Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 11, 2006, 12:17 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,699
Default

thought i'd try a moon shot with the 30D and Sigma 80-400... it's not bad, but somehow i think it could be better. anyway, here it is...


Attached Images
 
squirl033 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 11, 2006, 12:46 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 171
Default

Much better than what I did. Same camera (30D) but different lens:

Canon EF 75-300 II, Tamron 1.4 extender, 1/250, f8; Adjusted and converted from Raw and cropped.


Attached Images
 
GM2006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2006, 12:59 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Caboose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 625
Default

GM2006 wrote:
Quote:
Much better than what I did. Same camera (30D) but different lens:

Canon EF 70-300, Tamron 1.4 extender, 1/250, f8; Adjusted and converted from Raw and cropped.

you might try it at 1/400, f11 and use a tripod and the timer. should be able to get a much sharper shot.
Caboose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2006, 11:15 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,699
Default

mine was taken at 1/80, f11, ISO 200, from a tripod. i wouldn't recommend 1/400 even for a full moon unless you're shooting wide open at high ISO; it'll be much too dark. normally, for a full moon, 1/200-1/250 isis about rightat f8 or so with ISO 100.
squirl033 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2006, 3:13 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 171
Default

My picture was taken from tripod of course. Tripod is not the best one ($50) and is not as sturdy as it should be and it was placed on the garden glass table as an addition.

Canon EF 75-300 (not even II or III) is a cheap andnot 'digital' lens (notceable fringing) and not as sharp so obviously you would expect much better result from $1000 lens when it comes to sharpness.


GM2006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2006, 6:00 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 238
Default

GM2006 wrote:
Quote:
Canon EF 75-300 (not even II or III) is a cheap andnot 'digital' lens (notceable fringing) and not as sharp so obviously you would expect much better result from $1000 lens when it comes to sharpness.
I am confused. You have called it a Canon EF 70-300 lens in one posting and now it is Canon EF 75-300...:?

I think Canon 75-300 lens is considered not a verysharp lens but 70-300 is more money and sharper. So which one did you use for this moon shot?
harana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2006, 9:18 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 171
Default

My mistake: lens is EF 75-300/4-5.6 II USM, Ultrasonic. I think I've said it is cheap so it couldn't be L. Some pictures evenwith this lens are just great when taken in 'normal' conditions.
Attached Images
 
GM2006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2006, 9:21 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 171
Default

100% crop:


Attached Images
 
GM2006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2006, 10:15 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Caboose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 625
Default

squirl033 wrote:
Quote:
mine was taken at 1/80, f11, ISO 200, from a tripod. i wouldn't recommend 1/400 even for a full moon unless you're shooting wide open at high ISO; it'll be much too dark. normally, for a full moon, 1/200-1/250 isis about rightat f8 or so with ISO 100.
This shot was taken at 1/400, f11, ISO 400 from a tripod with a 20D and Sigma 70-200mm with 2x teleconverter. It doesn't seem to dark to me.

that picture sure came out small:?
Attached Images
 
Caboose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2006, 8:32 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,699
Default

Caboose wrote:
Quote:
squirl033 wrote:
Quote:
mine was taken at 1/80, f11, ISO 200, from a tripod. i wouldn't recommend 1/400 even for a full moon unless you're shooting wide open at high ISO; it'll be much too dark. normally, for a full moon, 1/200-1/250 isis about rightat f8 or so with ISO 100.
This shot was taken at 1/400, f11, ISO 400 from a tripod with a 20D and Sigma 70-200mm with 2x teleconverter. It doesn't seem to dark to me.

that picture sure came out small:?
your shot came out bright because you were shooting at ISO 400. my recommended shutter speeds were based on using ISO 100, and i didn't recommend 1/400 unless you were shooting at higher ISO settings.
squirl033 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:53 AM.