For a comparison, of the moon at it's apogee (max. distance from earth)
and perigee (min distance), check out
http://www.spacescience.com/newhome/headlines/ast19dec99_1.htm
Gregg
mahlon.r.haunschild@xxxxxx wrote:
>
> Sam,
>
> The full moon is a notoriously low-contrast object; if your 1Kmm lens was a
> conventional photo telephoto, it's entirely likely that craters and other
> surface features would be difficult to discern in the viewfinder screen
> because
> of low contrast, and low resolution on the screen. This is why most of the
> astrophotos of the moon's surface that you see are actually shot in regions
> near
> the terminator to get more contrast and oblique lighting. It's analogous to a
> ring-lighted photo subject, only worse because the light source in this case
> (the sun) is actually almost a point source and is almost directly behind you,
> the observer.
>
> BTW, that must have been one helluva TV camera lens to do what you suggest...
>
> regards,
>
> m.
> ------------------------------
>
> Hey guys,
>
> for those of you who photographed the moon. I have a question did the moon
> appear sharp to you? I used a 1000mm lens and could not discern the craters
> on the moon. Could any of you see the craters clearly through your lens? I
> have never photographed the moon before and did not last evening because I
> was disappointed on how it looked through the view finder.
>
> Was anyone out there satisfied with their picture quality? The photo's I
> saw in the paper looked like a large ball of light. I recall watching a
> Monday night football game on TV a few years ago and the camera zoomed up to
> the moon and the detail was amazing. I know it's not fair to compare their
> lens with a camera lens, but did anyone have a better view of the moon in
> detail than I did?
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|