# Questions about Shooting the Supermoon



## mackguyver (Aug 8, 2014)

The biggest perigee moon of the year is happening this weekend and I'm planning to shoot it. I've taken some simple shots of the moon in the past, but this time I'd like to do it right. My plan is to incorporate the silhouetted branches of a longleaf pine (the subject of an ongoing project of mine) in front of the moon. I realize I need to be way back from the moon to get them even remotely close to the same focal plane (within the lens, not the universe!), but I have some questions:

1. Roughly how far from the tree do I need to be, assuming I'm shooting at 300 (for a wider shoot) or 600mm (300 f/2..8 IS II + 2xIII)?

2. Forgive my extreme ignorance on the subject, but I assume the so-called moon illusion that makes it appear larger near the horizon is just a psychological phenomenon, not something visible in-camera, right?

3. How much does humidity degrade this type of shot? It looks like it will be somewhere between 65-85% , which is actually a bit low for this time of year. 

Any advice you might have is appreciated


----------



## IslanderMV (Aug 8, 2014)

2. Forgive my extreme ignorance on the subject, but I assume the so-called moon illusion that makes it appear larger near the horizon is just a psychological phenomenon, not something visible in-camera, right?

Yes, but the super moon is actually a bit larger, as the moon is a little closer to us.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 8, 2014)

IslanderMV said:


> 2. Forgive my extreme ignorance on the subject, but I assume the so-called moon illusion that makes it appear larger near the horizon is just a psychological phenomenon, not something visible in-camera, right?
> 
> Yes, but the super moon is actually a bit larger, as the moon is a little closer to us.


I guess I wasn't too clear on this one - apparently the moon, super or not, _appears _larger when it's right near the horizon, even though it will actually be closer to us later in the night (this time around at least). It's something called the moon illusion (see this link).


----------



## johnhenry (Aug 8, 2014)

The moon subtends around 1/2 degree , give or take. That should give you a reference of how big it will appear in the field of view for a lens using a table that shows this information


----------



## lintoni (Aug 8, 2014)

1. You have time before Sunday to practice the shot, so I'd check where it's rising this evening, or Saturday and try some shots to gve you an idea of the best set up for you. I use Stellarium (freeware, excellent) if I'm planning pictures involving astral bodies other than the sun. There won't be enough size difference to mess up approximations of this sort.

2. Yes, when the moon rises, it is further away from the observer than when it is overhead, so is actually smaller.

3. Shouldn't be a problem, unless it is cloudy. Seeing that you don't live in the UK, where it is always overcast when there's anything happening in the night sky...


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 8, 2014)

Thanks for the advice, and lintoni, your comment about the UK sky reminds me of when I lived there - a clear sky was a rare thing...


----------



## lintoni (Aug 8, 2014)

We have the remains of Hurricane Bertha due to arrive on Sunday, which just goes to prove my point! ;D or :'( ???


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 8, 2014)

Thanks for the reminder mackguyver. I'll look forward to see some photos from you.

I just bought 2x TC III, should arrive today. I'll go with 800mm + 5d III plus cropping if needed ;D


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 8, 2014)

lintoni said:


> We have the remains of Hurricane Bertha due to arrive on Sunday, which just goes to prove my point! ;D or :'( ???


I was there (in Surrey) for the remains of Hurricane Charley, and it was quite a mess, so I hope you get through this one okay. Sorry about the sky, of course.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 8, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Thanks for the reminder mackguyver. I'll look forward to see some photos from you.
> 
> I just bought 2x TC III, should arrive today. I'll go with 800mm + 5d III plus cropping if needed ;D


Cool, I look forward to seeing yours as well. I'm thinking about bringing a couple of set ups and doing multiple shots, possibly including some composites, like they way Peter Lik shot this recent one:
http://www.lik.com/thework/newrelease.html

I'll share my results, good or bad, and good luck to everyone!


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 8, 2014)

lintoni said:


> 1. You have time before Sunday to practice the shot, so I'd check where it's rising this evening, or Saturday and try some shots to gve you an idea of the best set up for you. I use Stellarium (freeware, excellent) if I'm planning pictures involving astral bodies other than the sun. There won't be enough size difference to mess up approximations of this sort.


+1 on Stellarium, too, it's a perfect companion to The Photographer's Ephemeris and I just bought the paid version for my Android.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 8, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the reminder mackguyver. I'll look forward to see some photos from you.
> ...



