Moon pictures

My neighbour had her reflector telescope up in the garden last night in preparation for a Moon/Saturn thing she was getting all excited about.

Expecting not very much, I stuck my K10D on the eyepiece and was surprised at the clarity and detail I could see. I snapped a few pictures:




There are more at the link in the sig.

I am now looking for a T-ring adapter so I can do the job properly. Can I find one? If anyone knows of any for sale, I'd be interested. Thanks.

If it's clear tomorrow night you need to get together with your neighbour for the eclipse!

I was reasonably pleased with this moon shot - K10D plus 50-200.




Hand-held, F11 and 1/40. I live in North London and the back of my flat (from where this was taken) overlooks a floodlit car park, so planets, the moon and the brightest stars are all I can usually see.

And yes, I'll be out there tomorrow for the lunar eclipse, assuming it's not cloudy.

SRB have a wide range of adapters and connectors http://www.srbfilm.co.uk

I got all my gear for attaching my cameras to telecopes from David Hinds

http://www.celestron.uk.com/catalogues/browse_content.asp?catalogueID=272&pa...

"moon pictures"

must resist....
The temptation.....
The jokes are trying to get out....
must keep pants on....................

I will not post any moon pics without consulting my therapist...I promised...
after the last incident...that we must never speak of....

Don,

See you on the dark side......

Mike

Try typing digiscoping in Google-
I think Ace Cameras do a good range of bits.
Good luck.
I tried capturing the eclipse with my K10D and Tamron 75-300 tele.obviously tripod mounted.
Very hazy results and kept getting aan adjacent spurious image of a crescent moon. (mind you, so did my pal with his NikonD80 kit)

Neil

The best I could manage of the eclipse was this:




K10D + 50-200. Tripod mounted (but just my el cheapo Jessop's tripod). I'd also under-exposed a bit and had to bump it up in ACR. Still, an educational experience and I'll be back next year for the next one.

The photo was no differtent to my results with same set-up.
If you have a look at the Times website and look at their portfolio of the eclipse, you will see that all shots suffer from the hazy out of focus look, which I think is due to atmospheric interference and not focusing errors-at least I hope not!!

Neil

Peetle's post isn't hazy or out of focus and that was taken the same way. Also, the view of the moon through my neighbours reflector telescope was extremely crisp and clear. That would be going through the same atmosphere .

Although, I wonder if city (dirty atmosphere) and country (not so dirty atmosphere) makes a difference.

A spurious crescent moon could be a reflection within the lens due to flare. If that's the case only very careful changes in viewpoint could have any hope of eliminating it.

The moon moves very quickly, so subject movement can reduce sharpness. Also, as neil says, atmospheric conditions can cause major problems.

The best place for astronomical photography will be out in deserted areas where there is no light pollution from the city.

The Isle of Arran would be good, and probably lots of other places in Scotland as well.

Peetles problem is caused by movement, this is clearly evident in the stars.

Mine were all the same. All part of the learning curve, I'll be ready next time.

More by accident than design, I applied the rule of 600 to my eclipse shot - divide 600 by your focal length to get the longest exposure in seconds that can be made without obvious star trails. I used my 50-200 zoom, at 200, and with a 3 second exposure. Plus tripod, mirror lock-up and noise-reduction (which I think is dark frame subtraction in the K10D).

Also, a friend of mine down in Surrey took an almost identical shot, with identical blurring/star trails with her C*non D30 (not sure what lens). So it could be that we just didn't have particularly good seeing that night. My shot is a 100% crop too, which is always fairly unforgiving.

Next time is Feb 21st 2008, but at 3 am. I'll be having another go, and hopefully I'll have learned the K10D a bit more by then.

Was the rule of 600 devised for 35mm photography? If so, you'll need to increase it to 900 because of the narrower field of view with DSLR sensors.

Dan

EDIT: Just read what the rule actually is, and realised that I should have said "decrease it to 400"!