Photography folks...

-
inkjunkie

inkjunkie

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
17,413
Reaction score
3,082
Location
......
Need some help....was outside taking pictures of the moon last night. Have an old Canon Digital Rebel XT. Had the zoom lens from my old 35mm camera, just your standard garden variety lens, it too was a Canon. While back when I was trying to figure some of this stuff out I played around with filters and got frustrated....but left the UV filter on. Anyhow, some pictures look good....
View attachment IMG_0950 (Medium).jpg

View attachment IMG_0951 (Medium).jpg

while others don't. I would call it a shadow...

View attachment IMG_0952 (Medium).jpg

View attachment IMG_0957 (Medium).jpg

was going to go out and shoot some without the UV filter but got busy and forgot. If this haze/shadow was the caused by the uv filter why does it only appear every now & then?

Few other pictures form last night, we had some smoke from the fire in our 'hood last nite...

View attachment IMG_0965 (Medium).jpg

View attachment IMG_0966 (Medium).jpg

View attachment IMG_0969 (Medium).jpg

View attachment IMG_0970 (Medium).jpg

View attachment IMG_0973 (Medium).jpg

View attachment IMG_0974 (Medium).jpg
 
Night shots are tricky, my camera does not always 'know' where to focus, so I take multiple shots. For moon photos with mine I have also found that the 'facial recognition' setting really helps. Camera is a Cannon SX30 IS, photo from Friday night.
 

Attachments

  • moon.jpg
    22.7 KB · Views: 200
What you call shadow is actually called 'lensflare', and mostly happens when the object is too bright and reflects inside the photolens.
You can see that your pics with 'better' lightning hardly have any lensflare. Only the ones with a too bright object.
 
It takes a really good lens to get great shots of the moon, and even then, much of the year you are fighting "atmospherics." Everything from almost fog / moisture in the air, heat flare, smoke, dust, you name it.

I took these the other night on a whim just about sunset

http://www.forabodiesonly.com/mopar/showthread.php?t=282411

At least one or two was taken with not only the 300mm2.8, but with stacked 2x and 1.4 extenders / teleconverters, so you are looking at 300 x 3 x 1.4 for combined equivalent of 840mm. This is not figuring the 'crop' factor of the camera (7D crop is same as an XT, 1.6) but I don't think that way. "A 300mm is a 300mm" is the way I view things

To put things into perspective, that old 300mm 2.8 is old enough that it was introduced on the auto-focus film bodies, but even then, back in the late eighties / early nineties, it was somewhere around five thousand bucks.

The new replacement has I.S. (this one does not) but to buy a new one from B&H or Adorama would blow

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/732108-USA/Canon_4411B002_EF_300mm_f_2_8L_IS.html

SEVENTY FOUR HUNDRED bucks.

Even something like the Canon 100-400L would run you

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...SM.html/?m=Y&gclid=CLiqx8WWw78CFUhufgoddgoALg

Seventeen hundred

Now you CAN get by with less. But it can be difficult. Especially with an XT you are fighting the following.............

The viewfinders on them are dismally small

http://snapsort.com/learn/images/viewfinder-size-comparison.jpg

If you were to take most any 35mm SLR and look through with one eye, and your XT with the other, you are looking at LESS THAN HALF the size for a viewfinder. Look at the far top left, "Olympus OM-1" This is what you'll see through just about ANY 35mm SLR, regardless of brand or age, with a little variation

This chart was made up before the 7D came out, it would be "about the same" as a 5D

Yet another "gotcha" is that the XT does not use a prism up there, they use a mirror, which is a little bit less than efficient.

Possibly the biggest 'gotcha' on ALL DSLR cameras, is that the mirror in the shutter box is PARTIALLY TRANSPARENT to allow light through for the metering / AF system. This means that "not all the light" coming through the lens gets to your eye.

My manual focus "night work" improved DRAMATICALLY when I finally upgraded to a 40D. These have "live view" on a nice big rear display, which can be magnified "2 bumps" to something on the order of 8 or 10X normal view. This is a TREMENDOUS help when focusing, and in fact is the way in which I focus my moon shots.

Frankly, I don't use my 7D for movies. If I knew then what I know now, I'd have saved my money and NOT bought the 7D bodies, and simply kept my 40Ds. They are "way more camera" than most of us are photographers

If you are at all interested, you can find Canon 40D bodies in very nice used condition for around 300 bucks, with all the factory accessories. These will be a great camera for years to come. I sold one of my two to a friend in AZ. When I realized "how little" they were worth, I'll just keep the second one, thank you very much. I also still have my old --working!!! Xt

http://oi57.tinypic.com/ka3411.jpg
 
67Dart273 said:
It takes a really good lens to get great shots of the moon, and even then, much of the year you are fighting "atmospherics." Everything from almost fog / moisture in the air, heat flare, smoke, dust, you name it.

