- IMG_0941.JPG (69.35 KiB) Viewed 3362 times
Nikon D3100 with AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55 mm f/3,5-5,6G VR and AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 55-200 mm f/4-5,6G IF-ED.
P.S I can bet Dave will aprove of it (over Canon I mean)
ID this one!!!!
ID this one!!!!
I was talking about it long enough. Now I finaly decided to do it:
To introduce it properly;
Nikon D3100 with AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55 mm f/3,5-5,6G VR and AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 55-200 mm f/4-5,6G IF-ED.
P.S I can bet Dave will aprove of it (over Canon I mean)
To introduce it properly;
Nikon D3100 with AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55 mm f/3,5-5,6G VR and AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 55-200 mm f/4-5,6G IF-ED.
P.S I can bet Dave will aprove of it (over Canon I mean)
Re: ID this one!!!!
Nice!
Now for the fun part of learning how it all works when you take it out of auto mode and get creative with settings
Now for the fun part of learning how it all works when you take it out of auto mode and get creative with settings
Re: ID this one!!!!
Very nice, Maja, and a step I must take one day.
Steve
Steve
Re: ID this one!!!!
Same seat here too mate, as soon as I get the funds I'll be upgrading my camera body. But with all the lenses I have I'll be "stuck" with having to pick a Sony camera, so hopefully I can find a good deal on a body only Sony something.
Re: ID this one!!!!
Good for you! Congrats Maja! 
I am stuck with using my cell phones camera for the time being...
I am stuck with using my cell phones camera for the time being...
Forget the dog...Beware of the plants!!!
Tony
Tony
Re: ID this one!!!!
I manage to do a little progress in using it.
My attempt of taking a shot of full moon on friday:
My attempt of taking a shot of full moon on sunday:
Could you say the difference is obvious????
My attempt of taking a shot of full moon on friday:
- Luna 14.02.2014.JPG (68.19 KiB) Viewed 3203 times
- Luna 16.02.2014.JPG (9.99 KiB) Viewed 3203 times
Last edited by majcka on Mon Feb 17, 2014 6:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: ID this one!!!!
Yes. The second one is not full anymore. Better luck on 16 March again!majcka wrote: Could you say the difference is obvious????
Re: ID this one!!!!
Do you think this camera is good enough to try a new moon on march 1st????Aiko wrote:Yes. The second one is not full anymore. Better luck on 16 March again!majcka wrote: Could you say the difference is obvious????
Re: ID this one!!!!
Should be, just got to get the metering right
First one is overexposed while the second one seems slightly underexposed. Think last time I tried a moon shot I used aperature mode at about F10 and spot metered on the moon, will give you a suprisingly fast shutter speed as the moon is so bright. Run the lowest ISO you can and if on a tripod make sure to turn the IS off and use the selftimer to limit any vibrations.
Here's my last attempt from the 9th this month with some post processing done and cropped down, could crop closer.
Settings as follows.
Sony A77
Minolta 75-300mm lens @ 300mm
F8
1/160sec
ISO100
Tripod with 2 sec selftimer and IS turned off.
First one is overexposed while the second one seems slightly underexposed. Think last time I tried a moon shot I used aperature mode at about F10 and spot metered on the moon, will give you a suprisingly fast shutter speed as the moon is so bright. Run the lowest ISO you can and if on a tripod make sure to turn the IS off and use the selftimer to limit any vibrations.
Here's my last attempt from the 9th this month with some post processing done and cropped down, could crop closer.
Settings as follows.
Sony A77
Minolta 75-300mm lens @ 300mm
F8
1/160sec
ISO100
Tripod with 2 sec selftimer and IS turned off.
Re: ID this one!!!!
Definitely YES! Don't give up!majcka wrote:...Do you think this camera is good enough to try ...
Practice every day. Try all. Even using flash by day time. Analyzes, compare, conclusions and engineering new and new possibilities and experiments. And ... practice again till you'll reach the stars.
You know ...
“Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.”
Some photos for you.
Shooting in The Gulf style. Same birds, same bullet ...
- DSC_4225-001.JPG (20.29 KiB) Viewed 3164 times
- DSC_4226-001.JPG (22.66 KiB) Viewed 3164 times
- DSC_4227-001.JPG (26.15 KiB) Viewed 3164 times
- DSC_4241-001.JPG (22.64 KiB) Viewed 3164 times
- DSC_4370.JPG (83.88 KiB) Viewed 3164 times
Re: ID this one!!!!
Thank you Justin. 
Re: ID this one!!!!
SnowFella something is wrong with your picture of the Moon. 
You and Majcka taken the pictures about in the same time. (I think it's about one week difference)
Comparing Majcka's picture with your picture, something intrigued me.
I searched through my pictures. I don't have good pictures of Moon.
Here, a picture taken in 2009 using a bridge camera. In Europe, Romania, close to Majcka location.
From North America I have some similar photos, but I didn't find where I saved them.
Do you see what it is wrong?
Three assumptions:
1. When you editing the photo, you rotated the image 180 degrees.
2. Your camera has a problem, it show the world upside down.
3. When you took the picture you sat upside down.
OK, these assumptions are just so, for humorous mood.