Remember this? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20493.0 Will not happen again ;D

I appreciated your comment though.... ;D ;D ;D http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20493.15


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 8, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...


LOL, yes, and that was brave of you to post that! I did the opposite when I first shot the moon. I spot-metered the moon and then set the manual exposure. Of course that turns white to middle gray, not really what you want, either. I think spot meter +1 EV works well as a starting place if I remember from my last shot.

Also, after checking the skies around here for Sunday - they are saying the stargazing forecast is Poor, so I may not even see the moon as they are calling for thunderstorms...


----------



## Frodo (Aug 8, 2014)

IslanderMV said:


> 2. Forgive my extreme ignorance on the subject, but I assume the so-called moon illusion that makes it appear larger near the horizon is just a psychological phenomenon, not something visible in-camera, right?
> 
> Yes, but the super moon is actually a bit larger, as the moon is a little closer to us.



You are right about the Moon illusion. Wikipedia captures it well:

_A popular belief, stretching back at least to Aristotle in the 4th century B.C., holds that the Moon appears larger near the horizon due to a real magnification effect caused by the Earth's atmosphere. This is not true: although the atmosphere does change the perceived color of the Moon, it does not magnify or enlarge it. In fact, the Moon appears about 1.5% smaller when it is near the horizon than when it is high in the sky, because it is farther away by nearly one Earth radius. Atmospheric refraction also makes the image of the Moon slightly smaller in the vertical direction.

The angle that the full Moon subtends at an observer's eye can be measured directly with a theodolite to show that it remains constant as the Moon rises or sinks in the sky (discounting the very small variations due to the physical effects mentioned). Photographs of the Moon at different elevations also show that its size remains the same.

Note that between different full moons, the Moon's angular diameter can vary from 33.5 arc minutes at perigee to 29.43 arc minutes at apogee—a difference of over 10%. This is because of the ellipticity of the Moon's orbit._


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 8, 2014)

Thanks, Frodo, that's helpful to know!


----------



## Frodo (Aug 8, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> LOL, yes, and that was brave of you to post that! I did the opposite when I first shot the moon. I spot-metered the moon and then set the manual exposure. Of course that turns white to middle gray, not really what you want, either. I think spot meter +1 EV works well as a starting place if I remember from my last shot.



The Moon receives the same light from the Sun as we do on Earth. So expose for a sunny day on Earth to expose the Moon correctly. 
In the days of film I used the "sunny 16" rule: f16 at the reciprocal of the ASA (ISO). So 1/125 @ f16 for 125 ASA. 
You don't need f16 for depth of field and for a long tele, you need a higher shutter speed. So f8 and 1/500 for 100 ISO or f8 and 1/2000 for 400 ISO. I would bracket to be safe.


----------



## jrista (Aug 8, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> The biggest perigee moon of the year is happening this weekend and I'm planning to shoot it. I've taken some simple shots of the moon in the past, but this time I'd like to do it right. My plan is to incorporate the silhouetted branches of a longleaf pine (the subject of an ongoing project of mine) in front of the moon. I realize I need to be way back from the moon to get them even remotely close to the same focal plane (within the lens, not the universe!), but I have some questions:
> 
> 1. Roughly how far from the tree do I need to be, assuming I'm shooting at 300 (for a wider shoot) or 600mm (300 f/2..8 IS II + 2xIII)?
> 
> ...



Without question, use the longer scope. The moon is only about 30 arcminutes in size, and even at 1200mm (600/4 II + 2x), it still doesn't fill the entire frame on my 7D (1200mm vertical AoV, the smallest AoV on a 1.6x APS-C sensor, is 43 arcminutes so still lager than the moon.) You want as many pixels as you can on subject so you can maximize detail. 

Humidity is hardly a problem unless it fogs up your lens. If you can keep a very low power blow dryer on hand, you can combat fogging due to humidity.

The biggest issue is seeing, or atmospheric turbulence. That is going to be the single largest factor that will affect your ability to resolve good detail. Seeing ranges from extremely good (practically no turbulence at all, details from distant stars come through so well that you can clearly see the airy disk diffraction pattern under high enough magnification) to utterly horrible (you can't tell that a star is actually a round object, it looks like a boiling spotted blob that is about 5-10x larger than the star really is). This seeing affects the moon...if you zoom in really high in live view at your longest focal length (i.e. use the 600mm option for sure), you can actually see a rippling effect along the edge of the moon. That is atmospheric turbulence warping the edge. 

