Finally got a moon shot!!

[Stosh]

EXIF says 400 ISO, but great shot regardless.

Oh shoot I was afraid of that after I posted. I shot both in ISO 400 and 800 that night and never bothered to see which was which.

One more thing I need help on:

There is no reason to shoot at high ISO. Any added noise onto something that's dark is bad.

OK, so the moon (which is practically the same brightness as mid day on earth) is dark and for dark things we want to use low ISOs. Got it.

And there's absolutely no reason to use anything but your lowest ISO on the moon unless it's perhaps <10% full or eclipsed.

Ummm, <10% or eclipsed would seem to be even darker than the full moon. So for even darker than dark it's OK to use higher ISOs. I thought I had it, but now I'm confused.

 

[Moglex]

There is no reason to shoot at high ISO. Any added noise onto something that's dark is bad.

OK, so the moon (which is practically the same brightness as mid day on earth) is dark and for dark things we want to use low ISOs. Got it.

I think what he means is that as the background is extremely dark it's best to avoid adding noise as it will be very obvious. Although, in the case of the moon, you could easily get rid of noise in the background, for other astonomical 'scenes' that may not be practical. (e.g. Imagine the Horse Head Nebula).

And there's absolutely no reason to use anything but your lowest ISO on the moon unless it's perhaps <10% full or eclipsed.

Ummm, <10% or eclipsed would seem to be even darker than the full moon. So for even darker than dark it's OK to use higher ISOs. I thought I had it, but now I'm confused.

If the moon is < ~10% full then you will be photographing 90% of it using Earthshine (same for any part that is eclipsed) so you may well need a higher ISO.

 

[astrostu]

Lowest ISO. There is no reason to shoot at high ISO. Any added noise onto something that's dark is bad. And there's absolutely no reason to use anything but your lowest ISO on the moon unless it's perhaps <10% full or eclipsed. At f/8, your shutter speed should be around 1/80-1/120 sec (depending on the phase and altitude, you may have to adjust) at ISO 100.

I'm sorry, but it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest shooting the moon at anything but your lowest ISO, let alone ISO 800.

Wow, what a well thought out and considerate post.
Absolutely ridiculous to suggest shooting the moon at anything but your lowest ISO? Are you going to back that up with an even larger font next response?
I'm trying to help the guy out here. Higher ISOs will shorten exposure times which will lessen the probability of other "bad" things happening like wind shaking the camera, vibrations though the tripod, or atmospheric interference. Sure when you've done this many many times and are trying to tweak any tiny bit of increased data out of your moon shot, you'd eventually try for ISO 100 AND shooting through tele extenders or barlows to make the moon as large as possible for the most oversampling. And then (as you already know) would take many images and stack them. Stop trying to make the guy a professional his first moon shot.

I don't have large fonts to offer, but here is a shot from a few months ago taken at the dreaded ISO 800. Let's see if anyone here is bothered by all the noise in the shot. Oh yeah, and this is one exposure with a simple contrast stretch.

I'm frustrated with responses of using a high ISO because I've seen them so many times and it's bad advice. And I backed that up by explaining why. I'm not trying to make the original poster a "professional," but there are fundamentals of exposure settings, and higher ISOs will necessarily add more noise. It's not necessary for the near-full moon. First you choose an aperture, then choose your shutter speed, and only if your shutter speed is relatively slow should you consider increasing the ISO. It will add noise. Noise is bad. Learn good habits at the beginning.

There is no reason to shoot at high ISO. Any added noise onto something that's dark is bad.

OK, so the moon (which is practically the same brightness as mid day on earth) is dark and for dark things we want to use low ISOs. Got it.

I think what he means is that as the background is extremely dark it's best to avoid adding noise as it will be very obvious. Although, in the case of the moon, you could easily get rid of noise in the background, for other astonomical 'scenes' that may not be practical. (e.g. Imagine the Horse Head Nebula).

And there's absolutely no reason to use anything but your lowest ISO on the moon unless it's perhaps <10% full or eclipsed.

Ummm, <10% or eclipsed would seem to be even darker than the full moon. So for even darker than dark it's OK to use higher ISOs. I thought I had it, but now I'm confused.

