Big Moon on mid-autumn day at 1200mm and 2400mm equiv. on Pentax Kx


sunnycamera

Senior Member
Dec 8, 2010
2,089
5
38
SG
#1
Finally got time to try out this combo, here are the photo of full moon on mid-autumn day

Tokina 400mm f5.6 at f22 + Takumar A 2x TC + Vivitar 2x TC = 1600mm (equiv 2400mm on Pentax Kx)



Tokina 400mm f5.6 at f16 + Vivitar 2x TC = 800mm (equiv 1200mm on Pentax Kx)



the tripod with IR remote



 

stuck

New Member
Mar 12, 2010
728
2
0
#5
looks kinda soft. could be the teleconvertors. any reason you chose f22?
 

sunnycamera

Senior Member
Dec 8, 2010
2,089
5
38
SG
#6
f22, because, the smaller the aperture, the sharper it can get, due to the teleconvertor image quality, the main lens has to be very sharp to survive 2 teleconvertor degrading
 

#7
f22, because, the smaller the aperture, the sharper it can get, due to the teleconvertor image quality, the main lens has to be very sharp to survive 2 teleconvertor degrading
nice information... lighten up my day..been sick for a while... btw we are taking about APC size here... not MF and above which defraction is not as critical... anyway ur setup doesn't look stable to me... maybe getting a sturdy support helps abit...
 

detritus

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2009
2,922
3
0
shootingbugs.blogspot.com
#8
f22, because, the smaller the aperture, the sharper it can get, due to the teleconvertor image quality, the main lens has to be very sharp to survive 2 teleconvertor degrading
is F22 the aperture set on your camera? or is that the aperture you calculated after losing 4 stops of light with the 2 TC stacked back to back?

more importantly, what is your assessment / conclusion with regard to the quality of images derived from this setup?
 

pinholecam

Moderator
Staff member
Jul 23, 2007
10,934
85
48
#9
Good try
You might just want to try f8-f16 and use a higher ISO like 400 or 800.
You'd also need a very sturdy tripod.
The one you are showing is not only flimsy mechanically but its also not setup fully to be more stable.

I have a very heavy old 400mm lens as well.
On my whimpy Slik Sprint Pro, the camera with the 400mm shakes even with the shutter and mirror movements.


Very often, its better to not have the teleconverter. The light loss through teleconverter just means slower shutter speeds.
These old long teles usually don't have the modern coatings and better optics to cope, and its flaws are multiplied by the teleconverter.


Here is a shot using KX at ISO 800
Enna Munchen Tele-Ennalyt 400/4.5 at f8.
Hand held and braced against the window.
 

Last edited:

Lanxiang

New Member
Sep 6, 2010
83
0
0
#10
Hey buddy, that's awesome!
 

Last edited:

airconvent

Senior Member
Apr 12, 2005
4,777
0
36
#11
Good try
You might just want to try f8-f16 and use a higher ISO like 400 or 800.
You'd also need a very sturdy tripod.
The one you are showing is not only flimsy mechanically but its also not setup fully to be more stable.

I have a very heavy old 400mm lens as well.
On my whimpy Slik Sprint Pro, the camera with the 400mm shakes even with the shutter and mirror movements.


Very often, its better to not have the teleconverter. The light loss through teleconverter just means slower shutter speeds.
These old long teles usually don't have the modern coatings and better optics to cope, and its flaws are multiplied by the teleconverter.


Here is a shot using KX at ISO 800
Enna Munchen Tele-Ennalyt 400/4.5 at f8.
Hand held and braced against the window.
oh wow..this is the best moon shot I've seen from a non-astronomy telescope image! :thumbsup: Taken in the morning or evening? :)
 

airconvent

Senior Member
Apr 12, 2005
4,777
0
36
#12
Hi sunnycamera,
While the mathematics would have yielded a good magnification, in reality, the optics may not be good enough to perform at that level. The result is blurry images. My guess is if you have not focussed sharply, you may have already exceeded the maximum optimum magnification your optics can deliver. You may want to bring that magnification down by half to see if the image improves and crop it instead.
Regards
 

loneWolff

Deregistered
Sep 22, 2010
574
0
0
Commonwealth
#13
Good try
You might just want to try f8-f16 and use a higher ISO like 400 or 800.
You'd also need a very sturdy tripod.
The one you are showing is not only flimsy mechanically but its also not setup fully to be more stable.

