lemme see your shots for the moon!this is mine btw captured with canon 2000d 55mm i can not remember my camera settingsi gave it some edit with lightroom this is first time with DSLR
Shot with Canon 1300D and Tair 3s 300/4.5. The setup is cooler than the photo, the extra weight makes it a bit more stable in my opinion
>>4461077uploading from phone because i am not at my pcrecently got a new lense so it's very likely im gonna take more moon pics in the future
crappy eclipse shot I got on film still kinda like it I think it was on a Zeiss 150 with the Rollei 6008
>>4461107what happen to your camera!!?
>>4461123I think if you used a less ISO the image wouldnt have noise? or give it some edit
>>4461132wait for you to post it!
>>4461136ON FILM!!!I like this photo desu
>>4461140Can't remember the ISO really, but part of those are prolly hot pixels due to me being a retard and snapping quite a few long exposure shots before this one. Will try again soon.
>>4461148I usually dont do hot pixel removal and then i pixel peaked at one of my recent photos and immediately saw one.Literally unseeable once it gets noticed
can you take photos of the moon with 50mm? i mean good photos. i know nothing bout this
>>4461199fast shutter speed on manual which will lower the exposure, boost all that in post on like dark table and then crop it.see how that comes out
Moon!
>>4461077on the night of the july 27 2018 eclipse
from the lunar eclipse in march this year. 5dmkii with sigma 150-600mm C at 600mm
Not sure if thats just noise or stars in the back (I'm guessing noise) ISO 2000 @700mm f/11 1/4000th
>>4461262yikes let me fix those dust spots lmao
>>4461263What I'm getting here
>>4461258got damn burt, also yeah looks like stars
>>4461261>>4461263kino
>>4461209I like this one! how did you capture this I mean there is a part in the dark but the details is still exists
>>4461199for me it is the kitlens the camera was a gift from a kind person and I tried to shot it using a narrow aperture and high shutter speed also lowest iso then I edited it with lightroom crop and fix the color the moon was like enabled night shift XD
>>4461258dont worry about it when I saw the photo I thought this is stars so anyone will think that ig
>>4461290BROOO BAHAHAHAHAHA
>>4461290Toppest fucking kek
>>4461077From work, iPhone.
>>4461263>>4461262These are insanely good ty
>>4461290Haha, wtf
>>4461343it's ai anon. there's an ai troon in every thread thinking rainbow shits are edible.
>>4461343Not that Anon, but...The darkened part of the Moon is illuminated by the Earth. The bright part is lit by the Sun. As seen from the Moon, the Earth would look gibbous (more than half-lit). The thinner the crescent, the closer to the line from the Sun to the Earth, the fuller the Earth, the more "earthshine" lights up the Moon. Sailors used to guess coming weather - the brighter the earthshine, the cloudier the weather to the west, from where the prevailing winds come. Yeah, not very accurate, but you know.Here's a hot I took of the crescent Moon on April 10, 2024. That's Jupiter next to the tree. If you zoom in you can see some of its moons!The file is not quite original. Right off the camera, the file size exceeds /p/'s limit, so I shrunk it to quarter the size (half the original side dimensions of 6048 x 4024) but was able to keep the exif from the original.This is the exif: Nikon D780, Nikon 18-120mm lens at 55mm, f/7.1, 10 seconds, ISO-100Also, this guy is an idiot:>>4461684
>>4461290A tripfag posted the first actually good photo on pee. I kneel.
>>4462195burt's cool
>>4462195I see you weren't here for the Bassackwards days of photoshop, shit was fucking glorious.
>>4461077
>>4462195>best photo on a photography board is heavily shoppedNot surprised, really
>>4461138leafs
>>4462261>shoopedcome on now nigga
>>4461132>>4461141Here is it with the new lenssorry for the wait
Here is the best one I have taken so far. I still have room for improvement. Rebel T6i, 100-400 II and the 2X III teleconverter.
>>4464392that looks great, hell yeah
>>4464763
>>4464763specs?
>>44647682x + 100-400 RF + R6MIII'll pick up 200-800 for double the reach eventually.
