how to photograph the moon with a 4x5 ???

[peter_hoang1]

<p>hello all,<br>

I want to make an image of the moon on 4x5. i would like to get the mooon at least 2-3 inches big on the 4x5 negative. I have a linhof master tech w/ a 300 f/9 nikkor, but i dont think its long enough. im thinking i need about 2 monorail cameras w/ a really really long lens. any suggestions on what lens or camera set up?<br>

i was going to shoot it all in b/w but now im thinking of exposing a few sheets of color. do i need filters for color film?</p>

<p>thanks a bunch!</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>Fugeddaboudit!</p>

<p>Seriously, unless you have a big telescope and a way to adapt it, I think you are out of luck. The moon, as seen from Earth, is about half a degree wide. To get it 2 inches wide, you need a lens with a focal lenght of about 5500 mm (that's 5.5 m, or 18 ft).</p>

<p>Put it this way: to fill half the width of the short side of a 35mm frame with the moon, you need a lens of about 1400mm, or a 500mm lens and a 2x teleconverter and another, 1.4x teleconverter.</p>

 

[sattler123]

<p>There is no lens long enough to get what you want. Chose the tools appropriate for the job - in this case it means either digital or 35mm film.</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>Your best option is a telescope, have a look at the Meade and Celestron units, a Meade 12" LX200-ACF has a focal length of 3000 mm. It would probably do the job nicely, but I have no idea on the price. :) <strong> </strong> </p>

[danny_wong2]

<p>Shoot it in 35mm film then dupe it onto 4x5.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>This is a full frame 35mm Kodachrome with a 1000mm Nikkor. So you'd need an astronomically bigger lens<g>. Unfortunately, the moon is very slightly out of focus because this is a fixed f/11 lens and I had to pick the statue to focus on (which is very high atop the capital building and I was on the ground below).</p><div></div>

[peter_hoang1]

<p>i have a 300mm ef canon for my digital camera. of course digital is the logical approach, but its something i really want to capture on film and make some really nice silver prints from, that deflating. well what type of telescope shoul i look for? i know nothing about them. will the telescope cover 4x5?</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Peter, I don't think an ordinary telescope has 4x5 coverage. Attached is a relationship diagram I built for this purpose. I hope it scales alright on this thread... we'll see...</p><div></div>

[drew bedo]

<p>I shot the moon setting behind a windmill a few years ago with a 4x5 camera.. I had ti "rig" a set-up that used a spotting scope, a T-mount adapter and a packard shutter on a home-built lens board. The whole lash-up was held in alignment with a hiome built wooden jig that mounted o my biggest tripod. The principle is called "Eye-piece Projection" and the telescope has to be focused first, then mounted to the camera. The subject is found on the ground glass and allowence is made for the movement of the Moon. The exposure was by-guess-and-by-gosh...a more technical description would be wild and desperate bracketing. A few actually turned out.</p>

<p>If I ever get a Graflex reflex camera, I'll try it again!</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>a Meade 12" LX200-ACF has a focal length of 3000 mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And if you remove the rear cell and substitute a different one, it will cover medium format with vignetted corners. As Michael pointed out, you can't use it on a 4x5. There are telescopes that will cover a 4x5 plate: generally Newtonian or Dobsonian (primary and secondary mirror scopes) with at least a 14 inch primary mirror. To do it with a Cat (a folded scope like the Meade) would requite at least a 20 inch scope.</p>

<p>Eyepiece projection (Drew's interesting example aside) normally requires a special projection eyepiece, and you also have to pay attention to the effective aperture of the system. For example, my Meade 8 inch LX90 is an f10, 2000mm instrument. I'd have to take it up with a projection eyepiece to an effective 6000mm f30 instrument to get the framing you want. Using a stock eyepiece won't give you a flat field or enough image quality to do justive to a 4x5 image. You also require a scope with an insanely strong drive and tracking system if you're planning to mount a 4x5. Mine has enough trouble with a DSLR.</p>

<p>Are you planning to contact print the 4x5 image, or use a 4x5 enlarger? If you're after larger prints, I'd suggest shooting digital, then either learning to make inkjet negatives for contact printing, or farm out the negative to someone who is already set up for such.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>Here is a moon shot taken with a Meade ETX 125 telescope of about 1800 mm focal length. The image was recorded directly onto a Canon 5D sensor at prime focus. So as said above you would need a really, really long lens to make use of 4x5.</p><div></div>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>You might be able to use an afocal technique like some use with P&S digital cameras. If you can get access to at least a 90mm aperture telescope (refractor or CAT) or a 114mm or better reflector with a high quality eyepiece you can focus as usual and then position 4x5 lens over the eyepiece. Tweak focus a bit on the ground glass. The lens must be as close to the eyepiece as you can get without touching. I've never tried this with a 4x5, but I have done so successfully with a Yashicatmat.<br>

