shots with a 35mm film camera. If other things are in the picture, you cannot make the moon look too big. If it is the moon itself, use a 500mm with a tc. Make sure your film or ISO is fast enough to stop movement. Joe Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry_norris2 Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 I believe the formula is that 100mm of lens focal length equals 1mm of width on a film camera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_chappell Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 I agree with Sheldon -- full frame of the moon requires a lot of focal length. This is what I got with 1000 mm on a 1.3X camera:<P> <CENTER> <img src ="http://www.biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/easternSierra/ moonrise2.jpg"> </center> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kahn Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 This was shot near sunrise, which makes the moon appear larger but also results in some atmospheric distortion. Tamron 70-300mm lens at 300mm. Sorry, lost the exposure data... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg s Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Hi Bob, This is a reply to your email. Hope it's okay to paste onto this forum post (save for posterity :) This is with a 600 mm, right? http://www.photo.net/photo/3541895&size=lg I've got a 300mm, and the moon is less than a centimeter wide on my 4 x 6 prints.... ??? How big was the moon in your original print? Simple math tells me that with twice as big a lens, it would be twice as big. IE: Less than two centimeters... So you enlarged it THAT much and it's still that clear and sharp??? I can't believe this... Any suggestions? Yes, the photo was taken on the Fuji S2 in 12MP jpeg mode with my old 600mm f/5.6 I believe I did print a few shots, but they would have been heavily cropped... as this image is. Keep in mind that the 600mm is an extremely sharp lens. I manually focused and refocused several times to acquire as close to perfect focus as possible. I used manual exposure, bracketed, and a cable release. I'll find the orig and post what the entire uncropped image sometime soon, for sake of reference. Last summer I tried my 500mm + TC, but I think I just used AF... results weren't as sharp as from the old 600mm. Next time I will try manual focus. Cheers, -Greg- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 The rule of thumb from the slide rule era is what larry mentioned, usable for the sun or moon. You divide teh focal lenght by 100, to get the image size on the film or sensor. This is good enough for ballpark estimates. Thus your 300mm lens makes a 3mm image on the sensor or film. If enlarged by say 4.3X for a 4x6 print; you get about a 13mm image; say 1/2 inch on the print. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 The moon's distance varies abit during its orbit; so you can get a slightly larger images by planning with an astronomical calendar. The actual focal length of you lens is not true also; it maybe several percent high or low from the nameplate. I once worked in a small observatory that had a Clarke 8" lens with a 96" focal length. The image of the moon was about equal to the 24mm width on a Nikon F2's filmframe; and sometimes on too big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank uhlig Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 For Joseph Smith: You said: "You need at least 1/30th of a sec to stop the movement." For moon shots the f/11 rule applies. (almost the earthly f/16 rule). How would you get 1/30 of a second of exposure? At low 100 ISO, you would use 1/125 sec and f/11, and equivalently 1/30 sec and f/22. Why would you want your lens to be diffraction limited? Why f/22? For added depth of field? With 1/30 sec and a long lens, you would need the sturdiest of tripods not to blur the picture. I personally would prefer 1/250 sec and f/8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markplawchan Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Yes, sunny 16's and lunar 'levens......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awahlster Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 I have been quite happy with 1000mm on full frame 35mm film. I normally shoot the moon with Pan F 50 ASA which will allow a nice 4-6" diameter image in a print with very little detail loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbb Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 You guys have so good moon photos, especially Greg S, that I have nothing to say. I read your note Greg about shadows on non-full moon. But I never was able to record any craters. I only can wish to know the trick to try one day. But here are full frames just to show what size we get with two setups. First 500mm+1.4X before sunset (wird sky) on 1.6X camera.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbb Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Second one 500mm+1.4X+2X stocked. About 20 minute after sunset.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbb Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Also question, as here we may have a few people attracted to this thread with knowledge in astronomy. This is a first time I ever saw this phenomena. Huge bright bow above sun before, during and after sunrise. Sky was clear. Anybody can tell me what make this happen? Photo is straight from camera. <p style="text-align:center"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4130967-lg.jpg" /></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg s Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 I was interested to find the original, see what it looked like, and what manual settings I used. Here is the original uncropped photo (same image as link above was derived from), downsized to 500 pixels across & usm'd a bit<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg s Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 same photo, cropped : 600mm, 1/60 sec, f/8<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg s Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 same photo, full pixel size crop : 600mm, 1/60 sec, f/8<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fourfa Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 "Some of the exposures look OK, but it's SO SMALL. Less than a centimeter on my 4x5 print." Whoops, I misread this as if he were shooting with a 4x5 LF camera. anyone want to contemplate the lens required to fill a 4"x5" frame with the moon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg s Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 "lens required to fill a 4"x5" frame with the moon?" about 4000mm to fill the 4" space? (quick approximation based on my 600mm shot) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_hess1 Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 Here is an uncropped full frame 35mm print scan with a 1250mm f13.8 Meade ATX 90 catadioptric telescope. I used a handmade mat in front of the lens operated by hand (waved) at approximately 1/10 of a second (calculated). Camera was open on B and no vibration was conducted to the camera because the "mat shutter" was never in contact with the lens. Kodacolor 200. It was hard to do because I could barely see the moon well enough through the camera at f13.8 to focus accurately. ozarque@hotmail.com<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_hess1 Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 full crop of above shot w/ATX 90. not too sharp No filter used, as evident, the shadow on a crescent moon will accentuate the craters.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now