«

I took some photos of the moon tonight. They were taken around 20:30h,
1 hour after sunset. The moon was located less than 45 degrees from
the horizon. I don't know whether the timing and the position of the
moon was ideal or not.
The smaller moon object was taken with the G7, and the larger ones
with FZ18. I also was not sure whether I should push the zoom beyond
the 6x optical for the G7, and beyond the 18x for the FZ18. However,
the maximum 24x in G7 is still relatively small in comparison to the
FZ18 )which is about 72X (??)
It appears that the best exposures were taken at -1.5 to -2 EV (under
exposed) for both camera. I think the IS was not turned off.
They do not show as sharp as other photos that I have seen. Perhaps I
need to look for better conditions and should not go into the digital
zoom territory? Any comments?
http://picasaweb.google.com/aniramca/Moon_shots
(Note that exif data were shown in each photos)

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> I took some photos of the moon tonight. They were taken around 20:30h,
> 1 hour after sunset. The moon was located less than 45 degrees from
> the horizon. I don't know whether the timing and the position of the
> moon was ideal or not.
> The smaller moon object was taken with the G7, and the larger ones
> with FZ18. I also was not sure whether I should push the zoom beyond
> the 6x optical for the G7, and beyond the 18x for the FZ18. However,
> the maximum 24x in G7 is still relatively small in comparison to the
> FZ18 )which is about 72X (??)
> It appears that the best exposures were taken at -1.5 to -2 EV (under
> exposed) for both camera. I think the IS was not turned off.
> They do not show as sharp as other photos that I have seen. Perhaps I
> need to look for better conditions and should not go into the digital
> zoom territory? Any comments?
> http://picasaweb.google.com/aniramca/Moon_shots
> (Note that exif data were shown in each photos)
>

Another set of examples:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/moon-test1

Roger

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:54:02 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>I took some photos of the moon tonight. They were taken around 20:30h,
>1 hour after sunset. The moon was located less than 45 degrees from
>the horizon. I don't know whether the timing and the position of the
>moon was ideal or not.
>The smaller moon object was taken with the G7, and the larger ones
>with FZ18. I also was not sure whether I should push the zoom beyond
>the 6x optical for the G7, and beyond the 18x for the FZ18. However,
>the maximum 24x in G7 is still relatively small in comparison to the
>FZ18 )which is about 72X (??)
>It appears that the best exposures were taken at -1.5 to -2 EV (under
>exposed) for both camera. I think the IS was not turned off.
>They do not show as sharp as other photos that I have seen. Perhaps I
>need to look for better conditions and should not go into the digital
>zoom territory? Any comments?
>http://picasaweb.google.com/aniramca/Moon_shots
>(Note that exif data were shown in each photos)

Digital zoom on Canon cameras will not help, but using RAW will (obtain CHDK to
enable RAW output from your G7). Unlike some other digital cameras where digital
zoom is applied directly to the RAW data and it can actually provide more detail
in the final JPG files, Canon does not take this route. So no more detail is
available in using digital zoom in Canon cameras. I've not tested this in
Panasonic cameras but have in Canon cameras. In order to find out if
digital-zoom can afford more details in the resulting JPG image you'll have to
take images of identical subjects (hi-resolution test charts preferred) with
full digital-zoom and without. Then up-sample the non-digital zoom data to the
same subject dimensions as the digital-zoomed image using the very best
up-sampling algorithms/programs that you can find. Compare them. If you can't do
better with up-sampling algorithms in post processing as you can do with
digital-zoom, meaning you can discern more detail in the digital-zoomed image
than the up-sampled ones, then Panasonic is applying the digital-zoom to the RAW
data directly and is therefore definitely worth using. If you have RAW available
then this is superfluous as you can obtain the same amount of detail from the
RAW data. Post-processing up-sampling methods on RAW data will always beat any
in-camera up-sampling methods.

Use spot-meter mode to set your exposure for the moon's surface. Remembering
that the lighted side of the moon is no different than subjects on the earth lit
by the sun at noon. No need to play around with EV values if you use your
spot-meter or just use the "Sunny 16" rule..

Since you will be using shutter speeds as fast as during full sunlight, using
the camera's IS will give you the same stability at whatever focal-length of
zoom you use as during day. Hand-held shots of the moon that are crisp and clear
when using an IS equipped camera are not only possible but ordinary today.