If you're looking to buy a scope new, the Orion Apex 90 (90mm CAT with 1250mm focal length) comes with an eyepiece that yields 50X magnification. I own one and it is a very sharp scope, especially for the money. If you use a refractor, you will get sharper results with long focal length models (at least 900mm focal length) The shorttube models tend to have too much secondary chromatic abberation for higher magnifications. The premium shorttubes (ED, APO, fluorite) are very expensive, but good.<br>

Since the moon is illuminated by sunlight, you shouldn't need a filter for daylight color film.</p>

[alpenglow]

<p>Yep... eyepiece projection through a telescope is the only way to go.</p>

<p>Mike</p>

 

[peter_hoang1]

<p>would this telescope work?</p>

<p>http://cgi.ebay.com/Orion-Short-Tube-4-5-Equatorial-Reflector-Telescope_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp3286Q2ec0Q2em14QQhashZitem1e57f66bfaQQitemZ130324786170QQptZLHQ5fDefaultDomainQ5f0QQsalenotsupported</p>

[dwain_barefield]

<p>Peter, IMHO -- I'd stay clear of any telescope offerings on ebay. I suggest you peruse and consider joining Astro Mart: If you're serious about getting into astroimaging.<br>

<a href="http://www.astromart.com/?gclid=CPWtne6Rq5wCFRYiagodzAfekQ">http://www.astromart.com/?gclid=CPWtne6Rq5wCFRYiagodzAfekQ</a><br>

As someone previously noted: choose the tools appropriate for the task. That means a telescope and a digital or 35mm camera, or a digital/35 mm with at least a 500mm lens or longer; otherwise trying to shoot with a 4X5 would be an exercise in futility. Unless you have deep pockets, by far the ceapest route would be a camera to telescope coupling. Telephoto camera lenses in 500mm+ focal lengths are prohibitively expensive.<br>

People on Astromart are serious amateur astronomers moving up or trading their equipment to other, like-minded amateur astronomers. Give 'em a shot.</p>

<p> </p>

[peter_hoang1]

<p>great, thanks for the tip and all your help guys.</p>

[alpenglow]

<p>Peter,</p>

<p>As others have pointed out, using digital would certainly be <strong>easier</strong> , but this is not your only or even best option. Shooting the moon with large format is certainly doable, and will not be an excercise in futility by any means... I have done this myself. But, you will need to do it via eyepiece projection. If done right, the quality of the image on 4x5 film will be superior to anything you'll be able to get with digital SLRs or 35mm film (assuming you're using a quality telescope and eyepiece). But if you don't want to make the extra effort to get the best image possible, then certainly digital is an option.</p>

<p>Mike</p>

 

[a_bruce]

<p>I had a dream a few weeks ago where I started making wall-sized black&white prints taken of the stars with my 10x8... the next morning I quickly tried to search out whether this would be possible, and quickly found out it wasn't, then set about finding out if it would be possible with 5x4... then alas not...<br>

I find the whole situation very depressing...</p>

[profhlynnjones]

<p>Back in my old Celestron days, the information that we gave to our customers was as follows.</p>

<p>Focal Length: 4,000mm=Disc diameter 1 1/4" or 32mm, 2,000mm=5/8" or 16mm, 1,000mm=5/16" or 8mm, 500mm=5/32" or 4mm, 250mm=5/64" or 2mm.</p>

<p>A typical Celestron or Meade 8" Schmidt telescope (2,000mm) will almost fill the frame with a full fram 35mm, while a 1,000 will "overflow" some digital cameras but 500's should be fine with all of the digitals. </p>

<p>When I was Celestron VP, I filled the frame of 120 roll film (just a bit over 1 3/4 inch disc size) on my Rollei SL66 with a Celestron 16 telescope. If I remember correctly the focal length was around 6,500mm (around 256" or 21.33 ft). Once again going back to my memory, the telescope tube was about 1.5 feet wide by a bit over 5.5 long and weighed in at well over 100 lbs mounted on a pier weighing well over 1,000 lbs.</p>

<p>Lynn</p>

[alpenglow]

