inbigd

Hello

I have a d3200 and I'm trying to take pics of the full moon using a 600mm Sigma mirror lens. I've tried ISO 100, 1/125 and higher ISOs - 200, 400 but image is still out of focus.

I'm sure that I need to get a tripod also but my question is - should I be able to get a good image with the cropped sensor ,this lens and a tripod (once I get one)?

thanks

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

earl_house Loc: Tulsa County, Oklahoma

I am using a Tamron 150-600mm on D7100. Auto focus will get close but not lock onto the moon. I have to manual focus. I have been trying f11 - f16, 125th to 500th with iso of 100 to 400. Setting white balance to sunny. I have not found the best exposure yet.

Hand held with rest over car top

(Download)

With Tripod

(Download)

marty wild Loc: England

Spot focus 1/200 sec F 16 ISO 320 tripod no other light pollution. This is a starting point move around the setting take off all stability setting when your camera is in lock down if you shoot lower than1/80 use a trigger ( lock down is On a tripod! Now then go out there and kick ass. Keep clicking friend 😎
)

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Yes, but it isn't as simple as it may appear, and manual focus is definitely well worth considering. A stable tripod for that rig will not be cheap. Search for Gene51's guidance on tripods. Especially with that kind of gear vibration damping is an issue with a small field of view, and surprisingly the moon moves quite fast so slow shutter speeds can be a problem.

There is a lot of good information to be found on the forum if you search. It will be worth your time I believe.

Many cameras come with creative scene modes like portrait and landscape. I've not yet seen one with 'Moonshot' as an offering, or even one that claims to have a "Looney" setting! :)

Good luck, it is a fun exercise and very rewarding when you nail it.

inbigd

Thanks so much for all of the advice. I really appreciate it and I'll follow it.

Sherman A1 Loc: St. Louis, MO

:thumbup: I too have problems with moon shots. I use the olderSigma 150 - 500mm and they get close to what I see posted many times, but just not exactly. I appreciate you asking this question as I will certainly benefit from this thread. :)

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Go experiment, and keep asking questions.

There are dumb questions in reality, and the dumbest is the one that isn't asked!

Go try, be prepared to fail, tell people what you did or didn't do, and you will get there faster.

Best way to learn is to fail fast, fail often, fail early, don't repeat the same mistakes. But always be prepared to fail, to learn, and get out there and try again...

What you want to do is not as simple as people think. Keep shooting at the Moon until you are satisfied, but do compare your results to those of others. When you can't see the difference you will be in an acceptable place.

marty wild Loc: England

Indeed you will also your 600mm lens will convert to around 900 equivalent on your cropped sensor Nikon

Gitzo Loc: Indiana

You say you're trying to take a shot of the full moon, hand held, with a D 3200 (APS-C sensor ), with a mirror lens, and your pictures aren't "sharp", and will a tripod help?

The short answer I'm afraid, is "not much"; I'll try to explain a few things to you.....(lots of factors happening here )

#1. Because your camera has a less-than full size sensor, any lens that you attach to it will have an effective 1.5X "crop factor"; in other words, any 600 mm lens "magnifies", (makes things appear to be ) 10 times closer (bigger ) on a full-frame camera; with a APS-C (less than full frame ) sensor, 1.5 X 10= 15X.

Have you ever tried to look through a set of 15X binoculars, hand held? (or even 10X for that matter ); if you haven't, don't bother, as you won't be able to see ANYTHING, because hand-holding binoculars, (and cameras ), results in a LOT of shaking, and jiggling around, and in the case of your set-up, it's "shaking around" 15 times as much as it would appear to your "un-aided" human eye balls.

