O Dream Maker, You Heartbreaker...

[flygning]

Taken handheld through the 25mm eyepiece of my 8" Dobsonian telescope with a moon filter near Sentinel, AZ last night. Its the first time I've tried that particular method and it took a bit of work to get the right angle on it, but I think the frustration was worth it.

 

[JimmyO]

I would say


Awesome moon shot!

 

[LaFoto]

You lucky one!
You got a moon shot of my dreams...

 

[flygning]

It isn't hard to catch if you've got access to a telescope. Look up a local astronomy club and go out when they've got a star party. They're usually more than willing to let others use their telescopes, and it is just a matter of lining the camera up so the eyepiece doesn't get in the way of the exposure.

 

[LaFoto]

Oh, erm... yeah. Local astronomy club ... sure. (Have you seen photos of my place in the Germany Meet-Up thread, Victoria ???)
But sure, I could move my ... erm ... behind some more and make myself go into Hamburg and find out what is there ... or I just resolve to the fact that this kind of moon photos is not going to happen for me and live happily ever after.

I think I'll do just that .

 

[flygning]

Or you could just buy a telescope

 

[flygning]

With all the moon shots lately I thought I'd bump this back up a bit...

 

[K_Pugh]

Looks good.. will need to try a moon shot or two. What do you call this Telescopography? lol

(Neil Diamond, too?, i must admit i got his album as well, and Dolly Partons! never thought i'd buy one of hers, 2 songs are good though.)

 

[sultan]

Why did you use a telescope? I've done moon shots with an ordinary sigma 70-300mm lens (not scope) on a 1.5X crop sensor.

 

[flygning]

I tend to just call it astrophotography-- less syllables

I do it this way because I don't have a dslr, and I do have a telescope. Plus, I've seen a lot of the shots using just the camera, and I'm not terribly impressed with the level of detail to them.

Oh, and as for the song--I was more referencing the original version written for Audrey Hepburn

 

[astrostu]

Why did you use a telescope? I've done moon shots with an ordinary sigma 70-300mm lens (not scope) on a 1.5X crop sensor.

Telescope = longer focal length lens = more pixels are covered by the moon = better resolution

 

[sultan]

Telescope = longer focal length lens = more pixels are covered by the moon = better resolution

For some reason, with my 300mm lens, the moon filled a larger part of the frame than with this telescope.

 

[astrostu]

For some reason, with my 300mm lens, the moon filled a larger part of the frame than with this telescope.

Then you're using a longer lens or you have a larger crop factor than you think. The full moon is 0.5° (approximately ... it goes from around 27' to 32' but 0.5° is a good approximation). If you're using a 300 mm lens with a 1.5x crop factor, that's the equivalent of 450 mm. A 450 mm lens gives you a field of view of around 4.6° ... 9 full moons' worth.

I have a 1000mm lens. I have a 1.6x crop factor body. When I put my camera onto my 1000mm lens, the moon usually just fills the vertical field, but usually there's still around a 10% buffer.

I just did a quick search and it looks like most 8" Dobsonians have a focal length of 1200mm, though when doing eyepiece projection, as the original poster did, the rules about how much of the field of view the object fills up no longer apply as easily.


So in general, using a telescope gives you a longer focal length and a larger aperture (the larger aperture being the most important factor usually). In the original poster's case, it's her only option as opposed to a long lens because she's using a P&S.

 

[sultan]

Then you're using a longer lens or you have a larger crop factor than you think. The full moon is 0.5° (approximately ... it goes from around 27' to 32' but 0.5° is a good approximation). If you're using a 300 mm lens with a 1.5x crop factor, that's the equivalent of 450 mm. A 450 mm lens gives you a field of view of around 4.6° ... 9 full moons' worth.

I have a 1000mm lens. I have a 1.6x crop factor body. When I put my camera onto my 1000mm lens, the moon usually just fills the vertical field, but usually there's still around a 10% buffer.

I just did a quick search and it looks like most 8" Dobsonians have a focal length of 1200mm, though when doing eyepiece projection, as the original poster did, the rules about how much of the field of view the object fills up no longer apply as easily.


So in general, using a telescope gives you a longer focal length and a larger aperture (the larger aperture being the most important factor usually). In the original poster's case, it's her only option as opposed to a long lens because she's using a P&S.

I see, it was with a P&S.

I am still perplexed by why my 70-300 gives such a narrow field of view then. Maybe in central ontario, the moon appears larger. Odd.