| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/01/2004 04:30:43 PM · #1 |
| Is there a scientific explanation as to why the moon is always smaller in photographs than it looks to the naked eye? I have tried a few times to take pictures of the moon without sucess. |
|
|
|
01/01/2004 04:33:46 PM · #2 |
Because the photo isn't life-size?
|
|
|
|
01/01/2004 04:35:05 PM · #3 |
|
|
|
01/01/2004 04:52:05 PM · #4 |
optical illusion. like when it looks bigger the closer to the horizon. it creates a relationship to the size compared to the earth. without this comparison it looks smaller. not scientific, but an explanation.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2004 04:59:30 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by robsmith:
Because the photo isn't life-size? |
ROFL!
|
|
|
|
01/01/2004 05:01:56 PM · #6 |
| Yes i did laugh to, but i don`t think thats what he meant. Well i hope not :) |
|
|
|
01/01/2004 05:12:20 PM · #7 |
| faidoi - that's a very good article. (Shooting the Moon) There's lots to learn at this website. Thanks. |
|
|
|
01/01/2004 05:54:48 PM · #8 |
It looks big enough to me...Full frame shot, no cropping.
Nikkor 1,000mm F11.0 catadioptric lens with a Nikkor x2 convertor on a Nikon D1x camera.
Tip: Do not shoot a full moon, for better results shoot a half or three-quarters moon.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2004 05:56:31 PM · #9 |
Funny but true.
Originally posted by robsmith:
Because the photo isn't life-size? |
|
|
|
|
01/01/2004 06:05:06 PM · #10 |
you will need more zoom to capture the moon. for your camera there are several things you can do, but the goodies can start to add up.
here is one method I use and its very versitle and can be a low cost setup if search for a low price. I paid $189 for it earlier in 2003. I also bought the tripod that went with it as well and that was about $120
Celestron 80 mm Spotting scope
also check out Scopetronics Digital Camera Adapters
Scopetronics
James
Message edited by author 2004-01-01 18:07:59. |
|
|
|
01/01/2004 06:54:52 PM · #11 |
Here's one I shot yesterday evening around sunset. Nothing at all to compare to Morgan's beauty, but I was shooting at 400mm (640mm effective), he was at 2000mm (3000mm effective). I also shot this handheld. This is actually a 720x720 px crop out of the original 3072x2048 image.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2004 07:07:24 PM · #12 |
|
|
|
01/01/2004 07:16:12 PM · #13 |
Hey Morgan, I like shooting them in all aspects, even full as this one. Through my spotting scope with Coolpix 990 at 20x+ (Camera zoom at about 3x) Van
 |
|
|
|
01/01/2004 07:20:13 PM · #14 |
|
|
|
01/01/2004 07:21:33 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by didnthaveacamera:
Is there a scientific explanation as to why the moon is always smaller in photographs than it looks to the naked eye? I have tried a few times to take pictures of the moon without sucess. |
One of the better articles on the subject:
The Moon Illusion Explained |
|
|
|
01/01/2004 09:37:17 PM · #16 |
| Its a shame we all don`t have deep pockets like Morgan, Is it a camera he has or an observatory,LOL!Great picture! |
|
|
|
01/01/2004 10:25:30 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Dim7:
Its a shame we all don`t have deep pockets like Morgan, Is it a camera he has or an observatory,LOL!Great picture! |
Actually, it was not as expensive as you might have thought. The lens was offered for sale as a "used" lens. It did not sell quickly. I waited and waited for the price to drop to the level that I was willing to pay (less than $1000). It was reduced three times - $1450, $1250, $1100. Then, the store put it on eBay and it sold for double the price offered in the store ($2200). So much for the bargains of eBay.
I told the retailer to see if they could find me another one. They did, and it was less then my previous offer ($860)! Needless to say, there is little practical use for a 1,000mm lens. But, it is a great lens when a subject is far off in the distance, like the moon.
I plan to take it up in the CN Tower (1,860 feet) here in Toronto and see if I can capture an interesting image of the mist off of Niagara Falls or perhaps the skyline of the city of Buffalo, New York. Both are about a two hour drive from Toronto around Lake Ontario, but it is just about 40 miles straight across the water, so it might work OK?
