Printable View
I've got a sturdy tripod, and an Arca Z1 ballhead.
Lenses: 70-200 f/2.8 L II or 100-400 L (version 1). I'm going to use f/8, infinity focus.
When I look at the image quality on the website, it looks to my eyes like the 100-400 wins, compared to the f/2.8 with an extender on it.
What about the 100-400 with an extender? It'll give me more reach.
Also, since the moon is still a rather bright object, would +/- EV (let's say, 5 total), be an option, for further processing as an HDR?
Thanks.
I think the 100-400 Mk 1 is ever so slightly sharper than the 70-200 II plus 2x TC. But it is close enough that I started leaving my 100-400L at home when traveling and taking the 70-200 II/2x TC combination.
I would do a few test shots with the 2x TC on the 100-400 Mk 1 and 70-200 II tonight or Saturday night on the moon. I am not sure which you will do better with, cropping or with the TC. The TC does cause a loss of contrast, which I would be worried about. When others have tested TC's vs cropping, the TCs always seem to win out, but the subjects are usually doors, walls, or flowers. The moon with it's shadows may prove to be different.
Please post if you do that...I'd be interested.
I know the temptation might be to fill your viewfinder with the moon....but I'd also give some thought to leaving some sky in there as well.
As for the HDR, sure, give it a try...but I will warn you that the moon will move across your viewfinder surprisingly quickly. My guess is that you can get it to work, but may need some pretty fast shutterspeeds.
And you'll need to keep a good eye on your exposure, which will change relatively slowly (but dramatically over the span). This might be a situation where Auto ISO plays a good role.
Some good info here.
http://www.mreclipse.com/LEphoto/LEphoto.html
You will be cropping, moon isn't going to fill your frame. I would just stick with the 400mm without the extender. Shutter speed you when you start getting really slow you will see motion blur from the moon. From memory it seems like this happens around 1 to 1.5 sec. The moon is flat, and you will have plenty of DOF, just use the aperture that is best for your lens. If it is F/8 so be it. On my 500mm it would be F/5.6. Adjust your ISO so you don't get to slow.
The full and eclipsed moon are so bright that it will be hard to get texture. It is easier to get moon detail in other phases.
Here are a few for total eclipse, F/5.6, ISO 800, .5 sec
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5003/...4f0a7dd9_z.jpgFull Eclipse 2 36 am by hdnitehawk01, on Flickr
F/13, ISO 100, 1/100, notice I could have went to F/5.6 and had a much faster shutter speed.
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5202/...07eb7959_z.jpgJan 21 Total Eclipse by hdnitehawk01, on Flickr
F/5.6, ISO 100, 1/640
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5003/...fb1e4df8_z.jpgDec 20 Before Lunar Eclipse by hdnitehawk01, on Flickr
Here is a quarter moon, by the way if you look at the settings it wasn't the F/18 that got the detail. I was just experimenting. It was the contrast of indirect light. Looking at many of Sean's portraits I bet he can relate to having a cross light.
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5245/...f2cb9027_z.jpgQuarter Moon by hdnitehawk01, on Flickr
Good suggestions from everyone. I think I will stick with the 100-400. I see that f/5.6 looks good with this lens, so I'll open it up to that.
Auto ISO, also.
So, should I use the 7DII, or the 6D?
For the moon by itself go with the higher resolution of the 7D II. There is no advantage for full frame here, unless you have a 5Ds R. Pixel density for the win on this one.
If you are going to frame a shot with something in the foreground then maybe the FF body.
Thanks for pointing that out . I was going to use my 5DIII because i keep thinking FF is always better. My 7DII is feeling left out lately lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
Well it is calling for a cloudy sky here in the mostly sunshine state. Arrgghh
For my 2 cents, I really like the distance compression shots. Brian I think did one in the desert not long ago. it adds so much to the shot.
I am hoping that it will be clear enough to take from the top of a nearby hotel (roof top bar) and put some of the oh so flat florida landscape in the foreground. If my friend still lived over at the space coast it would be cool to put the rocket launch pads in the foreground...
Oh well.
Indeed, the features of the moon stand out much better during those times when it isn't full. The front lighting eliminates the shadows that help define the features of the moon.Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
In retrospect, I'm not sure I agree...but that may be particular to my situation. I went out not knowing what settings I'd need for the much-darker-than-normal eclipsed moon. I had my 1D X and my M2 with the EF adapter, and the 600/4 II with the 2xIII. With that narrow an FoV, anything over 0.5 s resulted in motion blur from the earth's rotation, and at the peak of the eclipse I needed ISO 6400 to get that shutter speed. I would not have wanted to be using an APS-C sensor at that ISO.Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
I wouldn't have been happy with the 5D II, 5D III, 5Ds R or the 7D II at ISO 6400. That is why I went with the 700mm at F/5.6 rather than 1000mm at F/8 to gain a stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
This eclipse at total was 2 stops darker than the last and the sky was not as clear. With the sky like this it didn't matter to me which body, but if the sky had been clear I would still prefer the 7D II and 5Ds R over the other bodies. Using the 7D II in this situation you lose the ability to go to F/8 and it turns into a version of the old debate, which is better the 2x extender and FF 1Dx or the pixel density and a 1.4x (notice I didn't say crop since you can get the density with a FF now).
With a wider FoV you can also use a longer exposure. But...if you have to crop the image, you increase the apparent noise anyway.