...1st moon shot with my 400 f/5.6

gus · May 20, 2005

gubbs wrote:

Sorry, but isn't that your second moon with that lens :buttkiss

Nice shot!!

Hmmm....let me go back through these yosemite shots again.....

gus · May 20, 2005

pathfinder wrote:

Welcome aboard the moon shooters club, 'gus. Very nice. Try a manual exposure too, using Sunny 16 rule, and see how that compares.

Tks PF..isnt it a great subject....yep ive read about the sunny 16 rule but will look it up again for the next one. Mate you know what im like...theres never method to madness.

gus · May 20, 2005

ian408 wrote:

'Gus, I noticed a bright object next to the moon last night...Spica. Spica is
the brightest star in the constellation of Virgo.

Oh, your full moon will be on May 24th.

How'd I find all this out? Stardate, a radio program.
Joe-Bob says "Check it out twice".

Ian

I did notice that last night...i was considering a shot with both but some light cloud came over & dashed all attempts.

gus · May 20, 2005

bfjr wrote:

Wanna thank you for the moon shot

After looking at it for awile, I noticed my hair and teeth are starting to grow, errr growwllllllllllllllll oh gosh gotta find me some woods to hooooowwwwwwllllll in :lol4 :lol4

Great shot, very sharp

I did kind of think that.

I got a call from andy yesterday morning about 4.30 am as i get up early & my wife (half asleep in bed) didnt hear my mobile (cell) ring so thought i was having a full on conversation with myself.

She recons until she worked it out that she had some serious concerns & thought...'ok..this is it...he is now fully mad talking out allowed to himself in the dark'

wxwax · May 20, 2005

Humungus wrote:

Just @ 400mm with some cropping & a little sharpening. Man am i in love with this lens.

.
Date Taken:2005-05-18 17:13:41Date Digitized:2005-05-18 17:13:41Make:CanonModel: Canon EOS 20D Size: 634x589 Bytes: 255502 Aperture: f/7.1 ISO: 200 Focal Length: 400mm (guess: 311mm in 35mm) Exposure Time: 0.01s (1/100)Flash:Flash did not fire, compulsory flash modeExposure Program:Aperture priorityExposure Bias:-2

Missed this, darned New Posts sucks.

This is great! Beautiful exposure. Is the moon somehow closer to Oz than Yankland? I can't believe you got that with just a 400.

gus · May 20, 2005

wxwax wrote:

Missed this, darned New Posts sucks.

This is great! Beautiful exposure. Is the moon somehow closer to Oz than Yankland? I can't believe you got that with just a 400.

Mate seriously i walked out onto the balcony at night & thought.."i gotta shoot something..." I get like that. So i thought ok...here goes a shot ive always wanted. I didnt really know what settings to use so i just threw it on AV & sat that heavy camera & lens on my $30 'very shakey' tripod that andy kept threatening to bust up on me at Yosemite & took maybe 6 shots. Chimped them & thought...well this is crap so i got bored later & processed them & thats all she wrote.

That lens should go down in history for its sharpness/speed of focus & reletively cheap price.

wxwax · May 20, 2005

Humungus wrote:

Mate seriously i walked out onto the balcony at night & thought.."i gotta shoot something..." I get like that. So i thought ok...here goes a shot ive always wanted. I didnt really know what settings to use so i just threw it on AV & sat that heavy camera & lens on my $30 'very shakey' tripod that andy kept threatening to bust up on me at Yosemite & took maybe 6 shots. Chimped them & thought...well this is crap so i got bored later & processed them & thats all she wrote.

That lens should go down in history for its sharpness/speed of focus & reletively cheap price.

Well damn, that worked out beautifully. I guess sometimes you don't know until you get stuck into a shot whether or not it's workable.

gus · May 22, 2005

pathfinder wrote:

Welcome aboard the moon shooters club, 'gus. Very nice. Try a manual exposure too, using Sunny 16 rule, and see how that compares.

Just did the sunny 16 & i can see what you mean mate....its a good place to start & worked quite well.

