Discussion
Because you have used flash, the camera has used a faster shutter speed and/or a smaller aperture, which happily has given an exposure more in keeping with what you actually needed.
When relying on the camera's exposure meter for something like the moon, unless you have a really long lens, it's usually too small in the viewfinder to allow the camera to work out the correct exposure.
For a full moon, try starting off with 1/125s at f/11, (assuming ISO 100) which should be in the ball park for a correct exposure.
Matt, excellent results can be obtained with a telescope, but it's not as easy as it looks. You should be able to get some good results with your 300mm if you can use it with a 2x converter and a sturdy tripod.
This was taken with a 500mm lens and a 2x converter, so you should be able to get something similar with what you have.
When relying on the camera's exposure meter for something like the moon, unless you have a really long lens, it's usually too small in the viewfinder to allow the camera to work out the correct exposure.
For a full moon, try starting off with 1/125s at f/11, (assuming ISO 100) which should be in the ball park for a correct exposure.
Matt, excellent results can be obtained with a telescope, but it's not as easy as it looks. You should be able to get some good results with your 300mm if you can use it with a 2x converter and a sturdy tripod.
This was taken with a 500mm lens and a 2x converter, so you should be able to get something similar with what you have.
Edited by DIW35 on Friday 21st March 23:33
mattsayle said:
DIW35 said:
The middle two are overexposed, but it's a tricky subject to get right.
Would you belevie the two that you say are overexposed were without flash and the first two with flash?
Edited by _dobbo_ on Saturday 22 March 00:42
mattsayle said:
andynoquantum said:
I've found it tricky to photograph, getting it in focus mainly.
There's some blinding shots on here which make me rethink my use of the 300mm, iirc some chap hooked up to a telescope and got a fantastic shot
Cheers There's some blinding shots on here which make me rethink my use of the 300mm, iirc some chap hooked up to a telescope and got a fantastic shot
http://s6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/paulj1969/te...
mattsayle said:
These were taken with a digital camera with 10x optical zoom. Is that equilivant to 300mm?? I am new to this photography business so i dont know much!
The lens should say on it what the focal length is. 10x optical zoom means the shortest (wide angle) focal length multiplied by 10 gives you the longest focal length.So if it's 28mm at it's widest, it will be 280mm at it's longest.
Hope this helps!
mattsayle said:
These were taken with a digital camera with 10x optical zoom. Is that equilivant to 300mm?? I am new to this photography business so i dont know much!
This was taken on a fuji point and shoot, with a very similar maximum zoom, I found it easiest to use manual mode, as the camera can't meter properly at all in such an extreme lighting situation. I think this pic is pretty much at the limits of the glass in the fuji cam, it could have been stopped down a little but I don't think that would have helped all that much.
kevin63 said:
Here's my pathetic attempt, taken with a Nikon D50 and a 70-300mm Sigma DG lens, from inside the house and over the back garden, not exactly ideal conditions.
looks very sharp and clear to me, i think you did good.at least you got some comments about yours so you know what people think..sulk!
Paul
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff