TAKO. INTERNET SEIT 1996.
Olympus-OM

Re: [OM] Larger Lunar Laginappe [was To Moose - Moon Revisited]

Subject: Re: [OM] Larger Lunar Laginappe [was To Moose - Moon Revisited]
From: Jim Nichols <jhnichols@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 16:50:49 -0500
Very nicely done, Moose.  Best I've seen.

On 5/11/20 4:40 PM, Moose wrote:
Back in 2012, for another of the endless "Supermoons", I used my Canon 60D with a Meade 1000/11 mirror lens. Gear details below.

I just reprocessed one of the shots using software not available then. I think this illustrates pretty well the amount of detail easily thought lost to lens failings, subject movement, air movement and low contrast. <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/Lunacy/Lunacy.htm>

Quoting from my post then:

"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.

 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.

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 "


On 5/11/2020 12:37 PM, Charles Geilfuss wrote:
   Thanks for the info, Moose, and you could be right. I have only shot with it on a tripod (Manfrotto aluminum with Markins ball head). I've taken some
pretty good images in the daytime, mostly wading birds, and as you point
out the contrast is low. But that easy to fix in Photoshop. In moon shots,
the image looks tack sharp in Live View and in the view finder but the
images are soft. I use a two second delay but the mirror seems to induce
camera shake. I may try mounting it on my telescope tripod which weighs
about 35 pounds.


--
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA

--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>