My problem is that my $30 tripod shakes like crazy with this mch wait on it & after 10 timer its still shaking

....another thing to buy

Lg-ann · May 22, 2005

WOW!! beautiful shot

jthomas · May 22, 2005

Yes, that's a pretty amazing picture. Forgive my naivete', but I have a hard time believing the EXIF data you posted: 1/100th at f7.1, iso200, and a -2ev exposure bias ? I would expect nothing but black with those settings.

Moon must be brighter in Oz!

gus · May 22, 2005

jthomas wrote:

Yes, that's a pretty amazing picture. Forgive my naivete', but I have a hard time believing the EXIF data you posted: 1/100th at f7.1, iso200, and a -2ev exposure bias ? I would expect nothing but black with those settings.

Moon must be brighter in Oz!

I have no reason or benefit for faking stuff like this i can assure you mate.

I can read EXIF stuff & it means absolutely nothing to me...might as well be written in chinese.

I just shoot & open in RAW & then adjust but i can assure you that that is the info from under the photo that i copied & pasted from SmugMug.

Once i shoot it & chimp it in the camera all i can see is a massive white circle that has no detail what so ever.

Gus

Shay Stephens · May 23, 2005

That describes an EV13.3 situation, pretty close to what one would expect from an object lit by the sun. "Officially", EV13 describes a gibbous moon (telephoto) or subjects in cloudy bright light (no shadows).

You can learn more about exposure from this fine website:
http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm

It is very info-dense, so don't expect to learn it all at once. It took me quite a while to digest and then apply it productively, but once learned, it is a power tool.

jthomas wrote:

Yes, that's a pretty amazing picture. Forgive my naivete', but I have a hard time believing the EXIF data you posted: 1/100th at f7.1, iso200, and a -2ev exposure bias ? I would expect nothing but black with those settings.

Moon must be brighter in Oz!

wxwax · May 23, 2005

Great link, thanks Shay.

gib·bous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gbs)
adj.
More than half but less than fully illuminated. Used of the moon or a planet.

pathfinder · May 23, 2005

Humungus wrote:

Mate seriously i walked out onto the balcony at night & thought.."i gotta shoot something..." I get like that. So i thought ok...here goes a shot ive always wanted. I didnt really know what settings to use so i just threw it on AV & sat that heavy camera & lens on my $30 'very shakey' tripod that andy kept threatening to bust up on me at Yosemite & took maybe 6 shots. Chimped them & thought...well this is crap so i got bored later & processed them & thats all she wrote.

That lens should go down in history for its sharpness/speed of focus & reletively cheap price.

I'm with Andy here 'gus, nothing will improve the sharpness of your images like a really stable tripod. A really good tripod is a joy to use also. You, of all people, appreciate the joy of using GOOD tools.

Now your Great 20d and Canon 400mm L deserves a good tripod and head. A good tripod is forever also - long after you've replaced your camera, the tripod will still be serviceable for your newer cameras....... Note the plural there, mate! I'm sure Andy has already told you this too!

I am just your neighborhood photo dealer, 'gus!:D:D

gus · May 23, 2005

pathfinder wrote:

I'm with Andy here 'gus, nothing will improve the sharpness of your images like a really stable tripod. A really good tripod is a joy to use also. You, of all people, appreciate the joy of using GOOD tools.

Now your Great 20d and Canon 400mm L deserves a good tripod and head. A good tripod is forever also - long after you've replaced your camera, the tripod will still be serviceable for your newer cameras....... Note the plural there, mate! I'm sure Andy has already told you this too!

I am just your neighborhood photo dealer, 'gus!:D:D

I know mate...i have to buy a good one. On self timer..i hit the botton & i watch through the view finder & the lens wont stop wobbling on the moon until 7 or 8 seconds. The fact that i got the shot at all surprised me.

jthomas · May 23, 2005

Humungus wrote:

I have no reason or benefit for faking stuff like this i can assure you mate.

I can read EXIF stuff & it means absolutely nothing to me...might as well be written in chinese.