Note: All prices are in Canadian dollars $1.00 US equals $1.29 CDN. So, $1,000 CDN is about $772 US.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2004 10:31:41 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
Hey Morgan, I like shooting them in all aspects, even full as this one. Through my spotting scope with Coolpix 990 at 20x+ (Camera zoom at about 3x) Van
|
Very cool image, thank you for sharing it.
You are right, you can shoot a full moon with good results. But, it is my opinion that the reflective sunlight is much more directional than with a partially illuminated moon and tends to flatten the craters and mountains of the surface.
With a 1/2 or 3/4 moon, the shadows cast seem to create more dimension on the surface and the result is a much more dramatic effect.
You have a great camera set-up to try it yourself and see if it is better or not. Please share your results, if you do try it.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2004 11:11:40 PM · #19 |
| Too cool Morgan. It sure pays to be a good shopper dosn`t it! |
|
|
|
01/02/2004 12:28:33 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by Dim7:
Too cool Morgan. It sure pays to be a good shopper dosn`t it! |
Yes it does. I'm currently playing the same "waiting game" with an 8" (200mm) f/10 telescope (2000mm focal length) that would be effectively 3200mm @ f/10 on my 10D. I may be able to snag it for under $500 US. With a 0.63x "focal reducer" it would become a 1260mm (2016mm effective) f/6.3 lens (!)
|
|
|
|
01/02/2004 07:38:47 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Dim7:
Too cool Morgan. It sure pays to be a good shopper dosn`t it! |
Yes it does. I'm currently playing the same "waiting game" with an 8" (200mm) f/10 telescope (2000mm focal length) that would be effectively 3200mm @ f/10 on my 10D. I may be able to snag it for under $500 US. With a 0.63x "focal reducer" it would become a 1260mm (2016mm effective) f/6.3 lens (!) |
Patience is a virtual. It is also a powerful tool for potentially saving a few dollars. This is the best time of the year for deals on camera equipment - post of the wild and crazy Christmas selling season and pre the PMA show. January and February will yield the prices you want if have patience and an awareness of a fair price.
Best of luck on the telescope. I have always wanted one too. Saturn was at is closest point the earth in the past 30 years on New Year's Eve and I still did not have the optical horsepower to capture a suitable image. Perhaps, some day...
|
|
|
|
01/02/2004 08:13:53 AM · #22 |
Just gave this a try, and can;t seem to get any real sharpness on the front face...
using sigma50-500 and a sigma 2x.
so 1000mm (1600mm effective)
it fills 1/3 frame
I've tried front focusing but the face is still all blurred.
shot at f13, 1000mm, iso1600, 1/250
does the moon have different surfaces that can be seen, or what?
kinda confused.
 |
|
|
|
01/02/2004 09:10:49 AM · #23 |
Here is your image back again after a bit of processing work in Photoshop. I just adjusted the levels, contrast, colour, and sharpness. Perhaps, I went overboard on the sharpness. But, as you can see, you do have a nice image here.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2004 09:14:57 AM · #24 |
Hey Andrew, is it not interesting to compare your moon shot to mine (my original image posted on New Year's Day)? Look where the major crater - Tyco - is located. I am in Canada and you are in Australia, so they appear to be on opposite ends of the moon.
So, the question of the day is - is your image upside down or is mine? Is Australia upside down or is Canada? I wonder????
Cheers, Michael
Message edited by author 2004-01-02 09:16:05.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2004 09:58:44 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by Morgan:
Hey Andrew, is it not interesting to compare your moon shot to mine (my original image posted on New Year's Day)? Look where the major crater - Tyco - is located. I am in Canada and you are in Australia, so they appear to be on opposite ends of the moon.
So, the question of the day is - is your image upside down or is mine? Is Australia upside down or is Canada? I wonder????
Cheers, Michael |
Once you figure that one out, I'm curious to know what it looks like from a country near the equator. Sideways? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/10/2025 02:29:48 AM EDT.