<p>No reason to be depresed A Bruce, since your dream is perfectly doable. So I'm not sure why your research was so inaccurate. I think it's because people just arn't creative enough with their thinking, or they get so focused on only doing something one way, (like trying to mate a large format camera directly to a telescope), that they come to the quick and wrong conclusion that it's "not possible". No reason at all why you can't mount an 8x10 or 4x5 camera to an equatorial drive... using a vacuume back film holder (to keep the film flat over the course of the long exposure), use wider focal lengths, and then proceed to make very long exposures of the constellations. Been done before, many... many times.</p>

<p>Mike</p>

 

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>The 1950's slide rule era Sam Brown optical; astro and telescope bookletes written for Edmund Salvage Co of New Jersey were what I grew up with.<br>

<br /> ****A common first swag/estimate is the sun or moon is 1/100 the focal length in diameter on the film/plate.<br>

<br /> The moons size varies in arc angle' most lenses and mirrors are only made to 5 to 7 percent; cameras have different film gate sizes. The 1/100 number is a good estimate for planning an image size; a ballpark figure.<br>

Thus an Instamatic 104 has a 43mm lens; the moon is 0.4mm in diameter on film.<br>

A speed graphic with a 127mm Ektar makes a 1.3mm moon on film. Your 300mm lens makes a 3mm image on film.<br>

My 48" focal length Edmund 6" reflector makes roughly a 1/2" image on film.<br>

A Clarke 8 inch F13 refractor made about a 1 inch diameter on film; the focal length is 8x13=104 inches. Depending on the the moons distance; sometimes one could get a compete full moon on a Nikon F2; with its 24x36mm frame; with a closer full moon the moons width exceeded the 24mm width. With a less than full moon one could rotate the camera to get the film to align with the moon.</p>

<p>With astro-photo work the 4x5 or 8x10 camera has been used for along time; but its usage is radically less today. In the 1950's one used a surplus 6" Metrogon aerial camera lens for a 9x9 Worlrd war 2 camera on a 8x10 camera; for a wide angle shots of stars; meteor trails. The 178mm F2.5 Aero Ektar was used some for astro work with a 4x5 camera too.<br /> <br /> To make a 2 inch diameter image of the moon on film one needs a long focal length; roughly 200 inches by the swag formula; ie 16 to 17 feet. Sam Browns rule of thumb 1/100 comes from the 1930's books ; its in the ballpark with all the other's above estimates.<br /> <br /> In order to get a decent 2" moon one would have to have maybe a decent ancient 12 inch plus refractor plus barlow (teleconvertor); or a more compact reflector in say the 14 plus size; probably alot more.<br /> Long ago folks used 35mm microfilm to shoot the moon; slow asa 6 stuff; the shutter was a hat one waved in front of the telescope. Since the moon is illuminated by the sun; a first guess is the sames as full daylight on the earth; ie 1/asa (1/iso) at F16. Because of losses one often uses more exposure; here I use about 1/iso shutter speed with my F8 reflector; then bracket too.<br /> <br /> Dreaming of getting a 2 to 3" moon on film with a 300mm lens means your want say a 60mm image; but the math (God/reality) says its only going to be say 3mm; ie 20 times less to slide rule just talking accuracy. One has two things one can do; get closer to the moon with the 300mm lens; or accept the math. In a way its like being up in a stadium in the nose bleed cheap seat section; the ball players look like ants. One might use a 35mm camera with a 50mm lens and take some images; and dream they fill the full negative.<br>

Do not feel depressed; WE ALL as photographers at times WISH we could have a super longer Superman lens! :)<br /> <br /> Using a LF camera on an equatorial drive was common in the 1950's and 1960's One unbolted ones Edmund telescope; then attached a peice of plywood; then bolted the cameras to the plywood. For a guide scope one used a homemade 2" refractor with homemade reticle. An old 35mm metal film can is the same diameter as a standard 1 1/4" American eyepiece.<br /> <br /> A 210mm F5.6 lens has a clear aperture of about 37mm. When the camera tracked with the stars; the size of the aperture determines how faint a star; since the stars are points of light. With sky fog; nebula, gallaxies then can be enlarged; and thus fstop matters. A 105mm F2.8 lens has a clear aperture of about 37mm; so does a 370mm F10 lens. In theory; each in X minutes with Y film will record the same faintness of star; if the film/camera tracks with the star. The interesting thing is with fast 105mm F2.8; one gets more sky fog; plus brighter nebula too.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Peter, the Orion telescope has a short focal length (that's why the tube is short) so the image wouldn't be very big unless you used afocal method. Also, the secondary mirror is optimized for visual rather than photography. Orion does offer a version optimized for imaging, but it still would come nowhere near to filling a 4 x 5 negative at prime focus. Lynn's Celestron experience is valuable. Short of a custom made refractor with an extra wide focusing mount, I think the Schmidt-Cassegrain configuration would come closest to filling a medium format frame with the right hardware. I think afocal is the way to go. If you can get a sharp image in the eyepiece and can see how to focus it on the 4 x 5 ground glass, you might have a chance. Don't stop the lens down as IIRC, that will narrow the field and fill less of the frame.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>With an Afocal settup; one places the eyepiece next to the cameras taking lens. One focuses using the eyepiece and or camera too.<br>

