(I'm not sure where to put this item - none of the forum topics seemed to match ...)

Surprising, but you can do this, handheld, with the right equipment. First of all, I haven't got the Hubble space telescope, so there are some limitations. You won't see any old lunar landers, but features like mountains, craters, the mare etc will show up quite nicely.

I did this with a brand new Canon EOS 7d, and a used EF 100-400 IS L. You will also need the following:

A nice clear night

A moon that isn't full (A full moon has no contrast and no shadows, so is pretty boring). Tonight, it's gibbous (i.e. a bit over half).

Preferably not too cold. Image stabilisation can't cope with too much shivering.

A garden seat. Yes, you need to sit comfortably, because you are going to challenge that image stabilisation quite a bit. You do need a good steady hand as well.

First of all, you need to understand that the moon is a very bright object. The automatic exposure on the camera will overexpose it and you won't see anything except a white disk. You need to set maximum negative (minus 5 on this camera) exposure compensation (don't forget to reset it afterwards). Choose ISO 200.

Ensure that image stab is on.

Extend the zoom to 400 - you want it as big as possible, and set the aperture to 5.6 - the maximum (don't worry about depth of field. With a subject 200,000 plus miles away it doesn't matter!)

Make sure that you are comfortably seated and brace your arms holding the camera against your body (OK you can wuss out and use a tripod, but I managed). The shutter speed should be about 200. Any less that this and it won't work - you will get camera shake (unless you use that tripod, mirror lock-up, remote release and all that palaver).

Take some shots. Use raw.

In DPP, sharpen the image and perhaps reduce the brightness a little further. Crop heavily (you are going to make those 18 megapixels work for their living here). Save as jpg (surprisingly small files - remember the moon is essentially monochrome and you cropped them heavily. My results are on flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/markandstuart/

Ok I'm not that good, but can anyone else do better?

I'd say that was a pretty good result. I tried it once with a 1DMkII & 600/4 on a WimberleyII and mine were not that good.

Thanks for your comment.

I added another attempt - a mad re-edit of the second shot where I took off the noise reduction and maxed the sharpness to 10. Actually, although this caused a few artifacts, the craters do show up better. http://www.flickr.com/photos/markandstuart/3969408315/

I had a look at the Flickr moon shots group http://www.flickr.com/groups/moonshots/ and I have to say that some other results are better than mine. I think that a photo taken a couple of nights ago would have been better as the lower sun (from the point of view of the moon!) would show up many more craters.

Hi Mark -

I'll play, although not by your rules. Hopefully I'll have my 7D at the end of this week - so this is with a 50D, the same lens, and some other stuff; generally, I did bother with "all that palaver." (By the way, not being familiar with ENGLISH, that word is new to me - thanks for introducing it - although I think I need to study its usage further.)

The image below is a 50% downsample (linear, so reduced to 25% of the area and pixels) of the original. There is more description of the particulars of the capture at the flickr page where the image is hosted.

OK, after seeing those, I'm going to have another go. I should point out that the reason my results were below par last time was probably because I had just dropped my 600/4 approx. 15 feet down some granite boulders. As you can imagine, this didn't do it much good at all but luckily I have a very understanding insurance company.

PierreB wrote:
I should point out that the reason my results were below par last time was probably because I had just dropped my 600/4 approx. 15 feet down some granite boulders. As you can imagine, this didn't do it much good at all but luckily I have a very understanding insurance company.

Ah, more English-ness... the use of understatement!

P.S. I realize that not all of "United Kingdom" is England - although I usually need to look up the distinction between "Great Britain" and "United Kingdom."

That's a great shot of the moon... Well done! I see that mother nature obliged too (very clear and dark skies).

I'm really looking forward to get my 7D to take advantage of the cropping capabilities which 18mp affords!

Here is a 3-image montage that I created from individual photos of the Moon, Jupiter, and Saturn:

http://www.localriders.com/photopost/data//500/Moon_Jupiter_Saturn_Cropped2.jpg

I did this many years ago with a 6mp Canon D60. The lens setup was the 400mm F5.6 and a 2X teleconverter. The effective focal length (EFL) was ~1280mm (400mm * 2XTC * 1.6 image sensor crop).

All images were shot with the same focal length, so one can get a sense of scale of these three celestial objects with respect to one another when viewed from Earth.

paulfeng wrote:
PierreB wrote:
I should point out that the reason my results were below par last time was probably because I had just dropped my 600/4 approx. 15 feet down some granite boulders. As you can imagine, this didn't do it much good at all but luckily I have a very understanding insurance company.

Ah, more English-ness... the use of understatement!

P.S. I realize that not all of "United Kingdom" is England - although I usually need to look up the distinction between "Great Britain" and "United Kingdom."

As it happens, I'm not English, I'm a Guern, and I thank you for realising that there is a difference.

The descriptions "United Kingdom", "Great Britain" and the "British Isles" all refer to different collections of countries / islands / small outcrops of rock. I live one one of the aforementioned rocks, Guernsey, which is part of the British Isles but not the other two (I think).

PierreB wrote:
As it happens, I'm not English, I'm a Guern, and I thank you for realising that there is a difference.

The descriptions "United Kingdom", "Great Britain" and the "British Isles" all refer to different collections of countries / islands / small outcrops of rock. I live one one of the aforementioned rocks, Guernsey, which is part of the British Isles but not the other two (I think).

I had not realized that Guernsey was closer to France than the UK (which the forum software thinks you are a part of). Does that explain your French-ish name?

A sizable minority of us United Statesians (no one to be taken seriously says that, by the way) recognize Guernsey and Jersey as varieties of cows; I suppose those bovines came from your way? Also, I just looked it up - the movie "The Others" was set on Jersey, but not filmed there.

Anyhow - nice to make your acquaintance.

