I Shot the Moon

[drew]

Great Shots. We had the kids telescope out but it looked nothing like this.

Would have been a great entry in the circle photo contest.

[Kiran]

Nice image Noel.
You have a fine telescope.
Have you done taken any other images on this scope?
Kiran

[Noel_Carboni]

Thanks everyone.

Kiran, I have a number of astroimages on my web site here, including some prior lunar photography that is at an even higher resolution than what I've posted here.

Astrophotography by Noel Carboni

-Noel

[Raul_Sanchez]

Noel,

Your astrophotography is excellent. Thank you for sharing it with us.

Raul.

[Kiran]

I enjoyed your lovely collection of astro images.
No doubt you are an expert in astronomy as well!
I'll be keeping an eye on this site in case there are any updates.

Kiran

[TimRucci]

Really nice stuff, Noel.

And I really appreciate your detailed explanation. I don't have a telecscope but I have always wanted to shoot through one with the camera connected.

My problem trying to get moon images with my regular gear is that the moon moves so fast through the frame, so relatively short exposures are required. If you are using a telescope with a tracking device, I guess you do not have that problem.

I also made some images that night, but only with a 40d and 100-400 lens at 400 (and a few attemts with an extender attached). I tried using live view, but it was the first time I ever used it and I was all thumbs. Also, the rig seemed to jiggle an awful lot at the lightest touch. It was this experience that made me realize the value of Canon's "angle finder" attachment which lets you look through the viewfinder from a 90-degree angle instead of what I did that night. Picture a Tripod with the camera and lens mounted on it and aimed up at the sky at a very steep angle. I was stooping down almost to my knees with my head cocked backward tooking through the camera viewfinder. As the moon is moving through the frame, I had to keep getting trying to adjust the tripod while squatting and looking through the viewfinder. What a joke that was! Anyway, I probably won't be doing that again any time soon. I dont'have an angle-finder, and probably won't get one because I would seldom have a use for it.

The images I ended up were not very sharp, and I haven't posted any of them. If I look at them without zooming in, they look fine, but at pixel level, they are a mess. And they are all single shots at this low magnification, compared to your setup where you could not even fit the whole moon in the frame (that would be a nice problem to have).

Thanks for sharing the photos and the explanation.

[Noel_Carboni]

You're welcome Tim, and thanks (to you and all) for the nice comments.

My first lunar photos were with the 100-400 as well (with my D30 ages ago). Yes, I agree, not the absolute top quality at the pixel level, but not bad. As a deep sky wide-field "telescope" the 100-400 isn't bad at all, especially if you pull back from 400mm a bit. I did this photo of Comet Holmes with my 40D and 100-400:

By the way, next time you're shooting up into the sky try Live View, Tim. You'll still have to get down and look up but it does help not to have to look through the VF.

-Noel

[Pro Photo Store]

Visit the B&H Pro Photo Store for the best Gear Prices and regular specials!

Brilliant Color for any Digital SLR
White Balance Cap
The Pros Agree on ColorRight
What People Are Saying