#2. Mirror lenses; without going into a long, drawn-out explanation of optics, I can tell you this; astronomical telescopes have been using the same optical principal as a "mirror lens" for years and years now, for all sorts of very good reasons; along the way, "someone" had the idea that they could use the same "principle" to make a "relatively inexpensive" camera lens; there have even been mirror (or "reflex" ) lenses that cost a considerable sum of money; like all "well-intentioned" but "impractical" ideas, mirror lens never "caught on" and all or the major camera makers quit making them years ago. None have any means of adjusting the aperture being one big problem, plus mirror lenses, (unlike ordinary "refractive" lenses ), correct for NOTHING; (astigmatism, coma, barrel distortion, chromatic aberration, pin cussion, nothing )

Now; look in any astronomy magazine and you'll see dozens of telescope makers offering astronomical telescopes with names like "Schmidt-Cassegrain" and "Maksutov", and "catadioptric" etc etc etc and they all do a superb job of making astronomical images. I rather think that must be why so many people seem to think that mirror lenses would be great for camera lenses, when in actual fact, they make exceedingly POOR camera lenses, for MANY reasons. Listing all of the reasons would result in a VERY long post;

#3. The Full Moon; The full moon is a very poor photographic subject usually, and for many reasons; it gets better when made with a sophisticated, computer-driven astronomical telescope, but not all that much better, mainly because it has no contrast but a LOT of brightness, simply because of the way it's reflecting direct sunlight.

If you happen to be someplace where it's perfectly flat, (like out at sea ) look at the "horizon"; then look at "the zenith" (straight up ); from the horizon to the zenith is 90 degrees "of arc"; now, when the moon is full, it subtends an angular distance of app. 1/2 of a degree of arc; (or about 1/180 th of the distance between the horizon and straight up;) Remember......this is with the naked (or "unaided" ) eye; Now.....if you try to photograph the rising full moon with say, a 600mm lens, and a less than full frame sensor, you're not only "magnifying" it's angular diameter 15 times, you're also "magnifying" it's "movement" 15 times also! Which is why
shots taken of the full moon (or the sun ) must be fairly short exposures; but when you do the same thing with a equatorially mounted and computer driven telescope, this is no longer a problem because the telescope is "driven" to match the earth's rotation, which causes the "subject" (full moon ) to appear to be "standing still" while the exposure is made. (And even then, the very bright full moon is a very poor subject. )

Spend some time looking at some great photography in any really good magazine, (such as Nat Geo ); you will rarely see shots that were made at 12:00 noon, for the very same reason; the lighting is BRIGHT, and it's coming from such an angle that there are no shadows, therefore everything looks "flat" (and "uninteresting" ); exactly like the bright light from a camera mounted speed-light results in "flat light"; almost all subjects look more interesting when shot early am, or late pm; with the moon, the "better shots" are when the moon's phase is first quarter or third quarter.

Also, you're getting "out of focus" mixed up with a "shaky camera" due to lack of stability. Focusing on anything that's app. 250,000 miles distant is easy! just set the lens on "infinity"

Gitzo Loc: Indiana

You say you're trying to take a shot of the full moon, hand held, with a D 3200 (APS-C sensor ), with a mirror lens, and your pictures aren't "sharp", and will a tripod help?

The short answer I'm afraid, is "not much"; I'll try to explain a few things to you.....(lots of factors happening here )

#1. Because your camera has a less-than full size sensor, any lens that you attach to it will have an effective 1.5X "crop factor"; in other words, any 600 mm lens "magnifies", (makes things appear to be ) 10 times closer (bigger ) on a full-frame camera; with a APS-C (less than full frame ) sensor, 1.5 X 10= 15X.

Have you ever tried to look through a set of 15X binoculars, hand held? (or even 10X for that matter ); if you haven't, don't bother, as you won't be able to see ANYTHING, because hand-holding binoculars, (and cameras ), results in a LOT of shaking, and jiggling around, and in the case of your set-up, it's "shaking around" 15 times as much as it would appear to your "un-aided" human eye balls.

