Photographing the "Supermoon"?

[Lambo77]

So all the talk on the internet is about the "supermoon" next week causing natural disasters. I'm putting that into the Y2K category, so my question is, because the moon will be so close, relatively speaking, will photographing it be easier? And be easier I mean, will it appear larger in the sky, or maybe sit low on the horizon. Like the picture in this article Extreme 'Supermoon' To Take Place Next Week - Space News - redOrbit

Should I be gearing up for some great moon shots, or am I SOL?

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

"It's nothing you could notice unless you made really accurate measurements," he said. "It's a few thousand miles closer, but as far as the moon's orbit is considered, that's nothing."

:meh:

 

[480sparky]

The moon orbits the earth in an ellipse, going from 226425.7983 miles to 252730.9264 miles away. This means it appears between 29.3′ to 34.1′. So at it's closest, it appears only 16% larger than at it's farthest point.

 

[MissCream]

The moon orbits the earth in an ellipse, going from 226425.7983 miles to 252730.9264 miles away. This means it appears between 29.3′ to 34.1′. So at it's closest, it appears only 16% larger than at it's farthest point.

Thank you captain obvious...

 

[480sparky]

Thank you captain obvious...

Let me put it in layman's terms. Photograph a dime at 20'. Now step 11.9 inches closer. Same difference.

 

[MissCream]

Gotcha.

 

[Rekd]

The moon orbits the earth in an ellipse, going from 226425.7983 miles to 252730.9264 miles away. This means it appears between 29.3′ to 34.1′. So at it's closest, it appears only 16% larger than at it's farthest point.

Thank you captain obvious...

LoL. Math is easy. I mean... adding, multiplying, dividing, all that happy crappy. Anyone can do it.

It's knowing what to add, multiply or divide that's hard. :greenpbl:

 

[480sparky]

LoL. Math is easy. I mean... adding, multiplying, dividing, all that happy crappy. Anyone can do it.

It's knowing what to add, multiply or divide that's hard. :greenpbl:

Besides being an amateur photographer, I'm an amateur astronomer.

 

[Rekd]

LoL. Math is easy. I mean... adding, multiplying, dividing, all that happy crappy. Anyone can do it.

It's knowing what to add, multiply or divide that's hard. :greenpbl:

Besides being an amateur photographer, I'm an amateur astronomer.

LoL. That's like 97% math, 2% photography and 1% luck. I know people like you. :lmao:

 

[480sparky]

LoL. That's like 97% math, 2% photography and 1% luck. I know people like you. :lmao:

Careful, now. I have low friends in high places.

And 4 out of 3 people have trouble with fractions.

 

[MissCream]

Im actually not bad at math, I'm really bad with word problems. If it's in a sentence, I don't understand it.

 

[AverageJoe]

I've been meaning to find an excuse to shoot the moon again, but near orbit or not the biggest factor in shooting the moon is cloud cover and getting far enough out of the city.

Thanks for the post.

 

[480sparky]

Well before the OP started this thread, I was prepping my Celestron with my new D7000 to see what I could do shooting the moon.

I couldn't get the scope to align properly to track the moon, so I kinda had to shoot from the hip. I really couldn't nail perfect focus due to air turbulence. So I fired away and this is the result:

Nikon D7000, MC-DC2 remote release. Celestron CPC-1100 (2000mm f-8) w/f-6.3 reducer/corrector.

17 images, 1/100sec., each 4928 x 3264 pixels, stacked in RegiStax 5.1 saved as a .tiff. Edited slightly in GIMP (to rotate & center) and saved as 100% .jpeg.

 

[RockstarPhotography]

light travels at 186,282.397 miles per second......don't know what that has to do with this, but I wanted to sound smart too.

 

[480sparky]

light travels at 186,282.397 miles per second......don't know what that has to do with this, but I wanted to sound smart too.

Qualifier: In a vacuum.