It makes a lot more sense in my mind now that I know how much of the frame was cropped, too. I guess they're just really big trees.
In any case, nice shot. If I wanted a similar effect, I'd probably have used a 300mm lens plus a 1.4x teleconverter, with a bit less cropping. Trees around here are smaller...
moondigger wrote:
Ah, so the moon was rising, not setting.
It makes a lot more sense in my mind now that I know how much of the frame was cropped, too. I guess they're just really big trees.
In any case, nice shot. If I wanted a similar effect, I'd probably have used a 300mm lens plus a 1.4x teleconverter, with a bit less cropping. Trees around here are smaller...
How would my 200mm lens be limited weather the moon was rising or setting??
"It's just that a 200mm lens can't do what's in that photo"
Username wrote:
How would my 200mm lens be limited weather the moon was rising or setting??
It wouldn't be. My comment about the 200mm lens being limited was based on the assumption that you were displaying the full frame, not a crop.
I asked the time of the photo because the moon couldn't be setting with that phase at night... it would be setting during daylight hours. If I had only realized that it was rising, not setting, I wouldn't have been so confused. I probably would have realized this on my own if I had known it wasn't a composite in the first place. That's just the first impression I got -- that it was a composite.