Anyone that has to use a tripod to get a crisp shot of the moon at long
focal-lengths (200-600mm, 35mm eq.) when they have IS at their disposal knows
very little about photography, available-light exposure settings for common
subjects, the IS is poorly implemented in their cameras or lenses, or is just
really bad at hand-held technique in general.

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 05:57:31 GMT, KevinGreene wrote:

> Digital zoom on Canon cameras will not help

Nor do frequent nym changes, sock puppy.

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 23:11:14 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> I took some photos of the moon tonight. They were taken around 20:30h,
>> 1 hour after sunset. The moon was located less than 45 degrees from
>> the horizon. I don't know whether the timing and the position of the
>> moon was ideal or not.
>> The smaller moon object was taken with the G7, and the larger ones
>> with FZ18. I also was not sure whether I should push the zoom beyond
>> the 6x optical for the G7, and beyond the 18x for the FZ18. However,
>> the maximum 24x in G7 is still relatively small in comparison to the
>> FZ18 )which is about 72X (??)
>> It appears that the best exposures were taken at -1.5 to -2 EV (under
>> exposed) for both camera. I think the IS was not turned off.
>> They do not show as sharp as other photos that I have seen. Perhaps I
>> need to look for better conditions and should not go into the digital
>> zoom territory? Any comments?
>> http://picasaweb.google.com/aniramca/Moon_shots
>> (Note that exif data were shown in each photos)
>>
>
>Another set of examples:
>http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/moon-test1
>
>Roger

Interesting. Some of aniramca's P&S camera photos are much better than any of
your dslr shots, yours done in RAW (highest detail possible) and on a tripod at
that. Interesting to note that you also had to lock up that image-jarring mirror
and lose use of your viewfinder to obtain all of them too. The only reason
there's more contrasting detail in yours is the phase of the moon, when the
angle of the sun defines the moon's relief more sharply from the shadows cast.
Some of aniramca's photos still show more detail and are every bit as clear even
without having the benefit of the lower angle of the sun.

So much for "getting what you pay for." Thanks for posting the photos for
comparison between the capabilities of a very expensive dslr and lens and some
of the more popular and inexpensive P&S cameras.

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> I took some photos of the moon tonight. They were taken around
>> 20:30h, 1 hour after sunset. The moon was located less than 45
>> degrees from the horizon. I don't know whether the timing and the
>> position of the moon was ideal or not.
>> The smaller moon object was taken with the G7, and the larger ones
>> with FZ18. I also was not sure whether I should push the zoom beyond
>> the 6x optical for the G7, and beyond the 18x for the FZ18. However,
>> the maximum 24x in G7 is still relatively small in comparison to the
>> FZ18 )which is about 72X (??)
>> It appears that the best exposures were taken at -1.5 to -2 EV (under
>> exposed) for both camera. I think the IS was not turned off.
>> They do not show as sharp as other photos that I have seen. Perhaps I
>> need to look for better conditions and should not go into the digital
>> zoom territory? Any comments?
>> http://picasaweb.google.com/aniramca/Moon_shots
>> (Note that exif data were shown in each photos)
>>
>
> Another set of examples:
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/moon-test1
>
> Roger

... and:
http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/imaging/moon.htm

David

KevinGreene wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 23:11:14 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
> rnclark)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>> I took some photos of the moon tonight. They were taken around 20:30h,
>>> 1 hour after sunset. The moon was located less than 45 degrees from
>>> the horizon. I don't know whether the timing and the position of the
>>> moon was ideal or not.
>>> The smaller moon object was taken with the G7, and the larger ones
>>> with FZ18. I also was not sure whether I should push the zoom beyond
>>> the 6x optical for the G7, and beyond the 18x for the FZ18. However,
>>> the maximum 24x in G7 is still relatively small in comparison to the
>>> FZ18 )which is about 72X (??)
>>> It appears that the best exposures were taken at -1.5 to -2 EV (under
>>> exposed) for both camera. I think the IS was not turned off.
>>> They do not show as sharp as other photos that I have seen. Perhaps I
>>> need to look for better conditions and should not go into the digital
>>> zoom territory? Any comments?
>>> http://picasaweb.google.com/aniramca/Moon_shots
>>> (Note that exif data were shown in each photos)
>>>
>> Another set of examples:
>> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/moon-test1
>>
>> Roger
>
> Interesting. Some of aniramca's P&S camera photos are much better than any of
> your dslr shots, yours done in RAW (highest detail possible) and on a tripod at
> that. Interesting to note that you also had to lock up that image-jarring mirror
> and lose use of your viewfinder to obtain all of them too. The only reason
> there's more contrasting detail in yours is the phase of the moon, when the
> angle of the sun defines the moon's relief more sharply from the shadows cast.
> Some of aniramca's photos still show more detail and are every bit as clear even
> without having the benefit of the lower angle of the sun.
>
> So much for "getting what you pay for." Thanks for posting the photos for
> comparison between the capabilities of a very expensive dslr and lens and some
> of the more popular and inexpensive P&S cameras.
>
You completely missed the point of the page.
Of course this is from the anti DSLR troll.
The point of the page is to photograph the moon at 400mm
EQUIVALENT focal length, and to show that most cameras give
the same basic image when at the same equivalent focal length.
But the DSLRs with large S/N get a cleaner image which can be
deconvolved to higher resolution as Figure 5a versus 5b shows.
Things like use of a tripod on both the DSLR and P&S cameras
was to make the test more scientific by taking any camera shake
out of the equation. Mirror lockup on a DSLR is trivial, such
as put it in a mode that when you press the shutter, the mirror
goes up and 2 seconds later the shutter trips.