I took these the other night on a whim just about sunset

http://www.forabodiesonly.com/mopar/showthread.php?t=282411

At least one or two was taken with not only the 300mm2.8, but with stacked 2x and 1.4 extenders / teleconverters, so you are looking at 300 x 3 x 1.4 for combined equivalent of 840mm. This is not figuring the 'crop' factor of the camera (7D crop is same as an XT, 1.6) but I don't think that way. "A 300mm is a 300mm" is the way I view things

To put things into perspective, that old 300mm 2.8 is old enough that it was introduced on the auto-focus film bodies, but even then, back in the late eighties / early nineties, it was somewhere around five thousand bucks.

The new replacement has I.S. (this one does not) but to buy a new one from B&H or Adorama would blow

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/732108-USA/Canon_4411B002_EF_300mm_f_2_8L_IS.html

SEVENTY FOUR HUNDRED bucks.

Even something like the Canon 100-400L would run you

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...SM.html/?m=Y&gclid=CLiqx8WWw78CFUhufgoddgoALg

Seventeen hundred

Now you CAN get by with less. But it can be difficult. Especially with an XT you are fighting the following.............

The viewfinders on them are dismally small

http://snapsort.com/learn/images/viewfinder-size-comparison.jpg

If you were to take most any 35mm SLR and look through with one eye, and your XT with the other, you are looking at LESS THAN HALF the size for a viewfinder. Look at the far top left, "Olympus OM-1" This is what you'll see through just about ANY 35mm SLR, regardless of brand or age, with a little variation

This chart was made up before the 7D came out, it would be "about the same" as a 5D

Yet another "gotcha" is that the XT does not use a prism up there, they use a mirror, which is a little bit less than efficient.

Possibly the biggest 'gotcha' on ALL DSLR cameras, is that the mirror in the shutter box is PARTIALLY TRANSPARENT to allow light through for the metering / AF system. This means that "not all the light" coming through the lens gets to your eye.

My manual focus "night work" improved DRAMATICALLY when I finally upgraded to a 40D. These have "live view" on a nice big rear display, which can be magnified "2 bumps" to something on the order of 8 or 10X normal view. This is a TREMENDOUS help when focusing, and in fact is the way in which I focus my moon shots.

Frankly, I don't use my 7D for movies. If I knew then what I know now, I'd have saved my money and NOT bought the 7D bodies, and simply kept my 40Ds. They are "way more camera" than most of us are photographers

If you are at all interested, you can find Canon 40D bodies in very nice used condition for around 300 bucks, with all the factory accessories. These will be a great camera for years to come. I sold one of my two to a friend in AZ. When I realized "how little" they were worth, I'll just keep the second one, thank you very much. I also still have my old --working!!! Xt

http://oi57.tinypic.com/ka3411.jpg
Click to expand...

Let me guess, the camera you sold to your buddy in AZ was the one I sort of blew you off about?
 
inkjunkie said:
Let me guess, the camera you sold to your buddy in AZ was the one I sort of blew you off about?
Click to expand...

Well, LOL, you never seemed to have the money, or whatever. I had two, now I have one. Since they seem to continuously drop in value, I may never sell the second one. But as I said, for all the bells a 7D comes with, it might be a waste of money in my case.
 
Found a 40d body/batteries/card on FleaBay for $260.00 shipped. Will just use my existing lenses for now. Have been using a Hitachi 4gb Microdrive even since I got my Rebel XT. Can find very little info on it in the way of speed, probably just not looking at the right web sites. Drive is pretty old, might look for cf card that writes fast enough to still allow me to go to the dragstrip and hold the shutter button down....

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/sandisk...P&srccode=cii_45538312&cpncode=33-316287423-2
perhaps....
 
I just buy mine at "whatever" at Staples. Most of mine are 8 or 16 gb

What do you have for lenses? Even my Xt has taken some fantastic photos with a good lens

This was taken with my Xt, years ago, and my 100-400L I've grown to hate the "new improved Flicker"

Click the link for a "full size" photo

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2350/2275768578_6bcd0fbd31_o.jpg

2275768578_9e73bee3a0_z.jpg
 
Well I have an old tank 10D canon and you can set it to any situation you have. Photoghaphy is just light management and a good lense will help a lot like canon luxury lenses (L-series) invest in the glass not a new body. I have a 300f-4 L and it is a great lense for around a grand used. The new ones are higher I heard because of that tidal wave a few years ago wiped out the L- series factory. Not sure about that but a used one is an investment. Enjoy.
 
This is exactly so. The only disadvantage I can think of to a 10D (as I recall?) is that you cannot use both EF-S and EF lenses on that body, right?

I had both a 20 and a 30 for a short time. I had bought them at good buys at the time, used. Then I ran across a good deal on my 40D and sold both the others.

