I wouldn't be too afraid of the 2X TC. I think it gets a bad rap. This is just with the 400/5.6L and 2X and cropped a bit. It's also from near sea level through a bit of haze.
VanIsle wrote:
a) buy an Xti for its extra reach. The downside here is that I wont be able to AF. Manual focus is fine, but I am concerned that the xti viewfinder is dim to begin with... so how will it be at f/8? Will I still be able to achieve *critical* focus (I say this, because of course I want to be able to catch as much crater detail as possible) by using manual focus and f/8? I am particularily concerned about shots where the moon is a very thin crescent.
I regularily use the 400f2.8L II + 2x + 1.4x + 1.4x on XTi. That combination means f11, wide open! However, manual focus works quite nicely, with Canon Angle finder C. Mostly this is because the Moon provides such a good contrast, so in your case of a very thin crescent, things might be a bit different. Though, I have found the angle finder to be just the tool for manual focusing.
VanIsle wrote:
b) buy a 2x converter. But again I lose AF. And though the 1D2 vf is quite bright, im sure f/11 won't be so much fun. Also, I know from experiece, that f/8 I am already strating to push my limites for a short enough shutter speed (particularily when a full moon rises at sunset, and is not very bright at all) at an acceptable ISO... going to f/11 , and then stopping down because the 2X will be a bit soft... I worry about shutter speeds.
Talking about shutter speed, a good rule of thumb is that when you take the hundreds (of mm) in focal length, you'll get the maximum exposure time as 1/(that value). I.e. for 400mm, 1/4 s, for 800mm, 1/8s etc.
However, when the Moon is very low, the atmospheric effects are largest (the Moon seems to "boil" in the viewfinder). Hence, a shorter exposure time can be better, at the expense of increasing the ISO. But you should also take a few dozen images and pick the sharpest. The atmosphere is changing constantly and occasionally it is calmer, producing a much sharper image.
As digital images cost nothing, take many and pick the best. Also refocus from time to time. You can pick the sharpest image by choosing the one with the biggest file size, though if the Moon is a small part of the image frame, this method may not be accurate enough.
Also, use a good tripod, mirror lock and a remote shutter or self-timer.
Thanks for all the photos ... theres too many nice ones to go through individually... thanks for sharing them... turned this into quite a fun thread
BennyR... your shot with the 2x on the 400/5.6 is quite impressive. What camera body did you use for that?
Tom_W and astrolucida - 400/2.8 sounds nice... little out of my price range though... how much is the sigmonster anyways... with its zoom, it might be the ideal "moon" lens
astrolucida - I have indeed experienced the dreaded 'boiling'. You can see that it did quite a number on the 4th image I posted on the moon rising over Vancouver...
I had forgotten about the angle finder... will definitely keep that in mind for manual focus
I always use MLU , tripod, and cable release for these shots. I use a Manfrotto 3021B tripod, and am considering upgrading the ballhead from the 488RC2 (which basically sucks with the 400 when there is any kidn of wind).. looking at a Arca Swiss Z1 perhaps...
Oh, and I should add that at this point, I am leaning towards the 2x converter, an angle finder C, and a sturdier ballhead.
For once, the cheaper equipment (vs XTI) might be the better choice
and now the dreaded question... whats sharper... 2 1.4's or a single 2x ? (I know ive seen it discussed before, and I think people leaned ever so slightly towards the 2x)
Those are some nice photo PCho. However if the second is a composite like I think it is, you should consider adding some distortion caused by the exhaust of the jet. I think that would make it a bit more realistic. Just my take on it.
How can the plane be illuminated In real life such images always show the plane as a black shadow on top of the Moon, and not visible on areas where it does not overlap.
How can the plane be illuminated In real life such images always show the plane as a black shadow on top of the Moon, and not visible on areas where it does not overlap.
In real life such images always show the plane as a black shadow on top of the Moon, and not visible on areas where it does not overlap.