Moon shots - Lumix FZ18 vs. Canon G7

Discussion in 'Panasonic Lumix' started by aniramca, Sep 26, 2007.

  1. aniramca

    aniramca Guest

    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)
     
    aniramca, Sep 26, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

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

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Sep 26, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. aniramca

    KevinGreene Guest

    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.
     
    KevinGreene, Sep 26, 2007
    #3
  4. aniramca

    ASAAR Guest

    Nor do frequent nym changes, sock puppy.
     
    ASAAR, Sep 26, 2007
    #4
  5. aniramca

    KevinGreene Guest

    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.
     
    KevinGreene, Sep 26, 2007
    #5
  6. David J Taylor, Sep 26, 2007
    #6
  7. 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/gallery.astrophoto-1/web/moon-JZ3F3658-60-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
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Sep 26, 2007
    #7
  8. aniramca

    KevinGreene Guest

    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.
     
    KevinGreene, Sep 26, 2007
    #8
  9. aniramca

    ASAAR Guest

    But you do.

    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.
     
    ASAAR, Sep 26, 2007
    #9
  10. aniramca

    Rich Guest

    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.
     
    Rich, Sep 26, 2007
    #10
  11. aniramca

    The Bobert Guest

    The best time to shoot the moon is when it is highest in the sky. There is
    slightly less atmospheric distortion because the light travels through less
    of the atmosphere than it does at a 45 degree angle

    Don't use digital zoom. You can do better using PhotoShop or PSE.
    Upsizing is an art, not a science. In other words, your eyes will tell you
    when you've got the best size.

    Sharpening is also an art. Both PS and PSE do a good job of sharpening.

    IMO all digital images whether from a camera or scanner need some
    adjustment done in post processing. Minimum would be adjustment of levels
    (contrast and brightness) and sharpening (done as the LAST step) Doing the
    adjustments yourself rather than allowing the camera to do it will result
    in a better photo.
     
    The Bobert, Sep 26, 2007
    #11
  12. aniramca

    Saguenay Guest

    FZ18 love may make you blind.
    Enough said.

    mb
     
    Saguenay, Sep 27, 2007
    #12
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.