3-19 super perigee

It's cloudy here [:'(]


The moon requires a lot of focal length, and I think you've done pretty much what you can with 135mm.


The full moon is aesthetically appealing as Bill's *very* nice pic shows, but Rick is correct in saying that it is easier to see fine detail when the moon is somewhere between full and new:


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x600/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/24/2055.moon-800.JPG[/img]





This was taken with a 12 1/2" Starmaster dobsonian (Carl Zambuto mirror). It's 3175mm f/10 (normally 1587 f/5 but I used a barlow here), cropped to about 6400mm full frame equiv. I took it at iso 400 to get a fastish 1/40 second shutter speed. The air- which limits sharpness when using a long focal length- was extremely steady that night. The blurry corners are due to coma (I've since purchased a corrector... if only I could have this one to do again).


I'll wait up a little longer... maybe the sky will clear.



<div></div>

Thank you for the info. BTW, the more successful one was manual mode, 1/640, f/8.0, ISO 100, 135mm, manual focus adjusted in Live View, shot with mirror locked up on my Manfrotto 055CXPRO3/Bogen 3047. I also pushed the exposure in DPP to +1.33 since it seemed kind of dark without that adjustment but I wanted to keep the shutter speed fast.


I am going to try to catch it on the west side of the house at about 5AM. The view of the setting moon out of our kitchen window in the mornings is glorious! If I catch a good shot, I

Jon,


That is a spectacular shot. Artistic even. 6400mm!!! Holy cow. I am a long way from that. I was excited about the possibility of getting a 400mm f/5.6! That should make the image 3x the size it is for me now natively. In addition to the extra resolution at the same image size, I also figured I would benefit from the sharpness and contrast of a prime vs my kit lens. Plus, I love wildlife photography. I would also like a 1.4x extender.

Great shots all, I had a little bit of luck myself. Like the majority I couldn

Here's my results.


Nothing super about it. Just another picture of a full moon with a dark background. Didn't look any more super than any other full moon either. I've seen better!


The skies weren't as clear as I would have like with high thin clouds and thicker clouds closing in. Here are a couple shots that I took after it cleared the tops of the distant trees still low in the sky. About 8:25pm local EDT.


1. 50% crop when viewed at 1024 (grayscale)
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i3...FullMoon-1.jpg
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i39/Tim_Kerr/FullMoon-1.jpg


2. 100% crop when viewed at 1024 (sRGB)
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i3...gb-100crop.jpg
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i39/Tim_Kerr/FullMoon-19March2011-rgb-100crop.jpg


3. same 100%crop when viewed at 1024, converted to grayscale
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i3...le-100crop.jpg
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i39/Tim_Kerr/FullMoon-19March2011-grayscale-100crop.jpg


Exif data


Camera Maker: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS 50D
Lens: EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
Image Date: 2011-03-19 20:25:47 -0400
Focal Length: 400.0mm
Focus Distance: 2147483647.00
Aperture: f/11.0
Exposure Time: 0.010 s (1/100)
ISO equiv: 100
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Spot
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual


I wish I could have had clearer more steady conditions to get a sharper image, but as luck would have it mother nature had other ideas.. I was going to go back out when it reaches local meridian, but the clouds have pretty much closed the skies.

Sorry Phil.....I was in bed by the time you posted your question, but luckily there were other folks up that could help you.


My exif; 7D w/500 f4 IS, f10, 1/60, ISO 100


Tim here's a quick explanation of "super"; "While the names of many moon phases are rich in folklore, the supermoonbecame&rdquo;super&rdquo; because ofRichard Nolle &ndash; an astrologer with a flair for the dramatic"; predicted a particular full moon passing very close to earth would cause disastrous events.


It has currently become a common term in referencing the orbit of the moon when it comes very close to the earth, as in last night's moon. If I remember correctly, last night's was the closest in 19 years.


Jon, I totally agree that a partial moon is far more interesting to shoot....my particular favorite to shoot is the "Mac the Knife" moon (my name for it, shaped like finger nail) w/Venus lingering near by.


Thanks for looking and your comments folks.


Regards


Bill

I was crunching some numbers, and the moon (apparently about 33.2 arcminutes this time) would only fill the camera

So you're saying I should just go ahead and get the Canon 1200mm lens then. :)


Here is my result from this morning. It was getting to treetop level too quickly for me to get but one good shot without pine branches showing up. This is almost the same as last night's shots with the exception of 1/125 shutter speed and +0.17 Ev in DPP since the light reflected from the moon was much lower than last night.


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/24/7585._5F00_MG_5F00_5956-square.JPG[/img]

Nice shots everyone.


Here's mine from last night: (7D, 100-400L @ 400, 1/2000, f/8, ISO 800. Part of my brain appears to have shut off, with that shutter speed I should have dialed my ISO down or tried a polarizer filter. But, that is what happens when you are having fun [:D].


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-46-64/moon-3-IMG_5F00_7187.JPG[/img]

To echo Kayaker---"Nice shots everyone"


Here is a couple I shot last night:


Moon coming up over the Monzano Mountains


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/24/2728.IMG_5F00_1710.jpg[/img]


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/24/7888.IMG_5F00_1790.jpg[/img]


this one shot with the 500 and 1.4 extender