A 40D is a great upgrade. It's good enough that most of us don't really need "better." They are now cheap enough that you can look around and get a nice "low miles" one used, for 300 or so or less.

The really big advantage to a 40 is the larger LCD and the magnified live view, along with a somewhat larger viewfinder.
 
My favorite true story. I went into a thrift store, and one of these incredibly "singing" irritating "always on" pencil necks is "well hi how ya doin are ya doin good taday, is God ......................"

I was in a bad mood. I had intended to go out and the weather deteriorated so I told him

"Well I WAS gonna go shoot some Eagles today, but the weather got worse"

"SHOOT EAGLES!!!!!???? Isn't that ILL EAGLE?"

"Well I WAS going to use a Canon."

"CANNON?? You are SHOOTING at EAGLES with a CANNON???!!!"

"You didn't expect me to use a NIKON did'ja?"

I swear. This is exactly true. Take THAT ya irritating pencil neck singing freakoid
 
67Dart273 said:
I just buy mine at "whatever" at Staples. Most of mine are 8 or 16 gb

What do you have for lenses? Even my Xt has taken some fantastic photos with a good lens

This was taken with my Xt, years ago, and my 100-400L I've grown to hate the "new improved Flicker"

Click the link for a "full size" photo

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2350/2275768578_6bcd0fbd31_o.jpg

2275768578_9e73bee3a0_z.jpg
Click to expand...

When I bought my digital camera it came with a efs18-55mm lens. Been using the 75/300 lens that came with my old 35mm camera. Really would like to get new lens. Suppose I should start doing some reading. ONe lens I would like to get is a good Macro one....
 
The biggest issue with "shooting the moon" or other high light type objects is light metering. Without going into the myriad of details and such, try "spot" metering on the moon. If you are doing an "area" metering the moon will washout.

Tripod and release cable can be useful for this type of photography as well so as not to "shake" the camera during the shot.
 
I don't even meter. I just estimate, and then see what I come up with on the LCD / histogram, and usually bracket the thing about 3 stops either way. There is no "correct" exposure for the moon, depending on what you are doing, because some features are "just right" some are "in shadow," and others are "washed out."
 
Got the 40d body the other day. Night & day difference between my old camera...even with my crappy old lens's. Both of my lens's are form my old 35mm camera, which I bought around 95 or so. I was a bit abusive back then, so they have seen better days. Going to start shopping for lens's, gotta wonder "when enough is enough" when it comes to caliber of the lens's.

Safe to assume that just like home audio equipment there is plateaus so to speak? You spend, lets say a grand on a amp & it sounds nice. Another $400 ($1400 total) sounds better....but in order to hear an improvement, for most normal folks, the next step up is $3000....and the sound quality is only minimally better....

I ran into this when I bought my home audio equipment way back. Of all things the sales man that I was dealing with cut me off, as far as spending more coin. I was very close to making a trip up to Canada in an attempt at getting better equipment without breaking the bank anymore than I already had...

Will post some pictures from the 40 when I get a chance...
 
You have to do a lot of searching. There's "some lenses" that are "better quality" than their price would "seem"

Google around and confirm, I believe one is the newer Canon 55-250mm. I used to have, example, a Canon 70? 75? -300 and it was a complete dog

You can find the 55-250 around used

This lens you do NOT want

http://spokane.craigslist.org/pho/4559783759.html

The Canon 100-300 4.5-5.6 is supposed to be pretty good for the price

And, in trying to find one, I found this:

http://spokane.craigslist.org/pho/4569237576.html

for 500. That would be a good buy if you want to spend that much, and if it fits your zoom needs

That lens does NOT have IS and is 700 bucks new at B&H. I use them and Adorama for price comparison

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183198-USA/Canon_2578A002_EF_70_200mm_f_4L_USM.html

In the "medium" range, I used to possess a newer version of Canon 28-135. For a budget lens it's pretty good. It's available used, because lots of people bought them with a body as a "kit" on sale from Canon "Back then" you could sell that lens "as new used" for more money than you had paid Canon for it

Here's a sample shot of the neighbor cat

(God DAMN I hate Flickr!!!!)

Reduced size of the original full frame

https://www.flickr.com/photos/18786943@N03/2478716417/lightbox/

Well I give the eff up. Freekin Flickr has finally "improved" the site so much I can no longer use it and I'm the owner of my account. I cannot access the different image sizes any longer. Why is it illegal to blow up Yahoo? Why is murder the #uck illegal in this case? It should be completely acceptable for me to waltz into the "Yahoo" (what an appropriate freekin name) headquarters and KILL whoever designed this horrible awful, impossible to use site

This is NOT a full size crop. I can no longer access the original

https://www.flickr.com/photos/18786943@N03/2479528860/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top