OK! Last night, properly equipped, I ventured out to "shoot the moon" again,
with much better results.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Tech/Sigma600%20and_Meade1000&image=_MG_6617croof2.jpg>
I suspect this is close to the limit of what may be done from near sea level on
a warmish night for a whole moon shot.
The moon is already 72% of image height, so more magnification won't buy much.
In live view, magnified, I could watch the wavering from air movement (as well
as the surface moving by). To determine
which image was sharpest, I stacked them as layers in PS. Flipping between
them, I was surprised at the amount of
difference in the shapes of features between them. Clearly the air cells I was
shooting through do more than soften,
they distort, as well.
On 5/7/2012 6:19 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Interesting. I'm surprised at the 2 stop discrepancy as it's outside
> Parker's bracketing range.
We don't really know how much he knew about all the many subjects and
situations he put in his tables. And he, or
whoever provided the moon exposure information probably were reporting on
results with film, and not scanned film, at
that. With film, one would probably prefer the narrow brightness range of the
moon right in the middle of the tonal
range. With digital, I prefer it up higher. Much better to pull shadows down
than mid tones up.
> You and the Sigma done good. But the Meade should actually be a slightly
> better optic than the Sigma.
I'm not sure about better. According to the old MP tests, they are about equal.
However, that assumes one may move
closer or farther from a test target. :-) Not the case here, so equal
resolving power with greater magnification wins
handily.
> It's clear you were struggling with non-optical issues.
Oh yes. I simply hadn't envisioned puling out the Meade when I went out. Here's
the set-up that worked.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Tech/Misc&image=IMG_0419croof30.jpg>
More detail.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Tech/Misc&image=IMG_0420croof30.jpg>
You might well ask what's with all that stuff on top of the tripod. I couldn't
unscrew the 3/8" to 1/4" adapter from the
bottom of the 410 geared head, nor locate my easy-outs. So I stacked the 410 on
top of the 3047. I figured that would
give me the advantage of higher elevation angle, as well, although as it turned
out, I might not have needed it. All
that load on the 3236/3047 is not a problem. :-)
I tend to remember only how heavy the 3236 tripod is, and forget what a great
piece of equipment it is. I only needed
two of the three leg sections, leg angles may be individually locked at any
angle and the thing is SOLID. And with only
three level leg locks to operate, it's actually quicker to set up than the nine
twist collar leg locks of the four
section Hakuba CF.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Tech/Misc&image=IMG_0419croof30.jpg>
> At 1000mm you're getting up into the range where an equatorial mount is
> required for sky work.
Not with the moon, apparently. Rather than calculate or look up shutter speeds,
I simply bracketed shutter speeds. As
you can see, 1/60 was plenty. I couldn't see any sharpness/detail difference
with higher speeds, and other IQ factors
were poorer.
Looney Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