With a long focal length, you can kind of "cut through" some seeing and resolve enough detail to be useful. The other option, which is what a lot of high res moon imagers use, is to take video frames of the moon, at a high frame rate, and stack them together. That averages out the turbulence, and you end up with mostly real detail. There is the potential for artifacts to occur from stacking like that, glows or halos around mountains (where the bright reflection of a mountain peak might be framed against deep shadow behind), but overall, using video allows you to get much better detail of well lit areas than a single frame (unless you have a LOT of focal length, and a lot of skill.) 

Regarding the size of the moon at the horizon. There might be a very slight amount of refraction enlarging it, however overall the apparent size of the moon at the horizon, vs. when it is overhead, is primarily a perceptual thing. If your aiming for detail, you want to image when the moon is overhead...preferably at the Zenith, but within the overhead 45 degree angle of view where atmospheric thickness is thinnest (minimizes the impact of seeing.) Imaging the moon at the horizon is bound to greatly increase seeing issues, so it isn't good if you want to resolve detail.

If you want a nice, moody moon shot, the best time is when it's on the horizon...just rising, with a really long focal length, or shortly after it has risen with the moon partially obscured by clouds. The moon at sunset, with pink, red, and orange clouds around it, is nice as well. A crescent moon with foreground trees silhouetted against it is another nice moody shot. I've been photographing the moon for years, and have photographed it in almost every scenario possible. The biggest factor, really, is focal length. You want to get up to 1200mm if you can (for APS-C), or even 2000mm (FF) to really pack on the detail. At 300mm on APS-C, the moon is actually going to fill only about 1/50th the area of the frame...it's going to be pretty small. At 600mm on APS-C, the moon is going to fill about 1/12th of the frame.


----------



## lintoni (Aug 8, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> lintoni said:
> 
> 
> > 1. You have time before Sunday to practice the shot, so I'd check where it's rising this evening, or Saturday and try some shots to gve you an idea of the best set up for you. I use Stellarium (freeware, excellent) if I'm planning pictures involving astral bodies other than the sun. There won't be enough size difference to mess up approximations of this sort.
> ...


Android - that reminds me, for your "how far away should I be?" bit, do you have Dof Calc on your phone/tablet?

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=jds.dofcalc


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 8, 2014)

lintoni said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > lintoni said:
> ...


Yes, and the ND Calc as well


----------



## lintoni (Aug 8, 2014)

There should be a sticky somewhere, essential apps for android/ios/windows!


----------



## jrista (Aug 9, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> lintoni said:
> 
> 
> > 1. You have time before Sunday to practice the shot, so I'd check where it's rising this evening, or Saturday and try some shots to gve you an idea of the best set up for you. I use Stellarium (freeware, excellent) if I'm planning pictures involving astral bodies other than the sun. There won't be enough size difference to mess up approximations of this sort.
> ...



Personally, I use WorldWide Telescope from Microsoft Research. Full color, high resolution sky survey (excellent for astrophotography), and some cool 3D mapping of the solar system:


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 9, 2014)

Jon, I was hoping our resident Starman would reply, so thank you for the additional details and I'm sure you'll blow us away with your photos if you shoot on Sunday!


----------



## jrista (Aug 9, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Jon, I was hoping our resident Starman would reply, so thank you for the additional details and I'm sure you'll blow us away with your photos if you shoot on Sunday!



I hope I'll be able to. It's been pretty stormy here lately, so I don't know if the sky will be clear. I want to get a tracked 1200mm f/8 shot if I can. I've done 1200mm before, but it is a PITA to focus, so I don't have anything to show for it yet. Now that I have the mount and BackyardEOS, it should be a lot easier to focus, since I won't have to touch the camera or the lens (I control it all remotely from my computer right here in my house. )

I also recently picked up a QHY5L-II high speed, ultra high resolution 75% Q.E. planetary CCD and guide camera. I use it for guiding normally, but it can also be used for planetary imaging. I want to figure out a way to attach it to my 600mm lens, and do some high speed video imaging so I can use that stacking technique. With the size and resolution of this camera, it would basically be like zooming in with a very, very long telescope at just one area of the moon's surface.

BTW, just a word of warning. The moon is going to be full at perigee, so there will be no shadow play on the surface. That actually doesn't make for the best moon photos. Full moon is a good time for "moody" photos, but not detail photos. You really want gibbous or smaller moons for detail photos, as then you have plenty of shadow on the surface to bring out detail and relief.