>>4464770>>4464763this first one looks excellenthow much would the 200-800 cost?
>>4464771nevermind i just looked it up.I hope you somehow come across a suitcase full of cash
>>4464773Its not that bad, I am talking about:https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/rf200-800mm-f6-3-9-is-usm
>>4464776NTA but I am dreaming of one of these on an R7 with the teleconverter. Why yes this is my telescope that happens to take pictures.
>>4464925Basically the top-tier birding setup of our time. If you can be fucked carrying it, it's honestly a feat of engineering.
>>4464930I was thinking more for street photography.
Canon 90D with Tamron 150-600
>>4465207Hell yeah, i have the sigma 150-600
>>4464142(me)>>4461132(me)here's one of the full moon
>>4465207Nice
reee I missed the moon
>>4466266good thing too, tomorrow is the last night of a big moon and it's gonna be next to neptune and saturnyou have the opportunity to put us all to shamehope you find this information useful friend
>>4466266It was the one to not miss, goddammit anon. I even indulged in doing some ICM during totality. Penumbral eclipse ended 26 mins ago here.
>>4466319>I even indulged in doing some ICM during totalitySure you did, nophoto
>>4466323Here's the basketball Moon for the basketball pindos))
>>4461290kek, yeah /p/ee is back
Oh god look at it!It is so REDHOW DID IT GET SO MAGNIFICENTLY CRINSOM!Moon coom!
>>4466426>his moon is monochromaticbaka desu senpai
>>4466476>not having a mono chromatic moon
>>4466426It really do be like that
Lumix FZ82D
Sony a6000 and a massive lens adapted to it that is probably like 4000mm
>>4466388I wasn't prepared for that day
>>4468257>had a total lunar eclipse just a week ago>I was busy the entire time>Only came home when it ended and was able to snap thisFeels blyad man.
>>4468255Looks more like 1000mm
>>4468292It's 15-60x whatever that means, I guess I should have specified that uh. Zooming all the way in just looks like ass though
>>4468255Awesome pic, man
a6000 w/ Vivitar 90-230mm
>>4467827Is this Moscow?
>>4461258I guarantee that's noise, not stars
Today was a full moon. The biggest I've seen in a while. I wanted to take a photo but my phone sucks.
>>4473198But here's a photo of an eclipse that happened a while ago. In person it was more blue. I glimpsed it for a fraction of a second because I was scared of going blind or frying my eyes; though I heard it was safe to stare during totality.
a7rii with sigma 150-600mm @ 600mm + apsc crop ~900mm. + image crop
Eos 600D wiv Sigma 70-300mm, Still learning how to use this camera.
D3400 & 55-200mm>>4473198it's the harvest moon
from a couple years ago
Canon PowerShot SX710HS
>>4473487Same
>>4466425
>>4472571yeah
>>4473939I also has this moon.
>>4473940>is of having*also this moon?
Also, you might be of thinking this is speck of shit on lens.But no. Is luna.Small luna also luna, da? Is qualifies? Is okay if no qualifies. Love from Moscow.
Next to zero effort crop of 300mm at recent eclipse
Canon 90dTamron 100-400
>>4474408Impressive. Very nice.
>>4473943Damn, that's lowk beautiful
>>4474435The power of reach, once again proving pixel pitch matters when it comes to reach. You couldn't take that image with an a7RIV and a 100-400...
>>4474938Mind elaborating? Why would the image be less appealing on a higher red sensor?
>>4475055Because of pixel density. The same size crop on the Sony is actually lower resolution. The Sony sensor is lower resolution in fact, if you look at it like it's film (line pairs per mm). You'd need a 470mm lens to produce the same resolution image on an a7RIV.
I guess the moon is nice tonight
A6700Tamron 16 300HandheldCan t remeber the settingsBut using lumy11 most probSo iso 100Ss 1/100F11No editing, sooc jpeg cropped
Tamron 18 300, sorry
>>4461290lol 2007 4Chan is in the house
Waning crescent in its final stage shortly before sunrise from my balcony.