I updated my post above with this note:

paulfeng wrote:
There is more description of the particulars of the capture at the flickr page) where the image is hosted.


Just wanted to say I am not trying to divert any discussion over to my flickr page; I am happy to continue in the conversation here.

Here is a 100% crop (not downsampled, as in the image above) of the crater Gassendi and environs:

Paul's pic is fantastic. Apart from his superior equipment (I've got a tripod and a remote release, but not the two 1.4x'es), I suspect that his pic was taken a couple of nights earlier, when the shadows of the mountains and in the craters were more prominent. I'll have another go sometime. Well done to Paul anyway!

They say it is always noon on the moon so Sunny 16 or would it be Moony 16 work without all the fuss?

markhbfindlay wrote:
Paul's pic is fantastic. Apart from his superior equipment (I've got a tripod and a remote release, but not the two 1.4x'es), I suspect that his pic was taken a couple of nights earlier, when the shadows of the mountains and in the craters were more prominent. I'll have another go sometime. Well done to Paul anyway!

Thanks Mark... the photo was taken back on Feb 5th; in terms of moon phase, probably a day or two younger than yours.

It was taken at 24 Fahrenheit... another way I diverged from your advice, but much warmer than when I did the same shot with the 40D another 12.5 months earlier, when it was -10 F.

Mark, the rule of thumb is that with 35mm, the image of the moon is 1/2 inch per 100mm of focal length. Also, on a clear night, use any daylight exposure you like, which means you can run your ISO and shutter speed as high as you like. Nice work, BTW

Larry

wuchang wrote:
They say it is always noon on the moon so Sunny 16 or would it be Moony 16 work without all the fuss?

My shot was 1/50, f/16, ISO 400. So I was three stops slower than Sunny/Moony 16 --> Moony 5.6.

But I wouldn't use that as a rule, the exposure was based upon "expose to the right" and pull back in (raw) processing for maximum signal-to-noise.

44lefty wrote:
Mark, the rule of thumb is that with 35mm, the image of the moon is 1/2 inch per 100mm of focal length.

With all due respect:

I'm not sure where this rule comes from, but with 800mm of focal length, I can assure you that the disk of the moon was not 4 inches in diameter at my sensor.

It might help if I learned to type. Should read 1/2 inch per 1000 mm of focal length.

Sorry 'bout that.

Larry

Thanks for the correction, Larry.

By my calculation (based upon the approx pixel size of my moon image, pixel pitch, etc.), I get a bit more than 1/3 inch per 1000 mm. (Great mix of units there...)

"Close enough for gov't work."

I developed an excel spreadsheet to analyze bodies and lens.

One of the calculations is the % of the sensor the moon will occupy and the number of pixels.

As bodies develop, I intend to take pictures with my 400 f2.8 and 2x and 1.4x (and perhaps another 2.0x)

If the moon is imaged with a 50d using an 800mm lens the image will occupy 49% of the sensor height and be 1538 pixels high. For a 7D it is also 49% but 1682 pixels high.

With a 1.6x crop camera it takes a 1600mm lens to take an image of the moon that occupies 98% of the sensor.

Photographing the moon gets more interesting when you try to include other objects in your composition. You will find out that the moon is traveling bloody fast!
These were shot with a 20D and 300mm f2.8 IS+1,4x+2x combo.

full frame:

Very nice shots Gertjan!

Gertjan wrote:
Photographing the moon gets more interesting when you try to include other objects in your composition. You will find out that the moon is traveling bloody fast!


Good job!

You are sure correct about it being fast. I failed pretty poorly at getting anything decent for a lunar eclipse at moonrise opportunity sometime last year. It would have helped if I had done my homework to know EXACTLY where to be looking on the horizon. Who would have thunk, that eclipsed moon is quite a bit dimmer than the un-shadowed version! And even when not eclipsed, the moon is considerably less bright when close to the horizon due to all that atmosphere in the way -- so don't base your exposure on what worked before in a different situation.

Gertjan wrote:
Photographing the moon gets more interesting when you try to include other objects in your composition. You will find out that the moon is traveling bloody fast!


The problem of the moon traveling fast while trying to compose with other objects in the frame may be partially mitigated by making sure that the other object[s] is[are] moving also. Be sure to click on the link in the description to see a larger version.

Nice Picture Paul!

The problem of the moon traveling fast while trying to compose with other objects in the frame may be partially mitigated by making sure that the other object[s] is[are] moving also.

Unfortunately I couldn't find a way to make those university buildings move in the same direction of the moon.

Just FYI


--NASA is going to smash 2 Satellites into the botton edge of the moon. Coming up this friday morning, at 530am.

The impacts are viewable-LIVE on NASA TV.
This is the link-- http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

Here is link to the main NASA countdown page, where the Live TV link is from.--
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LCROSS/main/index.html

This is kind of a pretty big deal. What is happening is the search for frozen water, and other elements. From examining the resultant cloud, or "ejecta plume" of dust sent up- the mineral content can be revealed.

They say that by using at least a 10' telescope it can be viewed, however, locating the actual impact site is quite involved.

SO-- why do it that way- instead, NASA TV will have live feed from several ground based telescopes, in addition to the actual satellite feed before, AND DURING the impacts! -I repeat, LIVE feed!!

So, I Recommend trying out the links now, watch the TV to make sure that you can get to operate properly. Then Friday at 530am, turn it on and watch the dust fly.

Sounds like the estimate is that the cloud(ejecata) that will be blown up should be huge-- in the neighborhood of 160THOUSAND feet --thats 160,000 feet high. --Like 5 miles!


Lots of luck, Bob

Oh, and that time of 530am--it's mountain time zone. 430 pacific. 730am East Coast.

Let anyone, and everyone you know that might be interested, and available to watch, and witness history--LIVE!!