----------



## jrista (Aug 9, 2014)

I did some moon imaging tonight at 1200mm, with the 5D III and 7D. Here is a high res (superresolution or "drizzle") of the last bit of shaded moon detail along the eastern edge. This was integrated in AutoStakkert! 2, from a 1000-frame video taken with my 7D at 1/100s f/8 ISO 200:










I could have probably gotten even more detail, but I had BackyardEOS configured incorrectly. It was only doing 5x zoom in the planetary imaging mode, when it can actually do up to 10x zoom. I ran out of time, the moon slipped behind the trees. I'll try again once the moon is in more of a waning gibbous phase, when it should have a lot more interesting detail with some shading.

Here are some full frames, comparing the resolving power of the 7D and 5D III:


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 10, 2014)

Awesome shots, Jon! I wish I could say my night went the same way...but when I walked outside, the humidity was so high ~90% that my headlamp beam looked like it was cutting through smoke. The moon was blurry and the sky was partly cloudy. I wasn't able to get very far from the tree I was planning to silhouette as there are other trees in the way so the focus differences are way too much. I also tried a plain astophotograph and it came out awful. 

I'd like to thank lintoni for the idea to do a practice run tonight. Tomorrow's set up (weather permitting) will be 100% different!


----------



## applecider (Aug 11, 2014)

Supermoon all kinds of extenders and big white. I'm quite pleased with the resolution given that two 2x extenders were used. Eyeballing them I'd say they are comparable to jrista's thousand points of moon light with the 7D.

5Diii 2xii>2xiii>600EF ii moon f20.0 1/6sec iso 100 no cropping adjustments done in adobe bridge. So essentially this was a 2400mm moonshot, maybe tonite I'll try a 7D but at 2400mm it is hard to get the moon within the frame, so the 7D should overfill the moon. And I'll try to up the iso to 500 or so and shutter to 1/30 sec.
Also on Flikr https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/14695787710/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/14695823009/in/photostream/


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 11, 2014)

applecider said:


> Supermoon all kinds of extenders and big white. I'm quite pleased with the resolution given that two 2x extenders were used. Eyeballing them I'd say they are comparable to jrista's thousand points of moon light with the 7D.
> 
> 5Diii 2xii>2xiii>600EF ii moon f20.0 1/6sec iso 100 no cropping adjustments done in adobe bridge. So essentially this was a 2400mm moonshot, maybe tonite I'll try a 7D but at 2400mm it is hard to get the moon within the frame, so the 7D should overfill the moon. And I'll try to up the iso to 500 or so and shutter to 1/30 sec.
> Also on Flikr https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/14695787710/
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/14695823009/in/photostream/


Nice work as well, applecider. It was cloudy and 95% humidity tonight here in Florida, so no dice on either night. Maybe next month's supermoon (though not as spectacular) will work out better.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 11, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Nice work as well, applecider. It was cloudy and 95% humidity tonight here in Florida, so no dice on either night. Maybe next month's supermoon (though not as spectacular) will work out better.


Sorry to hear that mackguyver.
This one was capture tonight from California - 5D III + 400mm f2.8 IS II + 2x TC III 

I think this one is little better than my 1st


----------



## serendipidy (Aug 11, 2014)

Reading this thread made me go out and try with my 7D and 100-400L handheld. This is my result after heavy cropping and some pp in DPP. 1/800s, F 5.6, ISO 160.



Supermoon Aug 10, 2014 by EricJ777, on Flickr


----------



## Mr Bean (Aug 11, 2014)

Between winter rain showers last night, I managed to get off a few shots.
5D3 with 300mm f4 + 1.4x TC. 1/200th @ f11 ISO 100


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 11, 2014)

Great shot serendipidy, and Dylan, that's just a little bit of an improvement! Glad to see the 2x arrived in time. Mr Bean - your moon appears to me upside down  Actually I've got an "Australian Map of the Word" somewhere and I love it.

I got a glimpse of the moon last night when the clouds around it cleared for a few minutes, but that humidity was a killer. The binoculars I was using seemed quite blurry, even though they are as sharp as any lens I own. I also realized that you need to be a very long way from the object you intend to include in the frame if you want it in focus, probably miles away, I think.