SnowFella, nothing wrong with your picture. Technically it's the best. But it show an inverted image of the Moon as seen in the comparison for northern area.
Facts:
SnowFella is in Australia. Very much more in the South compared to Majcka's geographical position. We know that for reach in Australia we need to navigate very long time to the South.
We know, here in North, more or less, the Moon's face look like in Majcka's photo. Have an upside part and a downward part. Parts which does not change between. (Correct me if I am wrong).
Now:
I'm sure neither Majcka and neither SnowFella, not stood upside down when they took the pictures. Of course, upside down compared to the Earth. I'm sure that the both cameras working well. (Their photos with cacti, are a proof to this.)
I'm pretty sure none have rotated the photos when they have edited them. (This need a confirmation.)
However, compared to the Moon, one of them appears as he stood with his head down.
Conclusion:
Majcka's photo and SnowFella's photo of the Moon are a proof, that the Earth is round. More accurate it is spherical. (Correct me if I am wrong).
Well .... more or less. It can also be like a rugby or American football ball. Or like a donut ...
You and Majcka taken the pictures about in the same time. (I think it's about one week difference)
Comparing Majcka's picture with your picture, something intrigued me.
I searched through my pictures. I don't have good pictures of Moon.
Here, a picture taken in 2009 using a bridge camera. In Europe, Romania, close to Majcka location.
- 100_0638 A2 -1.jpg (26.54 KiB) Viewed 3146 times
Do you see what it is wrong?
Three assumptions:
1. When you editing the photo, you rotated the image 180 degrees.
2. Your camera has a problem, it show the world upside down.
3. When you took the picture you sat upside down.
OK, these assumptions are just so, for humorous mood.
SnowFella, nothing wrong with your picture. Technically it's the best. But it show an inverted image of the Moon as seen in the comparison for northern area.
Facts:
SnowFella is in Australia. Very much more in the South compared to Majcka's geographical position. We know that for reach in Australia we need to navigate very long time to the South.
We know, here in North, more or less, the Moon's face look like in Majcka's photo. Have an upside part and a downward part. Parts which does not change between. (Correct me if I am wrong).
Now:
I'm sure neither Majcka and neither SnowFella, not stood upside down when they took the pictures. Of course, upside down compared to the Earth. I'm sure that the both cameras working well. (Their photos with cacti, are a proof to this.)
I'm pretty sure none have rotated the photos when they have edited them. (This need a confirmation.)
However, compared to the Moon, one of them appears as he stood with his head down.
Conclusion:
Majcka's photo and SnowFella's photo of the Moon are a proof, that the Earth is round. More accurate it is spherical. (Correct me if I am wrong).
Well .... more or less. It can also be like a rugby or American football ball. Or like a donut ...
Last edited by Justin on Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: ID this one!!!!
Are you sure? I thought it is a PLATE!Justin wrote: Conclusion:
Majcka's photo and SnowFella's photo of the Moon are a proof, that the Earth is round. More accurate it is spherical. (Correct me if I am wrong).
Well .... more or less. It can also be like a rugby or American football ball. Or like a donut ...
Re: ID this one!!!!
There is a difference taking a picture of the moon using a camera through a telescope to direct by camera I believe, since traditionally astronomical telescopes inverted the image, therefore all the pictures you saw through such telescopes were traditionally the wrong way up.
http://www.telescopes.com/telescopes/im ... rticle.cfm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
These days of course you could just flip them in post processing or even in the past in the enlarger, but they still often traditionally post them wrong way up for conventional astronomers.
Pictures of the full moon tend to look very flat since it is directly lit by the sun as if using an enormous ring light. The best thing photographically to bring out contours is to use skim lighting to produce shadows which show up textures and undulations, and this type of lighting occurs when the moon is not full:-
http://www.photographymad.com/pages/vie ... h-the-moon" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://home.hiwaay.net/~krcool/Astro/moon/howtophoto/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Majcka's photo and SnowFella's photo of the Moon are a proof, that the Earth is round. More accurate it is spherical. (Correct me if I am wrong).
Well .... more or less. It can also be like a rugby or American football ball."
The earth is an "oblate spheroid" I was told!
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... not-round/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.telescopes.com/telescopes/im ... rticle.cfm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
These days of course you could just flip them in post processing or even in the past in the enlarger, but they still often traditionally post them wrong way up for conventional astronomers.
Pictures of the full moon tend to look very flat since it is directly lit by the sun as if using an enormous ring light. The best thing photographically to bring out contours is to use skim lighting to produce shadows which show up textures and undulations, and this type of lighting occurs when the moon is not full:-
http://www.photographymad.com/pages/vie ... h-the-moon" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://home.hiwaay.net/~krcool/Astro/moon/howtophoto/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Majcka's photo and SnowFella's photo of the Moon are a proof, that the Earth is round. More accurate it is spherical. (Correct me if I am wrong).
Well .... more or less. It can also be like a rugby or American football ball."
The earth is an "oblate spheroid" I was told!
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... not-round/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: ID this one!!!!
Any better????
- Luna 16.03.2014.JPG (41.4 KiB) Viewed 2991 times