Test photo

Oriel

Just a photo to test out the long end of the zoom on the Nikon 70mm-300mm, on a D70.
It's not arty, not creative, but it's cool...

Enygma

Cool, is that cropped or is it the full image? Very good detail.

Oriel

Oh it's cropped, the original image was about eight times that size.

Shrimp

Thats pretty cool. What was the exposure time? I know you are only posting it for the sake of it, but maybe sharpen in a tiny bit, make it nice and crisp.

I was thinking about getting a telescope with a camera attachment, like 440X Optical Zoom.. now that'd be very cool! What zoom did that lens have?

Oriel

Can't remember the exactly details, but it's quite a high shutter speed, if you leave it any longer, the moon just ends up a white blob Must be something like 1/100, 1/50.
I probably should try the same shot on a smaller aperture to get a sharper image.
The lens was at the further end of the Nikon 70mm-300mm.

Progen

sinecurea wrote:

Can't remember the exactly details, but it's quite a high shutter speed, if you leave it any longer, the moon just ends up a white blob Must be something like 1/100, 1/50.
I probably should try the same shot on a smaller aperture to get a sharper image.
The lens was at the further end of the Nikon 70mm-300mm.

I was playing around and had the same idea the other night. Heres one I took.. not that clear, but I diddn't really mess with my settings, just avaraged it out so it's a little burry.

Sinc's is good! Although I used a 28-300mm Sigma, and as for the white blob sinc is saying, i think thats more like mine.. Must have another bash to see how crisp I can get it.

Shrimp

did you know that you always see the same side of the moon..

JackKelly

Check this out.

Using a Bigma plus stacked teleconverters. It might as well be a telescope:

POTN


some more from the same guy.

Shrimp

That's the kinda stuff I'm talking about!

Benster

That's a feckin' CANNON!

(...sorry )

http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/42362624

captain P

imagine trying to hand hold that!!!!!

EireRoadUser

That lense is scary looking ,
I'd be afraid me and my camera would get sucked in and lost forever.

Takeshi_Kovacs

Shrimp wrote:

I was thinking about getting a telescope with a camera attachment, like 440X Optical Zoom.. now that'd be very cool! What zoom did that lens have?

Damn, you'll paying quite a penny for something like that, those telescopes don't come cheap.. then again anything containing high quailty optics usually isn't easy on the pocket...

Check out the lads over on http://www.irishastronomy.org/ some nice shots on over there...

Actually just now the sky is after clearing and the moon is out, i might take out the 'ol lidl telescope, and see if i can line the camera up to it.

Progen

Takeshi_Kovacs wrote:

Actually just now the sky is after clearing and the moon is out, i might take out the 'ol lidl telescope, and see if i can line the camera up to it.

Would be interesting to see

Takeshi_Kovacs

Progen wrote:

Would be interesting to see

Here is a quick shot, nothing great and nowhere the same detail as sinecurea's above. I tried using the camera on its own tripod but getting it up close to the eyepiece of the scope was just too fidgety, so i just hand held it. It is a bit blurry too cos it was not too easy to focus the scope for the camera as well. But there is supposedly an attachment for d-slrs so you can mount it straight on to the scope, so i 'll be looking into too that when the 350d is ordered...

The actual view looking through the scope is pretty damn good too, considering it only cost 70 euro and alll!!

Benster

You'll want a T-mount specific to your camera model to connect to the scope.

TBH, to take pictures of anything else in the night sky other than the moon, you'll need more expensive kit than a beginners telescope (which is just what I have too). To the camera, a full-frame pic of the moon is very bright and you can use a fast shutter speed - those shots are the easier ones. Anything else, like stars, the film/sensor needs more time to gather enough light (minutes, maybe hours), and then you're into the realm of automated sky-tracking to keep the object in the same spot in the frame for the duration of the shot (€€€€ - well a few hundred euro anyway).

Takeshi_Kovacs

Benster wrote:

You'll want a T-mount specific to your camera model to connect to the scope.

TBH, to take pictures of anything else in the night sky other than the moon, you'll need more expensive kit than a beginners telescope (which is just what I have too). To the camera, a full-frame pic of the moon is very bright and you can use a fast shutter speed - those shots are the easier ones. Anything else, like stars, the film/sensor needs more time to gather enough light (minutes, maybe hours), and then you're into the realm of automated sky-tracking to keep the object in the same spot in the frame for the duration of the shot (€€€€ - well a few hundred euro anyway).

Very much agree... the price tag on some of that gear, is scary, more so than high quality dslr's!!

Fenster

Tag for some very good info here.

I don't have any sort of lens that can make out the moon in such fantastic details, but the past few nights have been pretty spectacular and I've been trying to get some shots of the sky.

Scotty #

sinecurea wrote:

Can't remember the exactly details,

In windows XP. Right click the thumbnail in your browser>Click Properties> Click Summary>Click Advanced(if its not already open) and all your camera settings will be there;)

Oriel

Scotty # wrote:

In windows XP. Right click the thumbnail in your browser>Click Properties> Click Summary>Click Advanced(if its not already open) and all your camera settings will be there;)

Not if you edit it through photoshop

halenger

I managed an okay moon image with my old digital. I never get the results I want with the camera connected directly to the scope. Eye-piece projecting does produce more detail (the eyepiece you're using increases the focal length etc).

http://www.deviantart.com/view/8462476/

It was done with a dreadfully strange setup but it turned out a lot better than I could have hoped. Lately someone decided to accuse me of making it in Vue d'Esprit. *shrugs* I couldn't imagine Vue d'Esprit would generate an image that bad though.

Shrimp

Thats pretty cool, but with some bit of Ps work it'd be alot better

halenger

You're probably quite right. I've never been one to use photoshop to any great extent. Could be worth my while tinkering with it a little though. Thanks.

CrowdedHouse

sinecurea wrote:

Not if you edit it through photoshop

I lose the ISO data ok but shutter/aperture are still there.

Oriel

For that photo, I did it a different way. Instead of cropping the original, I pasted the section that I wanted from the original into a new document, hence the lack of details.