The one bit of good news that came out of this very humbling and educational experience, was finding out that a truly dark sky location is within an hour of my house! It's in the middle of the Apalachicola National Forest, and very remote (no cell service) and beautiful place. Once it cools off in January or February, I'll cross my fingers for a cold low humidity night during the new moon. If all goes well, I think I'll be able to see/shoot the Milky Way! X marks the spot here:


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 11, 2014)

P.S. even though I missed out on the supermoon, I did get a picture of another, brighter celestial body and though it was just for fun, at -2 EV it could almost pass for the moon, except for the 7:19AM time stamp


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 11, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> P.S. even though I missed out on the supermoon, I did get a picture of another, brighter celestial body and though it was just for fun, at -2 EV it could almost pass for the moon, except for the 7:19AM time stamp


Very nice


----------



## Click (Aug 11, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> P.S. even though I missed out on the supermoon, I did get a picture of another, brighter celestial body and though it was just for fun, at -2 EV it could almost pass for the moon, except for the 7:19AM time stamp



Cool shot, mackguyver. 8)


----------



## jrista (Aug 11, 2014)

Mackguyver's image reminded me of some of my older supermoon photos. Most of these were from a couple years back, when the supermoon was the closest in 18 years (March 19th, 2011 @ 221,565mi, vs. the 221,765mi of this year). When the moon is full, I don't usually try to photograph it in detail...there just isn't any. 

But it makes for great artistic photos, if you can catch it lower in the horizon, behind a thin layer of clouds, or painting a sky full of whispy clouds:


----------



## serendipidy (Aug 11, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> P.S. even though I missed out on the supermoon, I did get a picture of another, brighter celestial body and though it was just for fun, at -2 EV it could almost pass for the moon, except for the 7:19AM time stamp



Very beautiful photo.


----------



## serendipidy (Aug 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> Mackguyver's image reminded me of some of my older supermoon photos. Most of these were from a couple years back, when the supermoon was the closest in 18 years (March 19th, 2011 @ 221,565mi, vs. the 221,765mi of this year). When the moon is full, I don't usually try to photograph it in detail...there just isn't any.
> 
> But it makes for great artistic photos, if you can catch it lower in the horizon, behind a thin layer of clouds, or painting a sky full of whispy clouds:



Very nice series....I can almost hear a wolf howling.


----------



## jrista (Aug 11, 2014)

serendipidy said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Mackguyver's image reminded me of some of my older supermoon photos. Most of these were from a couple years back, when the supermoon was the closest in 18 years (March 19th, 2011 @ 221,565mi, vs. the 221,765mi of this year). When the moon is full, I don't usually try to photograph it in detail...there just isn't any.
> ...



LOL, yeah. This one is definitely a wolf moon.


----------



## Mr Bean (Aug 11, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Mr Bean - your moon appears to me upside down  Actually I've got an "Australian Map of the Word" somewhere and I love it.


LOL, I was about to add to my post that mine is the "corrected" perspective of the moon pic's


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> Mackguyver's image reminded me of some of my older supermoon photos. Most of these were from a couple years back, when the supermoon was the closest in 18 years (March 19th, 2011 @ 221,565mi, vs. the 221,765mi of this year). When the moon is full, I don't usually try to photograph it in detail...there just isn't any.
> 
> But it makes for great artistic photos, if you can catch it lower in the horizon, behind a thin layer of clouds, or painting a sky full of whispy clouds:



The 4th photo is stunning. The cloud adds more charateristics to the moon. All you need is a wolf


----------



## AlanF (Aug 12, 2014)

Am in Halifax, Nova Scotia, with just the Tamron 150-600 + 5DIII. It was somewhat cloudy, but I got a succession of shots, handheld at 1/1250, iso 640, f/8 600mm. Here is a typical one.Would have done better with the 300/2.8+2xTC on the 70D or 5DIII.


----------



## serendipidy (Aug 12, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Am in Halifax, Nova Scotia, with just the Tamron 150-600 + 5DIII. It was somewhat cloudy, but I got a succession of shots, handheld at 1/1250, iso 640, f/8 600mm. Here is a typical one.Would have done better with the 300/2.8+2xTC on the 70D or 5DIII.



Nicely done. Lots of details.


----------



## FEBS (Aug 12, 2014)

This is a photo of the moon a few months ago. Gear: 7d + 300 2.8 I I + 2x TC. Will try this again in the coming months with 7d, 200-400 1,4 + 1,4 or 2.0 TC. Will also post then


----------



## Click (Aug 12, 2014)

Well done FEBS


----------



## FEBS (Aug 12, 2014)

Click said:


> Well done FEBS



Thx


----------



## jrista (Aug 12, 2014)

Nice shots, Alan and Febs. 

