Post your uncropped sun/moon shots with foc. lngth

01/08/2012 01:09:43 PM · #1

I am in the very early stages of planning a trip to shoot the annular solar eclipse on May 20th. Instead of looking for the classic (but boring) shot where the sun fills the entire frame, I would like to try to capture the sun in context with a landscape. One key aspect is deciding how "big" to have the sun. This is, of course, decided by your focal length. And your focal length will determine how close to the horizon the sun needs to be to fit in the shot. How close the sun needs to be will determine the rough location of where I would want to shoot.

So post your pictures of the sun or moon uncropped with the focal length used and we can see how the sun appears. I guess you would also want to mention the crop factor of your camera. Tis will be very helpful to me and anybody else wanting to shoot something similar.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS II USM Lens

01/08/2012 01:36:57 PM · #2

Here you go...
Sun @ 800mm (10-stop ND):

Sun @ 400mm:

ETA: I'm not sure if the brightness of the annulus will make the corona invisible, but I'd think that even 400mm is going to be a little much. 200mm might be appropriate if the corona is visible, perhaps 300mm or 400mm if not.

Here's the other end of the FL range:
Sun @ 70mm:

Moon @ 24mm:

It's surprising that the sun still has a pretty large disk even at 70mm.

Message edited by author 2012-01-08 15:59:09.

MelonMusketeer

Nikon D7000

Nikon MF 50mm f/1.4

01/08/2012 01:37:04 PM · #3

Details and original uncropped image is with this one. All my cams are crop sensor.

Unedited, at 135mm.

2,500 mm.

400mm.

Shot with two differend focal lengths. The moon was shot at 300mm, the lake at 70, so the scale is not as you would expect, but the moon is the right size in the frame for the 300mm on a cropped sensor.

I don't shoot the sun very often. Most of my sunsets are actually afterglow, about 20 minutes after sunset.

Message edited by author 2012-01-08 14:06:28.

hahn23

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

01/08/2012 01:46:05 PM · #4

Full size sensor. 200mm lens.

NiallOTuama

Google Pixel 2

01/08/2012 02:12:15 PM · #5

No idea of the focal length... maybe 1500? Home made attachment on my dads telescope and there was a lens between

bvy

Sigma DP1x

01/08/2012 02:16:33 PM · #6

No horizon, but the tree might give you some scale. It's a sprawling silver maple in my backyard, and I was right under it. This was taken with my Olympus E-520 with the kit 14-42mm lens. This was taken at 14mm (28mm eq.), no crop.

Of course I don't need to tell you that aperture is another variable affecting the size of the sun in the frame.

ETA: I should have said aperture affects the "perceived" size of the sun in the frame, since stopping down typically renders a nicely defined starburst, while going wide open produces a fuller, rounder but more washed-out sun.

Message edited by author 2012-01-08 14:47:31.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/08/2012 02:23:10 PM · #7

Originally posted by NiallOTuama:

No idea of the focal length... maybe 1500? Home made attachment on my dads telescope and there was a lens between

Your AoV was about 0.6Â° or a little more horizontally, so equivalent to about 3200mm in 35mm terms. Because you were using a 1.5x crop body, the actual focal length of the optical system was probably in the range of 2100mm

PGerst

Canon EOS-20D

01/08/2012 03:04:46 PM · #8

Hi Jason,

Go to Spaceweather. They have some EXCELLENT photos of eclipses you can look at. Here are some direct links to photos that have been submitted. Most photographers put a description of how they took them.

Solar - Jan 4, 2011
Lunar - Dec 10, 2011
Solar - July 22, 2009

Message edited by author 2012-01-08 15:04:53.

NiallOTuama

Google Pixel 2

01/08/2012 03:28:49 PM · #9

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by NiallOTuama:
No idea of the focal length... maybe 1500? Home made attachment on my dads telescope and there was a lens between

Your AoV was about 0.6Â° or a little more horizontally, so equivalent to about 3200mm in 35mm terms. Because you were using a 1.5x crop body, the actual focal length of the optical system was probably in the range of 2100mm

Thanks :-)

01/08/2012 05:04:35 PM · #10

Thanks guys. This is very helpful. My initial impression is that I want to keep it between 70mm and 200mm.

01/08/2012 05:06:20 PM · #11

Originally posted by hahn23:

Full size sensor. 200mm lens.

I see you posted the exact time. Can you tell me where it was shot so I can use The Photographer's ephemeris to see how many degrees above the horizon the moon was?

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS II USM Lens

01/08/2012 05:08:49 PM · #12

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by hahn23:

Full size sensor. 200mm lens.

