Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Well said. My concern would be how do they learn "relationships of aperture, shutter and ISO." I guess we just keep suggesting ol' Bryan's book!

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

To me, this exposure, using the value for sunlight here on earth produces a more realistic view of the moon. The "Loony 11" rule seems to result in a lighter image which is perhaps more artistically recognizable to more people. There is a place for both. I just generally think the realistic view results in more interesting detail.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Thoughtful, valuable input - thanks again!

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Sunny 16 does not preclude the use of a wider aperture.

I mentioned earlier, "... at ISO 400, instead of 1/400 @ f/16 we can open the aperture three stops to f/5.6 and increase the shutter speed three stops to 1/3200. It's the same Sunny 16 exposure and you can hand-hold a fairly long focal length lens. Loonie 11 can use the same ISO 400 1/1600 at f/5.6 which is still a pretty fast shutter speed."

BebuLamar

The Sunny 16 describes a light level so instead of saying LV 14.7 or saying the illumination is 66,540 lux. So I agree with you it doesn't say that you have to use f/16 but rather any combination that gives the same exposure.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Exactly! But Sunny 16 sure is easier to remember and apply.

Mention LV or Lux and you’ve got a lot of ‘splainin to do.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Yes, my point though is not realistic but get something besides a white disk. From the loony 11 or happy 22 or whatever gives you the look and feel that you want. Experimentation to your taste.I like more salt and pepper than many it is not right or wrong just it is how I like it. Same with a photo for personal use.

Hammer Loc: London UK

My head has been hurting over diffraction as well. It seems that for the high mega pixel cameras , like the Nikon D850 diffraction sets in early about about f5.6 to f8. However , because the high pixel count gives more detail you can end up with more detail from a diffracted D850 image than from an non diffracted image on a lower pixel count camera because you are starting with less detail. The is a video on the Tony Northrup site, I believe.

These aspirin are costing me a fortune !

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Considering Bob has given us an excellent download image, I will record his excellent settings and image. Unless there is a major hit on the moon by a just missed the earth comet the surface of the moon will not change for one hundred thousand years.

Lindas List: (Thank you Linda for bringing up a subject full of lessons ... and no Astro-equipment is not necessary. Tho a home built 90" telescope would be nice )
1, Depth of field is not relevant if you are shooting just the moon itself. I could joke about the Flat Earth Society extended to the moon... but she is right from our point of view DOF is irrelivant.
2, Shutter speed is relevant because the moon is moving and you or your camera may be also. Yep, but at 1/500 camera shake and moon motion are irrelevant .... reminds me of the Movie "The Earth Stood Still." I never use a tripod.. [ok very rarely such as long exposures with ND filter or holding slave flash]
3, ISO is relevant because many cameras produce better quality images .... Yes, Linda but much less as cameras and edit-ware improve.

I recall reading a long time ago that the moon is to be treated as a daylight image. Bob's settings are daylight values. I was surprised at an IR image of the moon that I took, the dark is not dark it has a glow. " That pale glow on the unlit part of a crescent moon is light reflected from Earth. It’s called earthshine."
https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/what-is-earthshine

JessM Loc: Port

Another "rule" is the "moony 11" https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/29654249
Worked pretty well for me on the Olympic Peninsula. I need to try it here in Central FL -- sometimes the air here is so clear, it's scary. …. 73... ~jessM

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

It's been a couple of months but regarding the issue of diffraction and the pixels. It discussed that cameras that get away with no AA filter are counting on things like the quality of the lens and diffraction to smooth out morie so it is not a problem. That the lenses themselves act as the filter as they have aberrations etc that allow the manufacturer to get away with no filter.
Then they discussed other issues about not having the filter that I found quite interesting that yes you had sharp pixels but failures in other areas and thus negate the the pixel sharpness and discussed that in real world use pixel peeping was something people with too much time on their hands did as you don't see pixels in real life even when enlarging and viewing at a realistic distance.
It was just a good paper on the pros and cons of no AA filter and I came away with the realization that it is necessary for top drawer equipment with premium lenses.to get the most out of the image. I guess that is why all manufacturers still use the AA filter on much of their equipment including the Z6 for those who understand the need.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

This article quotes Nikon's official release to say that there is no AA filter in either camera:

"Primary Features of the Z7 and Z6

Equipped with a new backside illumination Nikon FX-format CMOS sensor with focal-plane phase-detection AF pixels
A backside illumination CMOS sensor without an Optical Low Pass Filter, with focal-plane phase-detection AF pixels, has been adopted for both the Z7 and the Z6. ..."

But some other articles suggest that the Z6 has an AA filter.

Moire is an occasional problem when shooting fabrics or other man-made stuff. The loss of resolution from an AA filter is not worth it to cure a problem that hardly ever occurs in nature.

Haydon

Have to agree with that. Canon has been exceptionally slow in removing the AA filter in their camera lineup. The only one to date has been the 5DsR I believe. I understand the importance of having that option but for many it's a small consideration in its usefulness in only a small percentage of subject matter.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

As I said, "... some other articles suggest that the Z6 has an AA filter."

My point is, so what? Have you ever seen moire in an image that did not include clothing, window screens, etc.?

Since moire is often the result of the coincidence of fabric patterns with sensor spacing, why would increasing the pixel pitch matter if moire simply shows up at a finer pattern of weave or a different subject distance?

I see moire all of the time on TV when a talking head happens to wear a piece of clothing with a pattern coincidentally interfering on my 4k display. It might not show up on a display with a different pitch or when the subject distance changes.