I just shoot & open in RAW & then adjust but i can assure you that that is the info from under the photo that i copied & pasted from SmugMug.

Once i shoot it & chimp it in the camera all i can see is a massive white circle that has no detail what so ever.

Gus

I was not doubting your veracity! I was just trying to understand what's going on here. I'll follow Shay's link and see if I can figure it out.

GREAPER · May 23, 2005

Humungus wrote:

Now that i know what that means Dave...yep its 100% & a tad of sharpen thrown in for good measure.

I saw some shots that a friend of greapers took of some owls & that sold me on the lens....hey greaps if your reading this then i cant find the link to those owl shots. Do you know where they are ? Canon could use them to sell this lens.

Gus

Those shots can be found
HERE

jeff lapoint · May 24, 2005

'gus, that is one sweet shot you have there! i've been on the fence between this lens, the 300f4 is, and the 100-400. for what i shoot, the 400 makes sense, but man you just put me over the edge on this decision...

again, great shot man

-j

gus · May 24, 2005

jeff lapoint wrote:

'gus, that is one sweet shot you have there! i've been on the fence between this lens, the 300f4 is, and the 100-400. for what i shoot, the 400 makes sense, but man you just put me over the edge on this decision...

again, great shot man

-j

Tks jeff..i really didnt think i would get a shot like that so easily. I am a bad enough photographer with an ordinary lens & this lens makes it easy to get a sharp shot.

'Bang for Buck' wise ..its amazing. There are some humming bird shots i took with it in my yosemite album. About 4 or 5 pages into the album.

Gus

gus · May 24, 2005

jeff lapoint wrote:

'gus, that is one sweet shot you have there! i've been on the fence between this lens, the 300f4 is, and the 100-400. for what i shoot, the 400 makes sense, but man you just put me over the edge on this decision...

again, great shot man

-j

Just to seal the deal...last night. My processing leaves a lot to be desired.

jeff lapoint · May 24, 2005

dooode. thats it! its on! the wheels of scraping $ together and purchasing have been put in motion (hawkman and daniella were also excellent catalysts)

jthomas · May 24, 2005

jthomas wrote:

Yes, that's a pretty amazing picture. Forgive my naivete', but I have a hard time believing the EXIF data you posted: 1/100th at f7.1, iso200, and a -2ev exposure bias ? I would expect nothing but black with those settings.

Moon must be brighter in Oz!

I'm replying to my own post to try to save face and convince everyone that I'm not a complete idiot. I'm sure the EXIF data 'Gus posted was based on spot metering, which, of course, would be the only way to go in order to get any detail on Luna. Right Gus?

Then all the numbers make sense.:):

Sorry to clutter the forum with my blather.

That shot from last night is another winner.

gus · May 25, 2005

jthomas wrote:

I'm replying to my own post to try to save face and convince everyone that I'm not a complete idiot. I'm sure the EXIF data 'Gus posted was based on spot metering, which, of course, would be the only way to go in order to get any detail on Luna. Right Gus?

Then all the numbers make sense.:):

Sorry to clutter the forum with my blather.

That shot from last night is another winner.

Well mate i'll tell you that i dont know what spot metering means...sad bit is that im serious.

You will never clutter the forum with blather ...thats my job.

luckyrwe · June 17, 2005

Hmmm, what is the depth of field on a 400mm lens at f/7.1 at a distance of [size=-1]238,855 miles?

[/size]

cabbey · September 24, 2005

as far as the eye can see.
Couple of great shots there Gus.

luckyrwe wrote:

Hmmm, what is the depth of field on a 400mm lens at f/7.1 at a distance of [size=-1]238,855 miles?[/size]

It's litterally as far as the eye can see. It calculates out to infiity. (after using googulator to convert miles to meters.)

1181.5 m Near limit of acceptable sharpness
Infintiy Far limit of acceptable sharpness
Infinite Total depth of field
384398679.5 m Depth of field in front of subject
Infinite Depth of field behind subject
1181.9 m Hyperfocal distance
0.019mm Circle of confusion for selected forma

...1st moon shot with my 400 f/5.6

Comments