My Handheld Tripod Moonshot: Actually I was checking out my new Nikon TC-17E II (1.7x) which I paired with my 70-200 f/2.8. The old tripod head I was using only tilted up to about 70...

Raz Theo Loc: Music City

Actually I was checking out my new Nikon TC-17E II (1.7x) which I paired with my 70-200 f/2.8. The old tripod head I was using only tilted up to about 70 degrees and with scudding clouds fighting me and moonrise quickly reaching its apex, time was a'wasting. So I had to physically tilt/handhold the tripod to get the shot, thinking this durn 1.7 better be worth it.
I had read a bunch of mixed reviews but as far as this one shot for me, I think it was worth it. What do you think? And do you think a gimbal head would solve my vertical inadequacy? Thanks for any comments.

(Download)

Bill 45

Great picture from using just handhold the tripod. I got my moon shoot with a Sony DSC-H1 and with the lens all the way out (432 mm by film lens). I had time to set up a tripod open bedroom window and set camera on self timer end up with two pictures.

CWGordon

Pretty sharp image. That 200 matched up pretty darn well with the extender. Nice shot.

Toment Loc: FL, IL

Nice image. Notice the relief on the lower edge of the moon and how it seems to be sharper than the center surface. Did u see a pink tinge to the moon. I added pink in post, heh heh 😏

Raz Theo Loc: Music City

Bill 45 wrote:

Great picture from using just handhold the tripod. I got my moon shoot with a Sony DSC-H1 and with the lens all the way out (432 mm by film lens). I had time to set up a tripod open bedroom window and set camera on self timer end up with two pictures.

Hey Bill, that sounds like a real challenge - a lot of moving parts. But the timer is something I might try.
Thanks

Raz Theo Loc: Music City

CWGordon wrote:

Pretty sharp image. That 200 matched up pretty darn well with the extender. Nice shot.

Yes. And that surprised me too. Of course the final shot posted is about a 50% crop.
Thanks for the comment.

Raz Theo Loc: Music City

Toment wrote:

Nice image. Notice the relief on the lower edge of the moon and how it seems to be sharper than the center surface. Did u see a pink tinge to the moon. I added pink in post, heh heh 😏

Toment, yes I did notice and it's puzzling. It just may be that our view of the moon is a flat plane but the edges show a bit more contour/depth. As far as the pink tinge, all I did was add a slight bit of saturation. However, pink might have been nicer

Thanks.

Toment Loc: FL, IL

It is 👍

Dr.Nikon Loc: Honolulu Hawaii

Raz Theo wrote:

Actually I was checking out my new Nikon TC-17E II... (show quote)

Actually the gimbal will add about a ft to the height ..., the 70-200 with a 1.7 was not bad ..the hue around the moon was due to your processing ..., the setup really requires everything to be perfect ..sturdy tripod..electronic SHutter ..mirror up ...no clouds ..no wind ..shooting from a dark area ..high altitude.., say 8,000 ft in the mountains ..and usually a 500mm lens or equiv.., unless ...and I say again ..unless you are Regis ...Hand held ..perfect lens and one heck of a camera 54 megapixels ...

Raz Theo Loc: Music City

Dr.Nikon wrote:

Actually the gimbal will add about a ft to the hei... (show quote)

Thanks Dr. Bob, I appreciate the comments. When I mentioned improving my "verticality" I wasn't referring to the height of the tripod/head. I was asking if a gimbal head inherently allows more camera tilt. That was my predicament: the moon had risen higher than I planned and my old Serui ball head wouldn't allow the shot without leaning the whole rig back probably 15 degrees. But overall all I really wanted to accomplish was to determine if the TC-III married to the 70-200 was going to help me out from time to time.
Thanks
RT (I've replied to your PM)

John N Loc: HP14 3QF Stokenchurch, UK

Try a ballhead first. At 1.62m I find a tripod with ballhead very useful. A little fiddling with the lock nut and the friction nut will result in a smooth movement (but not as good as a gimbal). Larger diameter ballheads work better than small ones.

alberio Loc: Casa Grande AZ

Toment wrote:

Nice image. Notice the relief on the lower edge of the moon and how it seems to be sharper than the center surface. Did u see a pink tinge to the moon. I added pink in post, heh heh 😏

I believe the edges would be further away than the center, resulting in a focus issue.

Raz Theo Loc: Music City

alberio wrote:

I believe the edges would be further away than the center, resulting in a focus issue.

Alberio, you have a point, even though it's hard to think of that kind of depth when viewing an object like the moon from a quarter million miles away. I shoot a D7500 and I've been impressed with its focal system but it's hard to think about infinity not being quite infinity.
My head hurts but I appreciate the comment.
Thanks,
RT

Saycheeze Loc: Ct

I do my moon shots with a gimbal. Works quite well. Ball head would be my second choice.
I think you did a good job working around your issues and got a nice shot

Raz Theo Loc: Music City

John N wrote:

Try a ballhead first. At 1.62m I find a tripod with ballhead very useful. A little fiddling with the lock nut and the friction nut will result in a smooth movement (but not as good as a gimbal). Larger diameter ballheads work better than small ones.

John, first thanks for helping me identify my underlying issue ("growing old disgracefully") and thanks for the advice. I currently shoot with a Surai ball head but it's apparently not up to the total weight of a 70-200, a TC and a camera body, let alone something like a 300mm to 500mm lens. So I need more flexibility (for birding and moon shots). Since I'm such a greenhorn in some areas, I just want to get advice on the viability of a gimbal.
RT