I had a great time last night observing and photographing the Moon. I could see the turbulent air dancing around the image last night as I tried to get a sharp photo. It kept going in and out of focus It's like looking through heat waves rising off asphalt. I had to wait until the night cooled enough to clear the heated air and steady it down some.
This was shot at with a 1200mm refractor telescope, Canon 5D, ISO320, 1/200th. You can't change the f ratio of a telescope, this one happens to be f8.
After the air cleared I was able to put in a high power eyepiece for some visual observing. It was spectacular viewing at 266X.
I might be back out there again tonight if anyone wants a peek at the Moon or Saturn.
Hey, I'll be pestering you for some advice soon Eric. I have a 900mm Bushnell refractor on order. It's a 5yr service award from the company so I didn't have a lot of options to choose from, but the price is right and I'll have fun with it.
That's pretty cool, Eric. Ellen and I have looked at the moon through binoculars but it would be really cool to have her see it through your telescope.
That's really cool, Eric - the ultimate in "landscape" photography! I didn't realize that the 5D had an intermediate ISO (320) outside of the typical settings. Beyond the difference in exposure, is there an image quality difference between 320 and 400 with your camera, for example?
Thanks all!
Tom, Its really hard to tell if there is any difference. The 5D is relatively noise free at these lower speeds. I only really start to notice the noise at 640 and above. Its still very usable though.
FYI, the ISO settings on the 5D with the expanded ISO setting turned on are...
50(L), 100,125,160,200,250,320,400,500,640,800,1000,1250,1600,3200(H)
Thanks, Eric - I've been mulling over the extended ISO range (and image stabilization) offered in the Olympus E-510, as compared to the E-300 that I've been using for a few years. Right now, I'm limited to 100, 200, 400 and 800, with 1600 in an extended mode (lots of noise), but have never been able to see a significant difference between the lower settings.
I'm still wrapping my head around what ISO settings mean for digital, as opposed to the straightforward resolution/sensitivity tradeoff with traditional film. The noise/sensitivity relationship with digital isn't nearly so linear -- plus, I've seen recommendations to simply use an ISO of around 400 on current cameras as a "standard", since there isn't usually a quality incentive to go lower. For those of us shooting long exposures, there's an obvious advangage, of course, but in my mind, I still keep telling myself that 100 is better than 200, for example. That doesn't seem to be the case in terms of image quality anymore.
I'm also a complete newbie on image stabilization. A friend sent me a rather out-there commentary about "throwing away your tripod" and "only idiots will carry tripods". Obviously, I won't be doing that for long exposures, but I basically use a tripod for any shot where I want a quality image. I'll be surprised if image stabilization actually improves on a tripod, though I could see it helping improve WITH a tripod -- e.g., in conditions with wind and vibration. The articles I've read on this aren't really geared toward landscape/nature photography, so I've got more research to do on this front.
I think you've hit on some good points Tom. Its hard to see a difference in the lower ISO's. I still try to shoot everything with the native ISO though. Canons happens to be 100. Thats the cleanest ISO but its very hard to find any faults with 200-400 range. It's nice to have the range of ISO for creative reasons. Sometime one wants some visible grain or motion in the image.
Image stabilization is great for action shots and hand holding, panning on a moving target. Its also really nice to have when you don't want to carry a tripod. You know, family trips, birthdays, etc.
For landscape photography any seasoned photog will tell ya, a stable tripod is a must for the sharpest photos. Especially when stopped down to achieve the greatest depth of field. Plus, as we all know, a tripod can be used for other creative effects like blurring tall grasses in the wind, etc. Yep, gotta have a tripod for sure.
Oh yeah, Rick Lundh has a terrific shot of some Koi he posted here a while back. Couldn't have been done without a tripod. Rick, if you're reading, go ahead and post that Koi shot in here as an example.
I never get tired of these moon images. They are so fricken sharp.
Its now getting the season where we need to head up to Lookout Mountain and camp there overnight and grab some star trails over Mt Hood. I've always wanted that shot. Problem is, that my next 6 weekends are booked. Maybe I can squeeze an overnighter up there. I want to get out and shoot with you again anyway Eric. It's been too long.
Discussion
12 repliesThis was shot at with a 1200mm refractor telescope, Canon 5D, ISO320, 1/200th. You can't change the f ratio of a telescope, this one happens to be f8.
After the air cleared I was able to put in a high power eyepiece for some visual observing. It was spectacular viewing at 266X.
I might be back out there again tonight if anyone wants a peek at the Moon or Saturn.
Hey, I'll be pestering you for some advice soon Eric. I have a 900mm Bushnell refractor on order. It's a 5yr service award from the company so I didn't have a lot of options to choose from, but the price is right and I'll have fun with it.
- pradeep
Tom
Tom, Its really hard to tell if there is any difference. The 5D is relatively noise free at these lower speeds. I only really start to notice the noise at 640 and above. Its still very usable though.
FYI, the ISO settings on the 5D with the expanded ISO setting turned on are...
50(L), 100,125,160,200,250,320,400,500,640,800,1000,1250,1600,3200(H)
I'm still wrapping my head around what ISO settings mean for digital, as opposed to the straightforward resolution/sensitivity tradeoff with traditional film. The noise/sensitivity relationship with digital isn't nearly so linear -- plus, I've seen recommendations to simply use an ISO of around 400 on current cameras as a "standard", since there isn't usually a quality incentive to go lower. For those of us shooting long exposures, there's an obvious advangage, of course, but in my mind, I still keep telling myself that 100 is better than 200, for example. That doesn't seem to be the case in terms of image quality anymore.
I'm also a complete newbie on image stabilization. A friend sent me a rather out-there commentary about "throwing away your tripod" and "only idiots will carry tripods". Obviously, I won't be doing that for long exposures, but I basically use a tripod for any shot where I want a quality image. I'll be surprised if image stabilization actually improves on a tripod, though I could see it helping improve WITH a tripod -- e.g., in conditions with wind and vibration. The articles I've read on this aren't really geared toward landscape/nature photography, so I've got more research to do on this front.
Tom
Image stabilization is great for action shots and hand holding, panning on a moving target. Its also really nice to have when you don't want to carry a tripod. You know, family trips, birthdays, etc.
For landscape photography any seasoned photog will tell ya, a stable tripod is a must for the sharpest photos. Especially when stopped down to achieve the greatest depth of field. Plus, as we all know, a tripod can be used for other creative effects like blurring tall grasses in the wind, etc. Yep, gotta have a tripod for sure.
Its now getting the season where we need to head up to Lookout Mountain and camp there overnight and grab some star trails over Mt Hood. I've always wanted that shot. Problem is, that my next 6 weekends are booked. Maybe I can squeeze an overnighter up there. I want to get out and shoot with you again anyway Eric. It's been too long.
Here's that Koi image.