>>4476344>Tamron 18 300Here's my take, but with α6000
>>4480663/2
Hot off the presses; tonight's big hairy beaver supermoon or whatever.
Nikon Z7ii Nikkor 180-600mm 1.4x TC 840mm f/11 iso 64 ss 1/60 about 130 images stacked using 50% lucky imaging. First try at autostakkert. Overdid it on the slider tweaking in lightroom. I should have used a higher ss and taken off the UV filter to get it sharper.
>>4480835
cheesy moon tonight
yet another shot of the beaver moon. I am >>4464392this anon. same setup.
Was gonna shoot this bastard rising over the lake but couldn't make it out of the office in time, fuck me.
Fuji X-T4 // 500mm TTArtisan f6.31/60s~f9 (it isn't registered in the EXIF, el cheapo very manual Chinese lens) ISO160
Canon R6m2 100-400mm F5.6-81/600 200ISO f8
Guess the body and the lens. I'm not doing this to be cleaver I'm just curious what people would guess.
>>4486212an old point and shoot with 12x zoom, 600mm -720mm at the tele end
The one time Phoenix II looked ok
>>4486463You have the focal length right, like 640 adjusted for the crop factor. it was a T6i with a 70's rebranded Tokina 400mm.
>>4477184k i n o
Mars (left), waning crescent Moon (over Lumen Field, Seattle), Venus (up, right of Moon) rising Sept. 11, 2015.Nikon D5200, kit 18-55mm at 55mm, f/8, 2sec, ISO-1000
>>4488213Oops. Sept. 10, 2015.
ZV-E10 + SEL55210 taken last week iirc, obviously cropped
Best I can do with a Ricoh GR
I forgot this thread exists.>>4472561>a6000 w/ Vivitar 90-230mmSame setup, found another pic I took a week or two before that previous one. Not as happy with this, feel like a lot of detail was lost and it's overexposed. I like the general vibe of it though.
>>4472561Is that the Series 1 90-230 Flat-field?There is a LOT of detail to be had in that lens if you stop it down, insane detail, I have one for my F3HP, it's basically a macro lens that zooms and it's made for ridiculous subject detail. Play with it a little more, stop it down and use a tripod if you have to. That lens is a well-kept secret.
>>4499285Yeah, I use a tripod. It's unusable if freehanded.>flat-fieldHow would I check? Serial number give any clues?
Hey guys, retard here!I'm using a Canon Rebel T7 and all my shots end up looking like this.How do I fix?
>>4499383Bracketing with manual shutter speed settings.
>>4499284sweet, a c-17
>>4499384Overexposed. With moon shots just keep the ISO at a minimum and shutter speed relatively high.Camera is trying to expose 18% middle grey for the whole scene which includes the inky black sky = it's trying to find detail in the sky and overblowing the very bright moon.
>>4499383Illuminated part of Moon is a dark grey subject in bright sunlight. Full Moon is considerably brighter than half.I don't recall what I used when last snapped moon years ago but I'd start from ISO100 1/400 f 5.6.(Oct 4 2004, 16:33 at 68 N. Pentax Optio 43WR, ISO 50, f3.9 1/160, digital zoom 4)
>perfectly clear all night>suddenly clouds 10 minutes before lunar eclipse
>>4499442I haven't been able to see the moon all night.
>>4499442Very patchy cloudcover here in Hawkes Bay NZ, but got a good 30 minutes of photography in totality, more clouds rolled through just now. Though with my 2010 DSLR's stock lens I barely got 40 pixels of moon width, and without a fancy mount I was only getting 5 second exposures before motion blur started kicking in. Was still fun, I'll sift through the photos in the morning.
I'm the poster with the Vivitar 90-230mm. I'm actually kinda happy with this pic, especially when you consider that it's an ancient consumer-grade telezoom lens built in the same year as the first Moon landing.
Pentax 50mm 1.4My 270 zoom was way too soft
>>4499447It was clear but windy in auckland. Hands are cold from being outside
>>4499382That's not the flat-field model, it would say Series 1 on the front.Vivtar made a tele-macro lens in the 90-230 range, or maybe 90-180 I can't remember, just search "flat-field Series 1"They're pretty cheap and yield excellent results.