If the moon is < ~10% full then you will be photographing 90% of it using Earthshine (same for any part that is eclipsed) so you may well need a higher ISO.

Mostly correct on the first point, but my reason with the last point is per what I said above. The very thin moon or eclipsed moon is much darker than a full moon. In order to properly expose it with a decent aperture and ISO 100 (or 200 if you're using most Nikons) will require a very slow shutter speed of <1/30 sec where shaking and the moon's movement becomes an issue. During a total lunar eclipse, the exposure time with the same aperture as during a full moon and ISO 100 can be well over 15,000 times longer and unless you have a telescope mount you will have to compensate by increasing the ISO.

Again, it's a basic fundamental of shooting: Aperture and shutter speed first, increase ISO only if you have to because it WILL increase the noise. Starting out with an ISO of 800 is simply unnecessary and if it's unnecessary then it shouldn't be done because it will negatively affect your photo.

 

[EhJsNe]

Its fuzzy. XD I cant imagine any optics are that bad, at such a high focal length, it could be just about anything, the moon moving, hand shake (from hitting the button, unless you have the timer set) mirror vibration, the wind blew and caused your tripod to move a teeny bit, or you could have just missed the focus (Very possible, especially with the small viewfinders of digital cameras)

I say keep the 2x extender off. Heres a shot with an old Sigma 500mm f/8

I could have waited for more of the moon to be there, but you get the point, you can do that at 500, then crop it more if you want to toaly fill the frame...

 

[Joves]

ISO: try shooting at higher ISOs also to keep shortening your exposure time. At some point the noise of high ISO will become more prominent than the details you're trying to freeze from the fast exposure time. This is the line you want to ride. Depending on how good the rest of your setup is, my guess is you'd be shooting at ISO 800 or so. If you want to get really geeky, you can take multiple images and then download stacking software that will basically eliminate any noise and you can shoot at even faster ISOs.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

Lowest ISO. There is no reason to shoot at high ISO. Any added noise onto something that's dark is bad. And there's absolutely no reason to use anything but your lowest ISO on the moon unless it's perhaps <10% full or eclipsed. At f/8, your shutter speed should be around 1/80-1/120 sec (depending on the phase and altitude, you may have to adjust) at ISO 100.

I'm sorry, but it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest shooting the moon at anything but your lowest ISO, let alone ISO 800.

I dont think I have ever seen you get so excited. But yes you are correct. I think the fastest fil I ever used for astrophotos was 400 but it was pushed. I never used anything faster than 100 for the moon.

 

[Stosh]

I realize I should just leave this alone, but people seriously interested in shooting the moon need to take a more analytical approach. Stop being so rigid because some book or article says "lowest ISO" somewhere. Some people, equipment, and situations are different from others. Yes, yes, we all know that lower ISO results in lower noise. I didn't see any noise in any of the moon shots posted here. To tell somebody that it's "ridiculous" to shoot the moon at anything other than 100 is frankly ridiculous. You should analyze each of yours shots at the pixel level and you can usually see what's wrong with it or what needs to be improved. Let me give some examples:

If you're having a difficult time with focus, ISO is irrelevant.
If you're having a difficult time with exposure, ISO is irrelevant.
If you're having a difficult time with image blur, higher ISO will help for the time being, but eventually you should either shoot in a place with no wind, use a tripod/mount (or find a better one), or use mirror lockup function. But for now you've got to deal with what you got so go higher ISO!
If you're having a difficult time with noise, guess what? You should lower your ISO. There! I said it!

To sum this up, almost nobody but the seasoned moon photographers will have noise as their limiting factor in creating a nice moon shot. When you finally get to that point, then you can follow the "book" advice above and shoot low ISO. Again, it's basic fundamentals of shooting - find out what's wrong with your picture and fix it.

Besides, we can talk all day about theory, but can anyone see any noise in my shot at ISO 400? All I see is JPG artifacts. Remember, ISO 400 allowed me to expose my image 75% less time than ISO 100. That's 75% less tripod shake, 75% less atmospheric disturbance, and 75% less wind shake.