If you just want to show the differences between P&S versus
digital, such as on aniramca's page look at equivalent
pages, such as
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...-c-5x-700.html
and that is with a telephoto lens.

Of course both a P&S and a DSLR can be put on real telescopes
for better images.

Here is a challenge for you: image Saturn in the night sky
(not photograph a magazine picture) with a P&S picture with
lenses available to P&S cameras (not telescopes).
Get back to us when you have your best image.

Roger

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 07:07:24 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>
>You completely missed the point of the page.

On the contrary. You missed the whole point of what you so happily, but
ignorantly, provided.

Check out the details surrounding and all throughout Mare Crisium, Mare
Tranquillitatis, Mare Nectaris, and Mare Fecunditatis between your photos made
with your dslr and the photos made with the FZ18. Even your up-sampled and
severely over-Photo-Shopped versions don't contain even half the details
contained in the FZ18 photos. Just the structure of the lunar features alone in
those evenly lit areas are defining all that detail in the FZ18 photos. Those
areas are lit by nearly the same angles of lights in both sets (FZ18 vs. Mk II),
not relying on high-contrast details from relief shadows at any terminator.
Which you thought would make your images look better at the terminator, but
failed at miserably, because those shadows on your photos now only show how much
more blurry your lens and sensor resolves details compared to the P&S's zoom
lens and smaller sensor.

Read 'em and weep.

What a pity that you wasted all that money on a dslr and overpriced "L" glass.
Even more's the pity that you are now trying so desperately to prove how much
better it must be. You could have obtained better photos with an inexpensive P&S
camera. You can lie to yourself all you want. Even believe your dslr is better
until you are dead and in your grave. Doesn't matter one bit.

The pictures don't lie.

Fool.

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:22:30 GMT, KevinGreene, meathead, wrote:

> The pictures don't lie.

But you do.


> Fool.

Shhh. You're not supposed to let us hear your incantations. But
your sock puppet disguises are so slipshod and obvious that very few
of us are ever fooled.

On Sep 26, 1:11 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
<usern...@qwest.net> wrote:
> anira...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I took some photos of the moon tonight. They were taken around 20:30h,
> > 1 hour after sunset. The moon was located less than 45 degrees from
> > the horizon. I don't know whether the timing and the position of the
> > moon was ideal or not.
> > The smaller moon object was taken with the G7, and the larger ones
> > with FZ18. I also was not sure whether I should push the zoom beyond
> > the 6x optical for the G7, and beyond the 18x for the FZ18. However,
> > the maximum 24x in G7 is still relatively small in comparison to the
> > FZ18 )which is about 72X (??)
> > It appears that the best exposures were taken at -1.5 to -2 EV (under
> > exposed) for both camera. I think the IS was not turned off.
> > They do not show as sharp as other photos that I have seen. Perhaps I
> > need to look for better conditions and should not go into the digital
> > zoom territory? Any comments?
> >http://picasaweb.google.com/aniramca/Moon_shots
> > (Note that exif data were shown in each photos)
>
> Another set of examples:http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/moon-test1
>
> Roger

Even a modest telescope with a decent focal length will easily outdo
an expensive camera lens. Using anything under 1000-2000mm (depending
on the sensor format) requires cropping and the image is generally not
as good as it can be.