>>4499542I hadn't heard about the Series 1 range prior to your posts so I did a bit of research and I don't think they ever did a Series 1 variant of the 90-230. It's definitely the 90-180 you must be thinking of.Thanks for making me aware of the existence of the Series 1 lenses, I'll have to keep an eye out for them in future. There's always a few people each month selling their dead boomer grandpa's old photography gear on Marketplace for the equivalent of a slab of beer, most of it's trash but there's a few diamonds to be found and I imagine sooner or later I'll spot one of these lenses in a listing.
>>4499447Yeah not brilliant. Kinda want to make a sidereal mount using an arduino and stepper motor now, seems like it’s not too difficult of a project, but getting it positioned properly seems like it could be a hassle.I’d also want some sort of exposure meter that works in very low light levels, though maybe a simple guide/calculator tool would be sufficient. Years ago I attempted to disassemble my cheap remote flash button and add a digitally controllable timer for long exposures, but at some point I gave up and assembled it again.>>4499453Chilly here, 10C days when it was over 20C just a few days ago. But I had my long johns on.Were you anywhere close to the city centre? I tried some long exposure star photography in the Auckland Domain 7 years ago when I was at uni there, but I never really got any worthwhile results. Too impatient, too cold, and definitely a lot of light pollution. Havelock North is definitely less bad, but it would be much better 5km out or more.
>>4499561Wait since when is my camera configured to save as .jpeg??? I bet it reset, it kept wanting me to set the time so the clock battery must have died and taken other settings with it.
>>4499561Nowhere near the center, I'm south but not as far as Pukekohe, I wonder if you can get some decent dark skies in the rural areas around there. I always see a hell of alot of light pollution coming from the north when I look out the window at night. If you have an opportunity to go to the dark sky reserve near Lake Tekapo, it's well worth it. Pic related from 2022; even though I had even less of an idea of what I was doing then than I do now, it's quite stunning.25s f/4 +1 EV can't remember ISO, no other edits
sony a6700tamron 18 300ss1/100f11iso 100handheldsooc jpeg cropped only the moona little sharpness edit in win 10 photo editor
>>4499567a6700sigma 16mmss10sf1.8iso 200010 images stacked in sequator+1 dark framesony offical preset for milkyway in lrc
>>4499567Yeah the south side of Te Mata Peak should be pretty dark. My co-worker got some good star shots at Waimarama beach. But none as good as what you’ve taken there, wow that’s nice. 25s is getting long, but I guess zoomed out like that it doesn’t make much of a difference. I should get into the camera math and calculate what exposure times result in 1 pixel of star blur at different zooms.
>>4499613>Nikon D3100, DX sensor with F-mount>4608 x 3072 pixel sensor for 14.2MP>has stock 18-55mm lens>lunar day = 89,428.3 seconds>at 55mm, moon takes up 49 pixels across>at 18mm, moon takes up 17 pixels across>moon size = 31 arcminutes = 31/(60*360) = 0.00143519 of a full rotation>if the moon = 49 pixels, then 1 pixel is 29.2895E-6 rotations, then it takes 2.62 seconds to blur through a single pixel>if the moon = 17 pixels, then 1 pixel is 84.4227E-6 rotations, then it takes 7.55 seconds to blur through a single pixelInteresting, guess I was baking it a bit long with 5s. Which implies that with any decent telephoto lens, and with any halfway modern image sensor, your exposures are going to be decently short if you want to avoid blurring pixels, and so getting enough light becomes an issue. So the extra-wide aperture lenses would start to make sense, and it also explains all the image stacking I'm seeing here because nobody was autistic enough to make a motorised sidereal mount.If I want to make a motorised sidereal mount capable of even my current lens, it would need to remain stable to within 38 arc-seconds. A common 1.8 degree stepper motor with a 256-microstepping driver gets me to 25 arc-seconds direct-drive, it could be lower using a belt reduction or a 0.9 degree stepper. Though using some magnets and a magnetic encoder like Diffraction Limited does in his XYZ micro-manipulator seems like it would be a cheap way to make it far finer, enough for even hundreds of mega-pixels. It's the motors that are the expensive part. I wouldn't normally bother with this sort of side-project, but it is a nice intermediary step in my existing precision motor driving journey, so it might be worth $100USD. I hope a lazy susan bearing is good enough.
