Help with camera lenses and setting for May 15 lunar eclipse.
Orphoto wrote:
I disagree with sidewalk. Don't autofocus on the moon. My preference is live view focussing on brighter stars.
Focus on moon while it is fully lit put lens switched to manual and tape the lens so it won’t refocus
JBRIII wrote:
I saw one in the 80's where the moon literally all but vanished. Totality was long so moon was probably dead centered in earth's shadow. On the other end, was one maybe 6 yrs ago where totality was 1 min and ended as the sun rose. While it was total theoritical, a small spot was lite and moved around. I figured due to refraction of the sun coming up vitually as the moon sat. As you said, they vary greatly.
Sorry lunar eclipses never just last a minute. Maybe it started just as it was setting in your area
Judy795 wrote:
I just saw I am in a direct path of the lunar eclipse. The path looks like it will take it south of our local pier on the Gulf of Mexico.
I have not let had success shooting these so asking for help. What lenses and settings to use.
I have a Nikon D 750, good in low light. I also have a Nikon D500. My f/2.8 lens is a 24-70, then I have 70-200 f/4, 85 f/.1.8, then the 200-500 f/5.6 and the 500 PF 5.6 and I have two tripods so I could do two cameras.
My wish list: large pink moon over pier ( probably several shots stacked)
rising moon going through the eclipse
And clear weather.
Attached is the location
Thanks
I just saw I am in a direct path of the lunar ecli... (
show quote)
You've lots of advice on the mechanics of getting a moon/eclipse shot and have an idea how those multiple image components might fit into your final image- that's all good. From an artist's perspective (no, I'm not an artist) it is very helpful to sketch out what you want that final image to look like. Of course it doesn't matter much where you stand when shooting the moon, but including the pier will certainly reduce your options. Yes, if the final image is a composite, the pier may be photographed separately but keeping moon and shadows properly aligned might be a challenge. Drawing the scene - pre-visualizing- may generate other compositional possibilities and different ideas. I'd be good to have those ideas worked out before the eclipse starts... just sayin'.....
Sidwalkastronomy wrote:
Sorry lunar eclipses never just last a minute. Maybe it started just as it was setting in your area
Certainly totality can be very short, if the moon passes just through the edge of the shadow. Just like it can not occur at all.
larryepage wrote:
Certainly totality can be very short, if the moon passes just through the edge of the shadow. Just like it can not occur at all.
Then that's not a total lunar eclipse it's a partial eclipse and moon might not be that red at all. A total lunar eclipse is hours long if your not in the rising or setting area.
The solar eclipse in 2017 total was 2 minutes 30 seconds from my location. Lunar eclipse are always much longer
billnikon wrote:
D500, 500 PF, 1/iso @ f16.
Bad advice !!!
Major underexposure for an eclipse.
So I have decided to try to photograph the eclipse from my dark back yard using my Nikon D500 and my 500 PF. Mostly because the moon will be very high above the pier. A low light camera group is going to a preserve an hour away from me but I don’t want to drive home that early in the morning. This can be a dry run for the eclipse in early November.
Ran a few shots f:4.0 @ 1/15, ISO 4500, 9000, and 12800.
At very near totality all looked good aesthetically. At 4500 I lost most of the stars. At 12800 a thin edge of the moon was white. 9000 was the Goldilocks, plenty of stars and the moon was juuuuuust right.
There had been brief storms in the afternoon so the air was quite clear.
I was just curious about the exposure. The pix, aesthetically, are not especially interesting, simply documents of an "event" that has happened hundreds of millions of times and will continue that long going forward (but with no humans recording it).
OTOH it did prove that Nikons IBIS can consistently record sharp stars at 1/15 with a handheld 200mm. Pixel peeping shows them round, not oval. Way cool !
billnikon wrote:
D500, 500 PF, 1/iso @ f16.
If you really want that f:16 youll need a full second at around ISO 9000 (just ran a real world test). 1/iso would be 1/9000 sec ... looooong way from 1/1 sec :-(
UHH is a rather "interesting" resource.
No joy here. Overcast and thunderstorms.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.