Focusing on night sky images is always a challenge, and is the main skill that needs to be mastered in order to get good images. Your 300mm lens does not produce a particularly large image of the moon, so focus can be difficult. I'd suggest that you switch to Live View and use the "+" button to assist you with manual focus. Very small movements to the focus ring are going to result in significant focus changes. Remember that autofocus lenses will focus past infinity to allow the AF system to work, so it is essentially impossible to prefocus accurately by looking at the distance scale on the lens.

My suggestion for a starting exposure is ISO 400, shutter 1/800, aperture f/8 for a starting point. As the moon is closer to the horizon, you'll need more light. Do not use Auto White Balance. There is simply not enough lighted area in your frame for the system to make a good choice. Use fixed Daylight WB instead. The sunlight hitting the moon is the same as that hitting the earth at noon on a clear day. Lunar material ranges from medium to dark gray. Photographs brought back by those who have been there show the surface to have a slightly orange or brownish-orange tint.

Paul is correct in suggesting that you use a different Picture Control setup. Contrast, saturation, and sharpness are all cranked way too far back to be good for this task. If you don't want to edit the components, I'd suggest that you go all the way to Vivid. Even then, you may want more contrast and sharpness. (Remember...these adjustments are all subtractive. They are the one place where you can crank them all the way up, if desired, without introducing ugly artifacts.) Save Normal and Flat for when you are doing starscapes and need to reduce the contrast to get a viewable preview or review image on your rear display.

If you decide to get a 200-500, you will be pleased at the significantly larger image at 500mm. Image stabilization in that lens is also good enough to allow you to do these photographs handheld.

I find working to capture good pictures of the moon is more fun than generally recognized. Enjoy the journey as you continue learning.

Given my own experience with older Canon FD lenses on Sony 24MP sensors, no. That is, the same lens on a 20MP vs 26MP sensor will give more options for a 'larger' crop, but you won't seen a visual difference in the details.

As suggested on the details highlighted in the prior post, you've either maximized the results already, nor might play a bit on some subtle changes in the exposure and the 'where' to focus. Only comparative results can confirm if there are any differences to be had from changing technique with the same equipment.

Jay, an example helps. Are you shooting from a tripod and manually focusing via Live View and zoomed 10x to view the moon in the LCD display while focusing? The EXIF in the NEF says the image is manually focus. The Picture Control is Neutral that has only a +2 (low) amount of sharpening if just converted from the NEF.

I did some minor updates in Capture NX-D as my LR6 can't edit the D500 NEF directly. I increased the brightness of the image and some sharpening and cropped to look at the details.

A few ideas to consider:

a) Shoot a ton of images, at least 50, maybe 100, to get one 'perfect'.

b) Your shutterspeed and aperture are fine vs some of my images of a similar moon, but let the camera brighten the image. To get a whiter / brighter moon, you only have to be at ISO-200, no higher than ISO-400, with little risk of Noise. I'd compare the camera's boosted brightness (ISO) vs making the same brightening in your editor.

c) Consider where you focus. The edge of the moon seems in better focus than the details that face to earth. Maybe it's just an illusion, but it seems the large crater in the lower left 'corner' could be sharper as compared to the edge of the moon as we move to the dark sky.

d) You can override the picture control in your editor. I'd make sure you change to Standard and / or that you heavily adjust all the sharpening, contrast, and saturation settings in your editor.

Jay, i do have the 300pf but not the 200-500, so i can't compare them to each other. Furthermore back when i still had the 400 i never compared it to the 300 + 1.4. For just landscapes with moons i suspect the zoom's enhanced flexibility alone would score big points. If substantial hiking to views the 300 is really small and light. I would rent or borrow before making a final decision. I will try moon shots with the 300 in the next couple of days to see if the into the light issue comes into play. I know the 500pf plays well with moons.

Jay. I have tried the 400 5.6 ais ed-if, 400 5.6PC converted, 400 3.5 ais, 600 5.6 ai, 500 f5 ai-p all in an attempt to find a high quality manual super tele. Fast answer is non of them were as good as modern. The 500 was the best of the bunch but recently obtained 500 pf which easily outperforms optically, nevermind the autofocus bit.

As to the 400 5.6 pc ai converted. It is fun to play with and can be had for about $2-300 used. Will appear best on modest megapixel bodies. Good color, good flare control. Just never quite as sharp as hoped on d800 & later bodies. Sort of neat to have first use of ED glass, but never officially confirmed. Relatively light & moderately compact made fitting in pack easy.

If you are hoping to use in landscapes with high quality - keep saving. The 200-500 is pretty good by most accounts. Save longer and the 500pf is outrageously good.