I have a very heavy old 400mm lens as well.
On my whimpy Slik Sprint Pro, the camera with the 400mm shakes even with the shutter and mirror movements.


Very often, its better to not have the teleconverter. The light loss through teleconverter just means slower shutter speeds.
These old long teles usually don't have the modern coatings and better optics to cope, and its flaws are multiplied by the teleconverter.


Here is a shot using KX at ISO 800
Enna Munchen Tele-Ennalyt 400/4.5 at f8.
Hand held and braced against the window.
I kow tow to your shot, damn nice!!!
 

xDreamerZ

New Member
May 3, 2011
94
0
0
24
Disney!
#14
The moon looks rather soft and out of focus actually. Maybe you want to change the aperture to f/11 because f/22 may not be the sharpest focus of the lens. And i think the 2 tele-converter actually degraded the quality of the photo by quite alot.
I took this shot on 13 August 2011 :

My setup is D7000 with 80-400 lens with tripod. F/11 @ 1/125s, ISO 200, so IMHO i think that the 400mm on the lens is already good enough!
 

Last edited:

sunnycamera

Senior Member
Dec 8, 2010
2,089
5
38
SG
#15
cool, I have never seen a moon that sharp.

of course, it would be better to shoot at 400mm at crop to make it big at best quality.

since I bought 2 teleconvertor, so curious to try out at no-crop, how long the focal length need to be to fill the full moon in, that is 2400mm.

my second try with just one teleconvertor after crop,



i think i should try the 400mm alone once,

my 2 shots all shot at ISO 200, 1/2 sec, 3 sec IR remote trigger

Good try
You might just want to try f8-f16 and use a higher ISO like 400 or 800.
You'd also need a very sturdy tripod.
The one you are showing is not only flimsy mechanically but its also not setup fully to be more stable.

I have a very heavy old 400mm lens as well.
On my whimpy Slik Sprint Pro, the camera with the 400mm shakes even with the shutter and mirror movements.


Very often, its better to not have the teleconverter. The light loss through teleconverter just means slower shutter speeds.
These old long teles usually don't have the modern coatings and better optics to cope, and its flaws are multiplied by the teleconverter.


Here is a shot using KX at ISO 800
Enna Munchen Tele-Ennalyt 400/4.5 at f8.
Hand held and braced against the window.
 

sunnycamera

Senior Member
Dec 8, 2010
2,089
5
38
SG
#16
I think I may sell one of the tele convertor after I know that.

even the wind blowing will make my 1600mm setup shaky a tiny bit.

actually the tripod is from my roommate, I normally dont use tripod much
 

Last edited:

xDreamerZ

New Member
May 3, 2011
94
0
0
24
Disney!
#17
Yeah i guess the tripod + the shutter speed of 1/2s made the camera shake that's why the image is abit out of focus. You should try f/11 @ 400mm then you will see sharp moon photos already! :D
 

maisatomai

Deregistered
Oct 26, 2006
357
0
0
#18
I like moon picture. Go google a pinoy guy liquidstone with a sigma 300-800. His moon shot is awesome.
 

sunnycamera

Senior Member
Dec 8, 2010
2,089
5
38
SG
#19
here is 400mm f11, just taken outside, still hot. ISO 800, 1/800 sec



croped


photoshop contrast boost


seems the air is still haze, is it because the common haze happens these days every year
 

Last edited:

pinholecam

Moderator
Staff member
Jul 23, 2007
10,934
85
48
#20
here is 400mm f11, just taken outside, still hot. ISO 800, 1/800 sec
photoshop contrast boost


seems the air is still haze, is it because the common haze happens these days every year

I think you've got it :)
 

Top Bottom