Shopsmith Forums

[ATTACH]15722[/ATTACH]

I was just thinking how one of my boys was so in to star wars, seems to remind me of the title "Moon over Endor".... well this is tonight's moon over Aurora IL, and that tonight's story.

Ed

Daaaang,:eek: That's a beautiful picture

I hope you don't mind that is now the wallpaper on my computer.

The honor is mine!

Ed

Neat picture, Ed.

Long exposure, small aperture?

JPG40504 wrote:Long exposure, small aperture?

If I recall, ISO 100, F8, 1/80 sec. on tripod and used the 10 sec time to settle the tripod movement, UV filter taken off, stabilization off....

Ed

reible wrote:If I recall, ISO 100, F8, 1/80 sec. on tripod and used the 10 sec time to settle the tripod movement, UV filter taken off, stabilization off....

Ed

Interesting! Those settings are obtainable with my camera(f8 'max' and much slower shutter(60 sec).

I have got to conclude your lens be greater than mine(optical 12x max)!

Tripod used, 10 sec delay used, uv filter on.

IIRC I could not get focus to inf(or close enough).

What effect does the uv filter have for this situation(why removed?)


I know I have asked you this before, but Nikon or Cannon? I am 'in the mood' for a new camera and that be the only two on the horizon. IIRC the answer was Nikon. Full Frame or smaller?

Your pix have always looked outstanding even when reduced to 800x600!!!

Here's the EXIF data that goes with the moon photo -- http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=http% ... 1326250592

JPG40504 wrote:Interesting! Those settings are obtainable with my camera(f8 'max' and much slower shutter(60 sec).

I have got to conclude your lens be greater than mine(optical 12x max)!

Tripod used, 10 sec delay used, uv filter on.

IIRC I could not get focus to inf(or close enough).

What effect does the uv filter have for this situation(why removed?)


I know I have asked you this before, but Nikon or Cannon? I am 'in the mood' for a new camera and that be the only two on the horizon. IIRC the answer was Nikon. Full Frame or smaller?

Your pix have always looked outstanding even when reduced to 800x600!!!

This canon camera is a 35X optical. In addition I was using the 2X digital tele-converter. The 35X is about 150mm, in 35mm film wise that equals 840mm (2X converter makes it 1680 35mm film wise).

I also cropped this image so you get to see more moon less black sky, then that was sized to fit the forum size, and then compressed to a level of 70 all with irfanview (which also reads EXIF).

I removed the UV filter so there was no possibility of effect caused by another layer of glass. I can't afford $300 filter, nor $150 filter, not even $75 filters, and once you get in to the price range I can afford the coating can allow light to bounce around making ghosts and light reflections.

I have a selection of photos here:

http://s589.photobucket.com/albums/ss335/reible1/canon%20sx40hs/

plus there are 3 sub-albums...

In case you want to see some more samples of photos from this camera.

Ed

reible wrote:This canon camera is a 35X optical. In addition I was using the 2X digital tele-converter. The 35X is about 150mm, in 35mm film wise that equals 840mm (2X converter makes it 1680 35mm film wise).

I also cropped this image so you get to see more moon less black sky, then that was sized to fit the forum size, and then compressed to a level of 70 all with irfanview (which also reads EXIF).

I removed the UV filter so there was no possibility of effect caused by another layer of glass. I can't afford $300 filter, nor $150 filter, not even $75 filters, and once you get in to the price range I can afford the coating can allow light to bounce around making ghosts and light reflections.

I have a selection of photos here:

http://s589.photobucket.com/albums/ss335/reible1/canon%20sx40hs/

plus there are 3 sub-albums...

In case you want to see some more samples of photos from this camera.

Ed

Thank You!