<br /> With an afocal settup a moderate camera focal length works better; ie 50mm with 35mm; 127 to 200 with 4x5 etc. The distance between the eyepiece and camera lens matters; if too close or too far the eyepiece's light bundle gives vigneting. One can open up the back of the camera on a 35mm camera; or use the ground glass screen on a 4x5 to see the vigneting; and one can adjust the eyepiece to lens distance to make the illumination better.<br>

<br /> IF the telescope or binos; monos are focused to infinity; and the camera is set to infinity focus one gets the object close in focus; then one tweaks the eyepiece or camera lens for proper focus. After all this one can move the camera towards or away from the eyepiece; to reduce the vignetting to a minimum. When one moves the camera with lens as a unit towards and away from the telescope's eyepiece; the circle of illumination on the film/ground glass; will go through a maximum size. With a 35mm RF or box camera one places wax paper in the film plane; to see the image illumination and focus. This is in the 1950's Sam Brown books; and 1930's astro books.<br>

<br /> Afocal works; but one has alot of lenses in the loop. Using just the eyepiece or a barlow lens can be used too; with no camera lens; one uses the negative or positive lens to focus on the cameras film. With my 6" anbd 8" reflectors; afocal was used sometimes; its never as good as using a lens in the eyepiece holder only; but with afocal you have the cameras shutter. Afocal works even with a box camera; or simple 35mm non RF camera too.<br>

<br /> There are practical limits as too how big one can make an image with a given diameter of objective size. The fstop grows to a huge number; at some point you are just making it larger; with zero extra details gathered; plus one has a system that has a super slow fstop; thus one needs a longer exposure. One often gets a better quality image without a massize afocal effective focal length settup. One also at some point cannot piggy back a mess of teleconvertors on a 35mm camera either.</p>

<p>Here is my 1950's afocal rig for my Argus A2. In the Edmund books they called this a teletach or something:</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/teletach/tripods-244.jpg?t=1251036689" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/teletach/tripods-189.jpg?t=1251036803" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/teletach/tripods-190.jpg?t=1251036861" alt="" width="569" height="472" /></p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Lets run some numbers again as a rough back of the envelope exercise.<br>

For a 2 to 3 inch moon; let it be 2.5 inches.<br>

2.5 times 100 means about a 250 inch focal length.<br>

If one had a criteria of F22 being about to limit until its all downhill with diffraction; one would need a 250/22= 11.4; say 11 inch telescope. Thus maybe with a 10 to 12 inch telescope; one could use a method to make a decent 2.5" diameter moon image; and be in the F22 arena.<br>

If one had a criteria of F16 being about to limit until its all downhill with diffraction; one would need a 250/16= 15.6; say 16 inch telescope. Thus maybe with a 16 inch telescope; one could use a method to make a decent 2.5" diameter moon image; and be in the F16 arena.<br>

If one had a criteria of F11 being about to limit until its all downhill with diffraction; one would need a 250/11= 22.7; say 13 inch telescope. Thus maybe with a 23inch telescope; one could use a method to make a decent 2.5" diameter moon image; and be in the F11 arena.</p>

<p>With my own 2.5, 3, 6 and 8 inch old style long tube reflectors ; I get a slightly better moon image with a bigger than direct objective setup. I use a barlow and bump up the effective focal length by 1.5X or 2X. I use the 6" guy the most; its a 48 inch focal length direct ie F8; using the barlow I am shooting the moon at about F12 or F16; beyond that one gathers no extra info on film or sensor with my settup. I could make the system make a huge 2 " diameter image on film with my dinky 6 or 8 inch rigs; it just would not be any better; but would radically waste gobs of film since one would be getting a mess of blured images due to motion and vibration.</p>

<p>The rig that was used at an small obseratory back in the 1970's to shoot a decent lunar image was a 4x5 affair with a barlow; on a 13" or 16" telescope. We had a microscope 4x5 back for Polaroid negative/positive films; a cone shaped affair with an integral leaf shutter. These have various mounting nosecones and adapters for shooting scientific images</p>