Supermoon this Sat. Beginners who like to shoot full moon, get ready.

[480sparky41 41]

......... Many lenses have their "infinity" stop beyond the infinity point, to allow for expansion and contraction of the lens due to temperature.

And all these years I thought is was because infrared has a different focus point than visible light.

 

[pgriz]

That too, but the camera had to be film to accomodate IR film. Not as useful with digital, unless you have a specially-modified camera.

 

[TCampbell]

Shooting the moonrise about a day (or 2) *before* the full moon will give you a richer bluer sky. On the night of the full moon, the moon is opposite the sun. The moon only rises once the sun is set and the background sky will pretty much just be black. The day before the full moon the moon will visually "appear" to be full (although technically it's not) but it rises early enough that you get the moon rise with the sun near enough to sunset that the sky has that rich blue tone that you get up to about 20-25 minutes after a sunset.

 

[orb9220]

Can get handheld Moon shots. D90-Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AF-D with Tamron 1.4x


October "Harvest Moon" 3 of 3 (Full Crop) by Orbmiser, on Flickr

As didn't have a tripod at the time. Tho setting up with one will get you best results.
Or shooting moon during daytime hours can get some interesting shots.


Moon over Belfry 2 by Orbmiser, on Flickr

Might try tomorrow night myself but only have the 55-200vr now so not expecting much. As before was the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AF-D and tamron 1.4x.

Tried once before with the 55-200vr and wasn't too happy tho again also handheld.
June Moon on the Half - Test by Orbmiser, on Flickr


.

 

[HabanoLover]

Is it even worth attempting with the kit lens?

 

[pgriz]

Is it even worth attempting with the kit lens?

Why not? What's the absolute worse that could happen? And on the plus side, you could get a sweet shot! And if not, you'll still learn something.

 

[HabanoLover]

Is it even worth attempting with the kit lens?

Why not? What's the absolute worse that could happen? And on the plus side, you could get a sweet shot! And if not, you'll still learn something.

Very true!

 

[flowness]

So, my camera doesn't do the mirror lock. Is there any reason long exposure, on tripod, set off with remote, is not sufficient? Why is the mirror lock better?

 

[480sparky41 41]

Mirror lock-up helps because when the mirror moves up, it can cause the camera to shake. If that happens, the camera will still be moving when the shutter opens. Result..... camera blur. Having a mirror-up option allows you to manually raise the mirror, then wait until any camera vibration is stopped, then you can open the shutter.

Having a good, heavy tripod will really help (notice 'cheap' is not included in that list!), as well as a remote (touching the shutter button on the camera can also cause it to move!).

To further reduce camera shake, try adding some weight to the tripod if possible. I just use my pack.

If you have a laptop computer or a smart phone, you may want to look into shooting 'tethered', so you only need to touch the camera to compose & focus.... the entire exposing process is 100% hands-off.

 

[TCampbell]

If you can't get a sharp image of the moon, it may not be your fault... astro-photos are subject to a problem called "seeing". Atmosphere turbulence creates distortions making images slightly wobble and blur.

By way of analogy: imagine you've got a penny laying on the bottom of a swimming pool. You are trying to read the date on that penny by looking at it through a powerful scope. If someone starts splashing in the pool to create lots of waves it will be EXTREMELY difficult for you to get a sharp image of the penny. But if the pool is completely calm, it'll be much easier.

You can use this website to check the "seeing" conditions where you live (this website is very popular among amateur astronomers... especially if they are imagers): Clear Sky Chart Homepage

The factors listed are cloud cover (which is obvious), transparency (the transparency of the air usually attributed to the amount of water vapor in the air), "seeing" (the turbulence), and "darkness" (light pollution from ground-based light sources -- which doesn't matter a whole lot when you're trying to look at the brightness of the full moon.)

Special lenses are typically NOT required to photograph the moon. If you think about it, the Sunny 16 rule should apply to the moon (Sunny 16 says that when shooting a subject in full-sun, you can set the f-stop to 16 and set the shutter speed to the inverse of the ISO speed. E.g. if using ISO 100, then set the shutter to 1/100th). While the moon is "technically" in full sunlight, I've never been able to expose it at the Sunny 16 exposure... usually I'm 2 stops down from that (I could shoot at f/16, 1/100th, and ISO 400).

BUT... if the "seeing" conditions are not favorable (and they're usually even worse when shooting objects near the horizon because you're looking through a lot more atmosphere) then even with a fast shutter speed and a solid tripod and a remote release and all the other tricks to avoid shaking the camera, you'll still struggle to get a sharp image of the moon.

 

[nmoody]

Also in the same boat as you with not having mirror lock.

The mirror moving can cause a very small amount of movement.

 

[Ballistics]

If you can't get a sharp image of the moon, it may not be your fault... astro-photos are subject to a problem called "seeing". Atmosphere turbulence creates distortions making images slightly wobble and blur.

By way of analogy: imagine you've got a penny laying on the bottom of a swimming pool. You are trying to read the date on that penny by looking at it through a powerful scope. If someone starts splashing in the pool to create lots of waves it will be EXTREMELY difficult for you to get a sharp image of the penny. But if the pool is completely calm, it'll be much easier.

You can use this website to check the "seeing" conditions where you live (this website is very popular among amateur astronomers... especially if they are imagers): Clear Sky Chart Homepage

The factors listed are cloud cover (which is obvious), transparency (the transparency of the air usually attributed to the amount of water vapor in the air), "seeing" (the turbulence), and "darkness" (light pollution from ground-based light sources -- which doesn't matter a whole lot when you're trying to look at the brightness of the full moon.)

Special lenses are typically NOT required to photograph the moon. If you think about it, the Sunny 16 rule should apply to the moon (Sunny 16 says that when shooting a subject in full-sun, you can set the f-stop to 16 and set the shutter speed to the inverse of the ISO speed. E.g. if using ISO 100, then set the shutter to 1/100th). While the moon is "technically" in full sunlight, I've never been able to expose it at the Sunny 16 exposure... usually I'm 2 stops down from that (I could shoot at f/16, 1/100th, and ISO 400).

BUT... if the "seeing" conditions are not favorable (and they're usually even worse when shooting objects near the horizon because you're looking through a lot more atmosphere) then even with a fast shutter speed and a solid tripod and a remote release and all the other tricks to avoid shaking the camera, you'll still struggle to get a sharp image of the moon.

Awesome post.

 

[flowness]

The movement thing makes sense. I guess I thought they moved pretty much simultaneously so it wouldn't affect anything...
If I can escape the kiddos for a little while, I'll still give it a try Tried it with an eclipse several years ago (different camera) and they came out in the OK-not-great category.

 

[JonathanNYC]

really excited to try this tonight!

 

[Josh66]

......... Many lenses have their "infinity" stop beyond the infinity point, to allow for expansion and contraction of the lens due to temperature.

And all these years I thought is was because infrared has a different focus point than visible light.

I don't think it has anything at all to do with temperature. And it's not IR either. IR focus is on the near side of infinity, not the far side (look at your lenses if you don't believe me).

My theory is that the over-travel allows the AF mechanism to overshoot it a little, then come back. (To avoid damage from the lens slamming into infinity.)


Just a couple observations - every AF lens I have used will go past infinity. Every MF lens I have used has a hard stop at infinity.


edit
In case anybody is wondering about the different focus point for IR - that's what the red dot is for. When you're shooting IR, use the red dot instead of the line.
And if that still doesn't make any sense to you, you probably don't have any lenses that have distance scales on them.