I see you posted the exact time. Can you tell me where it was shot so I can use The Photographer's ephemeris to see how many degrees above the horizon the moon was?

About 2.5 degrees above the mountains. One moon diameter is almost exactly 1/2 degree. An ephemeris will give a larger number, because the "horizon" is well below the mountain tops.

Message edited by author 2012-01-08 17:09:36.

hahn23

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

01/08/2012 05:24:01 PM · #13

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by hahn23:

Full size sensor. 200mm lens.

I see you posted the exact time. Can you tell me where it was shot so I can use The Photographer's ephemeris to see how many degrees above the horizon the moon was?

About 2.5 degrees above the mountains. One moon diameter is almost exactly 1/2 degree. An ephemeris will give a larger number, because the "horizon" is well below the mountain tops.

I was two miles SE of Walden, CO.

jomari

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S DX 18-105 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR

01/08/2012 06:07:42 PM · #14

Uncropped. Moon and sun shot with same camera, same focal length of 100mm, same time, 9.16a.m. Obviously different directions so it doesn't even look like the same day.

FourPointX

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/08/2012 06:17:42 PM · #15

tonight's moonrise uncropped 33mm equiv.

01/08/2012 06:21:49 PM · #16

Originally posted by FourPointX:

tonight's moonrise uncropped 33mm equiv.

Do you mean 330mm equivalent?

FourPointX

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/08/2012 06:24:02 PM · #17

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by FourPointX:
tonight's moonrise uncropped 33mm equiv.

Do you mean 330mm equivalent?

it's a point and shoot 5-100mm the exif reads 33.7mm?

01/08/2012 07:39:56 PM · #18

Originally posted by kirbic:

TPE says about 3.5 degrees at the time of the shot. I guess there are a number of factors including the elevation of the camera.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS II USM Lens

01/08/2012 07:52:45 PM · #19

Hmmm, well even in Albuquerque, which is fairly far east on the path, the sun is at 5 degrees. I guess another option is to shoot into mountains like Hahn has done. I haven't really looked at Bryce canyon yet, but the eclipse is at 11 degrees elevation there.

hahn23

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

01/08/2012 08:57:36 PM · #20

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by hahn23:

Full size sensor. 200mm lens.

I see you posted the exact time. Can you tell me where it was shot so I can use The Photographer's ephemeris to see how many degrees above the horizon the moon was?

About 2.5 degrees above the mountains. One moon diameter is almost exactly 1/2 degree. An ephemeris will give a larger number, because the "horizon" is well below the mountain tops.

TPE says about 3.5 degrees at the time of the shot. I guess there are a number of factors including the elevation of the camera.

Yeah, that's important. I was at the highest ridge elevation in the valley.... on purpose. I thought this through. I knew it was going to be a tight fit to the mountain ridge vis-a-vis the literal horizon. Furthermore, had I stayed in the Estes Park valley, the moon would have set on the continental divide before there was recordable light on the mountains. The ephemeris tools are really helpful for previewing the location of the celestial object prior to real time. Thanks to the ancient mathematicians who did the early calculations.

Specifically, had I journeyed down to the Walden, CO elevation, the eclipsing moon would be setting (or below) the mountain ridge. Although, it would have been still above the horizon. Distance and elevation matter. It's a surveyors mathematical calculation.

Message edited by author 2012-01-08 21:21:28.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/08/2012 09:43:17 PM · #21

My camera supposedly has a maximum focal length of 436mm -- I have been assuming that this is a 35mm full-frame equivalent and incorporates the crop factor.

 436mm     436mm     147mm

01/08/2012 10:44:19 PM · #22

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I've been looking at flying into Vegas (about $300 round trip for me on those dates), then driving up to UT. Would be only about 170 miles, and would give a little more elevation during the annular portion.

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

01/08/2012 11:22:14 PM · #23

Another thing to think of is apparently this is a large ring as the moon is two days from it's farthest point from earth. 87% of the sun will be covered which leaves 13%. I assume HDR will be involved, but I wonder about blending a landscape with a shot using the 9-stop ND filter. Could be difficult.

spiritualspatula

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/09/2012 03:12:16 PM · #24

Hey Jason, I went out this morning and shot one just for you. It's of horrible quality because I was handholding and in a hurry, but here it is.

@200mm on a 1.5 crop body

If you want, I can give you any focal length between 50 and 500 on the 1.5 crop body, using my Bigma tomorrow morning. No problem for me, just reply here.
This first one I posted was taken in Hayden, CO, facing the front of some large hills they call the Cogs.
The one I would take tomorrow morning would be taken from Loveland, CO, facing the Front Range of the Rockies.