For everyone who likes to photograph the moon, you should really try on the non-full phases. There is SO much more detail when the moon is a large crescent, half, and gibbous. The closer it gets to full, the less relief there is to show off all the surface detail. The best times, really, are a few days before through a few days after half, as you get the greatest amount of relief during that period, and the moon is bright enough not to require long exposures (crescents can be challenging, as you often need to use longer exposures....and it's best to use the lowest ISO you can get away with, as DR is still immense.)


----------



## FEBS (Aug 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> Nice shots, Alan and Febs.
> 
> For everyone who likes to photograph the moon, you should really try on the non-full phases. There is SO much more detail when the moon is a large crescent, half, and gibbous. The closer it gets to full, the less relief there is to show off all the surface detail. The best times, really, are a few days before through a few days after half, as you get the greatest amount of relief during that period, and the moon is bright enough not to require long exposures (crescents can be challenging, as you often need to use longer exposures....and it's best to use the lowest ISO you can get away with, as DR is still immense.)



Thanks jrista for this advice. Will try it within a few weeks when there are no clouds.


----------



## dancook (Aug 13, 2014)

I recently got a 2x TC - so for a total of 400mm this is the moon from last night



The moon @ 400mm by dancook1982, on Flickr

also got a photo of the meteor shower, much room for improvement 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/14715804438/


----------



## FEBS (Aug 13, 2014)

dancook said:


> I recently got a 2x TC - so for a total of 400mm this is the moon from last night
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hi Dan,

very nice picture, a lot of detail. nice to see that the 200 2.0 is doing excellent with the 2.0x TC


----------



## mikio (Aug 13, 2014)

600mm


----------



## AlanF (Aug 13, 2014)

jrista said:


> Nice shots, Alan and Febs.
> 
> For everyone who likes to photograph the moon, you should really try on the non-full phases. There is SO much more detail when the moon is a large crescent, half, and gibbous. The closer it gets to full, the less relief there is to show off all the surface detail. The best times, really, are a few days before through a few days after half, as you get the greatest amount of relief during that period, and the moon is bright enough not to require long exposures (crescents can be challenging, as you often need to use longer exposures....and it's best to use the lowest ISO you can get away with, as DR is still immense.)



Just used my time machine and picked up the 300/2.8+2xTC en route.


----------



## FEBS (Aug 13, 2014)

AlanF said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Nice shots, Alan and Febs.
> ...



Woow Alan,

That's a lot of detail. Which body your 5Diii or 70D ?

Jrista, you are wright to tell us not to take a photo during full moon.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 13, 2014)

FEBS said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



5DIII. You realise FEBS is the acronym for the Federation of European Biochemical Societies!


----------



## jrista (Aug 13, 2014)

FEBS said:


> Jrista, you are wright to tell us not to take a photo during full moon.



LOL, indeed. Here is an example of what you can get at half moon. This is my sharpest, most detailed single-shot image of the moon, taken on a day last winter where seeing was very good (very low atmospheric turbulence):





And here are the details:














Here is another half moon taken recently, during the Moon-Mars conjunction:





The moon is half again, but the detail isn't quite as good as in the first shot above. If you have a tracking mount, you could take a lot of frames of the whole moon, and stack them with an SR algorithm, and maybe get more detail when seeing is poorer.


----------



## FEBS (Aug 13, 2014)

jrista said:


> FEBS said:
> 
> 
> > Jrista, you are wright to tell us not to take a photo during full moon.
> ...



Just one word: marvellous 

What do you mean by a tracking mount?


----------



## jrista (Aug 15, 2014)

FEBS said:


> Just one word: marvellous



Thanks. 



FEBS said:


> What do you mean by a tracking mount?



A German Equatorial Tracking mount is a motorized piece of equipment that allows you to point at specific celestial coordinates (Right Ascension and Declination), and once pointed, continue to "track" that location in sidereal time (the rate at which the night sky passes overhead).

A tracking mount counteracts the rotation of the earth, allowing you to get long exposures of the same spot in the sky. Usually, these mounts can also track in lunar time, solar time, and sometimes even custom time for any number of things (for example, I have an Orion Atlas EQ-G, which I operate with EQASCOM software, which allows me to use custom ephemeris data to program custom tracking for comets, planets, or satellites, etc.)

Most of the time now, I use my Atlas to track the moon in lunar time, so I can do things like take videos. Without a tracking mount, getting videos would be impossible.


----------