The most recent eclipse a few days ago. Fuji XH2XF100-400mm lens with a teleconverter
>>4461265Kino!
>>4499451one of the best ITT, thanks anon.
>>4499654>worms on the moon>all that posterization and softness>color shifts>apparent focus miss (green border = OOF CA)Worms on the moon aside $2k camera and you couldnt even turn the jpeg compression down and zoom in to manually focus bruv?
How is this >>4499654Only as detailed as this >>4499450
>>4499707>>4499709It's a good example of gear only being as good as the person using it
>>4499729To be fair, even with a talented photographer, a 40mp fuji is only about as good as a canon 5dIII (but with worms instead of shadow banding)Worms on the moon lol
>>4499800what are this worms you are talking about?trying to figure them out in the pic
>>4499654>Fuji XH2 $2,299.00>XF100-400mm lens $2,249.00>teleconverter $499.00to take this photo?the fuck?maybe the teleconverter is shit and ruining your photos, try without it and see. you must have a defective unit. camera lens or teleconvertereven with autofocus on the moon i get sharper images than yours and all my 3 lenses combined cost les then yours (all new)
>>4499959The noise pattern of xtrans sensors looks like a bunch of little worms. Very apparent in >>4499654. If you can't see it then you should see an optomertrist.
>>4499967you mean this?
>>4499552The older Series 1 manual focus stuff is better, after a while they threw Series 1 on everything they had like what BMW did with the M brand.I have a few, the 90-180, 35-85, 70-210/3.5, and 90 macro. They are very well made and the optics are superb.The exception is the 100-400 AF they made that was Series 1, with a small red ring on the end, that was actually pretty good. I had one if you bring it down to f/8 you would never know, it can hang with my Canon L lenses and Nikon ED. Almost no color fringing if any at all, very sharp, good detail and contrast.
A Dec 4 2014 snap, edited todayEOS 600D + 400mm vintage potato masher. This one ISO400 and less blurry than ISO 100 ones which were less grainy...
I have a 300mm on aspc lens. 450mm equivalent on ffAny vintage cheap lenses with more reach and good sharpness for moon shots?I m not totally happy with 450mm, i need more
>>4500132As far as I know cheap telephotos tend to be either 50's-60's tech potato mashers, mirror lenses or ludicrous toy zooms. If you want cheap and a bit sharper than a $30 vintage potato masher, modern Samgyang (or rebrands) 500mm f6.3 mirror lens should be better than any vintage of same or less price. It's quite fiddly to use and not as sharp or contrasty as a $1000+ tele of course. (There's a 800mm f8 version too. I've not seen any convincingly good photos taken with it.)Mount and seeing matters a lot. Even the best lens will no give a good moon snap through blurry turbulence with camera on a wobbly tripod.
>>4500138The thing is i want a lens only to get goon moon shots. Most probably all the cheap ones are manual focus so not usable for anything moving. Other than moon shots with or without foreground will not use so i don t want to throw a lot of money at something i ll barley useTt artisans 500 6.3 cames up but is 450€ new compared to 360$ in us. Lol
>>4500140I m trying to get something in the 100€ range
>>4500141TC, provided your 300mm has sharpness to spare.
>>4500173It doesn t unfortunately>>4499959>>4499585>>4476344These are mine
>>4500141Reach, sharp, cheap, pick two.
>>4500191Those look like you could still get more details out of it. I'm not sure there's a cheap TC that can work with that though.
>>4500141>>4500195at that point he would get a used smol maksutov
>>4500214Camera lenses based on Maksutov design do exist too. Dunno if any better or cheaper than the usual mirror lens.
>>4500140>goon moon shotsAnon pls, this is a blue board