#2. Mirror lenses; without going into a long, drawn-out explanation of optics, I can tell you this; astronomical telescopes have been using the same optical principal as a "mirror lens" for years and years now, for all sorts of very good reasons; along the way, "someone" had the idea that they could use the same "principle" to make a "relatively inexpensive" camera lens; there have even been mirror (or "reflex" ) lenses that cost a considerable sum of money; like all "well-intentioned" but "impractical" ideas, mirror lens never "caught on" and all or the major camera makers quit making them years ago. None have any means of adjusting the aperture being one big problem, plus mirror lenses, (unlike ordinary "refractive" lenses ), correct for NOTHING; (astigmatism, coma, barrel distortion, chromatic aberration, pin cussion, nothing )

Now; look in any astronomy magazine and you'll see dozens of telescope makers offering astronomical telescopes with names like "Schmidt-Cassegrain" and "Maksutov", and "catadioptric" etc etc etc and they all do a superb job of making astronomical images. I rather think that must be why so many people seem to think that mirror lenses would be great for camera lenses, when in actual fact, they make exceedingly POOR camera lenses, for MANY reasons. Listing all of the reasons would result in a VERY long post;

#3. The Full Moon; The full moon is a very poor photographic subject usually, and for many reasons; it gets better when made with a sophisticated, computer-driven astronomical telescope, but not all that much better, mainly because it has no contrast but a LOT of brightness, simply because of the way it's reflecting direct sunlight.

If you happen to be someplace where it's perfectly flat, (like out at sea ) look at the "horizon"; then look at "the zenith" (straight up ); from the horizon to the zenith is 90 degrees "of arc"; now, when the moon is full, it subtends an angular distance of app. 1/2 of a degree of arc; (or about 1/180 th of the distance between the horizon and straight up;) Remember......this is with the naked (or "unaided" ) eye; Now.....if you try to photograph the rising full moon with say, a 600mm lens, and a less than full frame sensor, you're not only "magnifying" it's angular diameter 15 times, you're also "magnifying" it's "movement" 15 times also! Which is why
shots taken of the full moon (or the sun ) must be fairly short exposures; but when you do the same thing with a equatorially mounted and computer driven telescope, this is no longer a problem because the telescope is "driven" to match the earth's rotation, which causes the "subject" (full moon ) to appear to be "standing still" while the exposure is made. (And even then, the very bright full moon is a very poor subject. )

Spend some time looking at some great photography in any really good magazine, (such as Nat Geo ); you will rarely see shots that were made at 12:00 noon, for the very same reason; the lighting is BRIGHT, and it's coming from such an angle that there are no shadows, therefore everything looks "flat" (and "uninteresting" ); exactly like the bright light from a camera mounted speed-light results in "flat light"; almost all subjects look more interesting when shot early am, or late pm; with the moon, the "better shots" are when the moon's phase is first quarter or third quarter.

Also, you're getting "out of focus" mixed up with a "shaky camera" due to lack of stability. Focusing on anything that's app. 250,000 miles distant is easy! just set the lens on "infinity"

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

The lens is not great. it is F8, or more accurately F9. If you don't have an outstanding tripod, you can forget about getting crisp images. Remember, the field of view is that of a 900mm lens on a full frame body. That would require the top line Gitzo (Series 5 carbon), or the top Really Right Stuff tripod, and a great stable head to with it.

Shoeless_Photographer Loc: Lexington

Definitely get a tripod, especially with such a long lens!

I use Live View set at 10x and manually focus to get the sharpest image.

Taken with a Canon T3 / Canon 75-300mm set at 300mm.
ISO 200
f/11
1/60

Your shutter speed will vary depending on how clear the sky is, and how much moon is illuminated.

banjonut Loc: Southern Michigan

Once you do get things figured out, yes you should be able to get good moon photos. It still will not fill the frame at 600mm but if you acquire good techniques, you should be able to zoom into the frame to make it more pleasing.

axiesdad Loc: Monticello, Indiana

Thanks for the thread. I've been playing with moon shots too and still haven't got what I want. Several things will help; a tripod (the more solid the better) mirror lock up, remote shutter release, manual focus using live view, bracketing exposures, and some judicious post processing. Do everything right and it's down to how good is the glass; I'm not sure just how sharp a mirror lens can be.