Big Moon Pictures
- Thread starter wallyballs
- Start date
Incredible man, is that real? ? how high did you need to go? Not even sure that would make a difference in the grand scheme of things! Brilliant if so
Height was about 5 feet. Obviously not shot with a drone. This was taken with a Canon M50 and 400mm lens handheld at 1/500 sec, f8, ISO 320. Here is a comparison with different lenses, 55mm, 200mm and 400mm. A 28mm equiv lens and tiny sensor on a Mavic would not be the best tool for the job.
Attachments
Moony 11 Rule.
1/ISO @ f/11 to "shoot the moon." So, you'd be at shutter 1/400 for ISO 400 at f/11.
As opposed to the "Sunny 16," which is 1/ISO @ f/16 for daylight photography.
1/ISO @ f/11 to "shoot the moon." So, you'd be at shutter 1/400 for ISO 400 at f/11.
As opposed to the "Sunny 16," which is 1/ISO @ f/16 for daylight photography.
I had not heard of the Moony 11 rule, but it makes sense when you consider the moon is in full sun (even though the earth is not illuminated.) It apparently does not reflect the standard 18% grey that most cameras are calibrated for, but it is not far off. Most cameras will overexpose in auto mode because of all the dark sky in the scene.
Here is mine not from a drone; similar situation to person who posted above.
Last edited:
It would require much more than 8x to fill the frame. The MA2 has a 28mm equiv lens which is really about 5.2 mm focal length. The moon is 2159 miles in diameter and 238, 857 miles away. The size of the moon projected on the sensor would be 0.047 mm. The sensor is about 4.8 mm high so the image would be less than 1/100th of the sensor height. The image would only cover about 59 x 59 pixels of the 6000 x 8000 pixels on the sensor.
I was basing that off the 400mm lens shot above, which, in hindsight, was probably cropped, and might have been from a 1.5x crop DX sensor with a 2.0 teleconverter, which would be 1200mm. I meant 8x telephoto lens on a normal 35mm camera, not the MA2. Based upon some images in this article, 1500mm equivalent should be enough for full frame composition with room to breathe around the sides.
14 Tips for Shooting the Moon
One of the first words I learned how to say was, “Moon.” All of my life, I have been fascinated by our natural satellite and I have been photographing it for as long as I have had a camera. My photos have gotten better over the years, but I still search for the perfect photo of the moon. Here...
www.bhphotovideo.com
I have a home built 1700mm f10 telescope. Without a teleconverter, it will just fill the 35mm frame height with the full moon diameter.I was basing that off the 400mm lens shot above, which, in hindsight, was probably cropped, and might have been from a 1.5x crop DX sensor with a 2.0 teleconverter, which would be 1200mm. I meant 8x telephoto lens on a normal 35mm camera, not the MA2. Based upon some images in this article, 1500mm equivalent should be enough for full frame composition with room to breathe around the sides.
14 Tips for Shooting the Moon
One of the first words I learned how to say was, “Moon.” All of my life, I have been fascinated by our natural satellite and I have been photographing it for as long as I have had a camera. My photos have gotten better over the years, but I still search for the perfect photo of the moon. Here...
View attachment 109665
I never liked describing lens magnification by "x". Zoom lenses use this terminology relative to the lower focal length of the lens which of course can vary, so it is an ambiguous term when applied to a simple telephoto lens. In the case of my 1700 mm scope, that would be 34 X a 50 mm normal lens.
My moon shot from the M50 with a 400mm lens was cropped from the 24 MP APS-C sensor image and was less than 1/4 of the image height.
Aether
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2018
- Messages
- 64
- Reactions
- 38
Makes sense. 400mm on the APS-C sensor is 600mm equivalent on FX, and tripled would be 1800mm for a full frame moon without any crop. When I use "x" magnification, I use it relative to a 35mm frame view at 50mm, which is supposed to replicate a "normal" human field of view. When it is used on lenses with a less than normal field of view, it can be very deceptive. The 2x optical of the M2Z is not a much narrower field of view than the HQ on the M2P. M2Z goes from 24-48mm, while the M2P goes from 28mm FOV to 39mm in HQ mode. M2Z starts out wider, but the effective telephoto view of both at the highest "zoom" is very similar at 48mm vs. 39mm equivalent. With the 39mm HQ on the M2P from a 1” sensor, it is generally a far better video in low light, that can still be cropped to a 48mm, with marginal loss in quality. The M2Z, however, in 1080p, can create an effective lossless zoom of up to 4x as a crop out of a 4K frame, and zoom is fully visible live while flying, while the M2P requires stopping FOV framing to zoom into HQ mode to restart the video, with no intermediate zoom steps. .
Or this...
Or this...
All from an iPhone. Admittedly attached to a rather large telescope in Western Australia.
From my most recent attempt I'd say that was a bit under. I was using 1/ISO at f/5.6 on my most recent attempt.
{1} Yes, that attempt I referred to was with a "6x" lens and occupied about 1/9th of the frame height.
{2} If the sensor is 4.8mm high (1/5 of 24x36) the focal length would be 5.6 and I think your sums slip a little because one of those is wrong.
Another way to do this is the to say the angle of your vision occupied by the moon is arcTan 2159/238,857= arcTan ~0.009 ; roughly 0.5 degrees.
The vertical angle a lens can see is 2 arcTan (image height/2)/focal length; for 35mm image height is 24mm, and the focal length is 28mm; so 2 arctan 12/28 for this angle of view. ~ 46.5 degrees.
So half a degree would be 1/93 the image height. Either way we're talking about 1/100th of the image height in round numbers. (A 300mm equivalent lens would be 2 arctan 12/300 ~ 4.5 degrees. Which fits with my 1/9th.)
By similar triangles you'd fill the frame when 24/focalLength = 2159/238857; focal length would be ~2655
You can rearrange it as height = focal-length*2159/237857 so for a 28mm lens with a 24x36 sensor it would be 0.25mm , so again about a whisker over 1% of the frame height.
A lot of pictures with large moons in are made from two exposures.
No. The 200 mm shot was with the Canon EF M 55-200 lens. The 400 mm shot was using an adapter to fit the Canon EF 100-400 IS lens on the M50. I have a 1.4X teleconverter for the 100-400 lens but it really does not help. The resulting image is larger but not sharper than one enlarged in software.
The moon is really much smaller in the sky than it appears. If you ask someone how big the moon looks, they will say about a foot in diameter or something like that. In fact, if you hold a quarter 9 feet from your eye, it will just cover up the moon. Of course this requires very long arms ;-)
Looks so good it almost seems fake...Thanks..I showed my daughter and she want to use it a screen saver for her Ipad..Do you mind?
There's also an optical illusion when the moon is near the horizon it is much bigger than when it is high in the sky. Of course it is still the same diameter and hasn't got closer to the earth, and there's no atmospheric effect changing it. We only think it's bigger.Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
1. Mini 2
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
New Threads
-
-
-
3 Manastirska river near abandoned tunnels- Started by alex_markov
- Replies: 0
-
-
Forum statistics
