Need some info

[SpeedTrap]

I would like to take some nice pictures of the moon.
Here is what I have managed so far.
I have seen some images that were said to be shot with a 300mm lens that are far better than mine how can I improve my shots.

 

[oldnavy170]

Sorry I can't help you improve them but to be honest I think there great shots!!!!!!!!!!

 

[pursuer]

Those are pretty good for being shot with a 300mm lens.

The exposure in the second is better then the first. A lot is going to depend on how turbulent the atmoshere is when you shoot. Exceptional lunar photos require exceptionally clear and steady nights.

Also the full moon isn't the most interesting target, try shooting when it is in one of its quarter phases. The shadows add a lot of detail that is washed out when the moon is full.

If you want a lot of detail a 300mm lens won't cut it. Even a small telescope can give great images of the moon compared to a lens.

Here is a shoot I took through a moderate sized telescope, notice how much more detail is visible along the day/night terminator compared to the far right which is completely illuminated:

Make sure your focus is dead on and try again when the moon is less full and I think you will get some good results, good luck.

 

[EBphotography]

I think you're off to a great start, honestly. And Richard had some good points.

Just a little memo though, photo critique is for one photo and usually one thing you are concerned about, such as lighting or composition. Just letting you know for future posts, which I am looking forward to!

 

[abraxas]

Those are pretty good for being shot with a 300mm lens.

The exposure in the second is better then the first. A lot is going to depend on how turbulent the atmoshere is when you shoot. Exceptional lunar photos require exceptionally clear and steady nights.

Also the full moon isn't the most interesting target, try shooting when it is in one of its quarter phases. The shadows add a lot of detail that is washed out when the moon is full.

If you want a lot of detail a 300mm lens won't cut it. Even a small telescope can give great images of the moon compared to a lens.

Here is a shoot I took through a moderate sized telescope, notice how much more detail is visible along the day/night terminator compared to the far right which is completely illuminated:

...

Make sure your focus is dead on and try again when the moon is less full and I think you will get some good results, good luck.

How do you mount/attach/use the camera through a telescope?

Nice shots, all of 'em.

 

[rp1600]

Richard, at what settings did you shoot the half moon pic?

 

[pursuer]

How do you mount/attach/use the camera through a telescope?

That depends on the type of camera and telescope being used. There are various configurations possible which fall into three catergories, prime focus, eyepiece projection and afocal.

Pirme focus couples an SLR body directly to a telescope. In effect the telescope becomes a prime lens for the camera.

Eyepiece projection uses the telescope eyepiece to project a magnified image directly onto an SLRs sensor or film.

Afocal is generally the only option for connecting a point and shoot camera without a removable lens. In this configuration the camera lens is positioned close to the eye piece to capture a magnified image.

rp1600, my image was taken at ISO100, 1/640sec, in a prime focus configuration with a f/4.7 10" reflecting telescope.

 

[W.Smith]

[...] A lot is going to depend on how turbulent the atmoshere is when you shoot. Exceptional lunar photos require exceptionally clear and steady nights. [...]

Your location also affects – strongly – how clear the atmosphere is/appears. The big astronomical optical telescopes are all built at considerable altitude. I.o.w. on mountains. Where the light from the moon has at least a whole mile less atmosphere to pierce through before it reaches the telescope/lens/sensor combo.
The closer to sealevel, the more scattered and 'polluted' the light from the sky gets. Conversely, the higher up you go, the clearer the view.
The Hubble telescope – orbiting earth outside of the atmosphere – has thus taken this to the extreme. It has no atmosphere to look through at all. As is all too apparent from the stunning clarity of its pictures.

 

[LaFoto]

I think this thread best be moved to the Photographic Discussion than stay in the Photo Critique since the problem being discussed here is more of a general nature than a critique on the first two moon photos, isn't it so?