Moon hunting

The moon is a fast moving subject and when zoomed in that close motion is far more noticeable due to the parallax effect. Try for at least 1/450th shutter speed.

Your depth of field is very shallow and the moon is very large and spherical. You need to stop down 3 stop or more. I'd say f/11 is your best bet.

Adjust your white balance. The moon isn't made of cheese.

>>2890468

Terrible advice all the way around.

>>2890469
Go away, you retard. You seem to know nothing.

File: moon-shot.jpg (40KB, 696x258px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 696x258px

>>2890468
The moon is 400million meters away (roughly).

Even with an APS-C sensor and only 1200m 35mm FOV equivalent focal length, the hyperfocal distance is only ~11k meters.

Basically anything as near as a commercial airlner and as far away as the Big Dipper will be in focus.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Bart Zoni
Image-Specific Properties:

>>2890479
>what is atmospheric lensing

>>2890480
This. The 'seeing' as astronomers call it varies due to atmospheric disturbances. The best way to minimize haze and distortion is to gain high altitude and shoot late at night when man made gasses have settled down and the atmosphere isn't as turbulent. Hyperfocal length does not matter when the seeing is bad. Also when designing telescopes, the slower the aperture the crisper the image, that's why observatories use telescopes with ridiculously long tubes.

>>2890484
Assuming OP doesn't have ready access to a jet, let's say atmospheric lensing will be a constant on any given night - out of his control.

The DoF thing just addresses the earlier (scarcastic) assertion that the moon is really big and round and needs to be shot at f/11 on a point and shoot for adequate DoF.

Honestly, with that rig I'd be worried more about shake than anything else and then diffraction limitations. I don't know the sensor size there, but I wonder if f/4 might be safer.

>>2890484

The trolling is subtle with this one.

>>2890492
>no one lives near mountains or in the american southwest, that is unheard of
you're from new york or new jersey arent you
I can smell it on your breath

File: itrl.jpg (75KB, 500x351px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 500x351px

>>2890468

>>2890468
>The moon is a fast moving subject
this is defeated by a telescope tripod that's motorized

>>2890516
This is unnecessary for shooting the moon because the moon is very bright
theoretical gearfags baka

Damn it looks like /b/ in here.

1 Topic
2 BS
3 Thread follows BS

Lovely

>>2890549

/p/
~~~
/b/

>>2890468
wtf now I hate cheese

>>2890479
what site is this calculation menu from?

>>2890700
Just googled "depth of field calculator"

>>2890701
well now, I feel absurdly dumb. thanks for the brain check

>>2890479
>circle of confusion
That's pretty much this website in a nutshell

>>2890965

haha! there's a joke that's never been made before on /p/! Way to go friend!

>>2890476

Better to SEEM to know nothing, rather than post something that stupid and prove it once and for all.

>>2890553

Damn mirrors!

File: DSC06342-Edit.jpg (290KB, 4293x2795px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 4293x2795px

Shot on a 210mm lens and cropped in.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	NEX-5N
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:14 21:51:03
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-6.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2891450
see
>>2890468

>>2891460

For hilariously bad advice?

>>2891460
For 200mm 1 second exposure is still ok for the Moon. Up to 400mm 1 second exposure on the stars is the higher limit.
1/15s exposure is way below that so it's not motion blur, it is simply out of focus, or perhaps the lens resolution is not good enough to produce a sharp image on the digital sensor.

>>2891538
Yeah its just a bad lens and heavily cropped

Fuck I have to buy a telescope and a good camera now

Blows my mind that we're able to see and take pictures of other planets

>>2890462
>p900
>shoot the moon once
>paper weight because it's junk with peanut sensor

>>2891913
buy a bentax k1.
gps and sensor shift for astro.

>>2891913
It was pretty funny taking pictures of bright objects in the night sky and realizing I was shooting a planet on our solar system and its moons. Just happened Jupiter was in 100% phase. Too bad I only have max 300 FF eq lens. Would be neat to take bigger pictures of the moon and stuff.

>>2892024

Jupiter is always in 100% phase. Sometimes it get brighter as we get closer to it in orbit and the apparent size of its disc increases.