I'm just teasing guys.
I enjoy all sorts of photography and the moon is the most challenging.
Clearly not much of a composition though

The big thing about the moon is you can compare your efforts directly with everyone else as it's the same subject for all of us
If you're one of those to poopoo it, perhaps you're not getting the results you would like

I think the trick is to get the moon into the middle of your lens and set the aperture to the lens' sweet spot usually closed down a stop or two from wide open. In my case f5.6 is the best resolution. Then experiment with the shutter speed starting with 100th. You need to meter for those white spots and get as much tonal variation as poss.

Because the end result is always viewed at 100 percent, it's a technical challenge getting a nice blur-free shot, and getting a good clean, noise-free image is the best sharpening practice you'll ever get; if you can show the colours of the minerals in the surface, even better! then you're going to be hooked.
I feel like I'm almost happy within the constraints of my kit, but not quite! Time to go to the Atlas mountains or somewhere, to get that last 10 percent

I routinely shoot at 100th, f5.6 ish with mirror up.
Not sure if that's too slow, but I'm trying to avoid noise as that drives me up the wall with moon shots
You shot is good Billywhizz, nice and naturally sharp. Got a bit of a pink cast on the left half?

Contrast can be corrected, but you can only pretend to remove softness by increasing the micro-contrast. The image is still soft.
And don't forget, if you have to sharpen your image in post then you will be sharpening the noise, which will already be significant with the soft lenses which are also slow
Same goes for anti-aliasing filters - sharper image at source = less noise after processing (a benefit that no-one seems to have picked up on).

The DA*300 is a stunner and I can't bare to part with it, but I spend a lot of time running around trying to get back far enough, quite often, I can't.
A zoom will solve that and also show you which focal length you use most often so your next purchase can be an informed one.
Sharpening in post? pah, if your lens is soft or has poor resolution, you're stuffed.

I would say the one thing this forum lacks is artistry. I'm guilty of this myself.
Lots of great technique and lovely realistic representations everywhere, but very little real pizzazz!
So bring on the shocking 'HDRs' the photo manipulations, the graphic and illustrative work - maybe we need a new category for it
The OPs image would be considered very natural in this new category.

Ah yes, the poor art college Pentax and labs full of murky developer. No wonder all my prints are yellow now.
Welcome trashyPauline

I had a play with the eyepiece last night. Moon looks awesome with the DA*300 but the Centor 500 mirror is a little too strong and the quality from the 300 more than makes up for the size penalty.
The tripod mount on the eyepiece is very flimsy, making the 500 without its own mount really prone to vibration.
Around the house I often need to look closely at things and in this respect it is awesome! my 35 macro is perfect and bizarrely the fisheye too - it gets really close still, but the wide angle makes finding tiny things a cinch.

I think the best combination for general viewing like a pair binoculars, is the 100mm macro - small and light and easy to hold still - perfect for general scanning of birds etc. and gets in super-close for checking out the macro world

Fun, but if you have a pair of binoculars already I wouldn't bother.

This lens is one of those game-changers. Small enough to go everywhere and capable of producing beautiful images, with that high-end, 'full-frame' quality.
love mine