Panasonic FZ5 & FZ20 moon pictures

Discussion in 'Panasonic Lumix' started by David J Taylor, Apr 24, 2005.

  1. David J Taylor, Apr 24, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. David J Taylor

    RHinNC Guest

    Well done...
     
    RHinNC, Apr 24, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. David J Taylor

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Ron Hunter, Apr 25, 2005
    #3
  4. David J Taylor

    Harmless Guest

     
    Harmless, Apr 25, 2005
    #4
  5. David J Taylor

    Pete Fenelon Guest

    Pete Fenelon, Apr 25, 2005
    #5
  6. Harmless wrote:
    []
    Please be careful - whilst the subject is the same the timing, lighting,
    and atmospheric viewing conditions are not.

    I published two comparison photographs a couple of weeks ago (now taken
    down) taken under identical full aperture conditions to show the lens at
    it worst. The general conclusing was that while the results were slightly
    different, they were generally very similar, and neither was obviously
    better.

    Glad folks have the enjoyed the pictures, though, thanks for all your
    comments.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 25, 2005
    #6
  7. David J Taylor

    RichA Guest

    Probably not enough magnification to worry about atmospheric (seeing)
    conditions. If the stars are really twinkling, that's a sign that
    the atmosphere is unsteady and detail can be washed out.
    I thought the shots were good because there was crater detail and yet
    they were taken without a driven astronomical mounting.
    -Rich
     
    RichA, Apr 25, 2005
    #7
  8. RichA wrote:
    []
    The elevation of the moon was only about 20 degrees in the shot from this
    year, hence my comment. The exposure was just 1/500s at f/4 (according to
    the EXIF data). One day I'll get a proper telescope (been saying that for
    30 years) but the atmospheric light pollution just gets worse and worse
    here so there's not much point.

    Thanks for the comments, though. Just fun shots with a new toy!

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 25, 2005
    #8
  9. David J Taylor

    dylan Guest

    You don't need a astronomical mounting to photo the moon when the exposure
    will be around 1/500th, unless you plan to use very long focal lengths. I've
    used a 400mm+1.4x convertor on a 10D with no problems.
     
    dylan, Apr 25, 2005
    #9
  10. David J Taylor

    Ron Hunter Guest

    In any case, both cameras produced quite acceptable images, with minimal
    visible noise. I would call that a good result.
     
    Ron Hunter, Apr 25, 2005
    #10
  11. David J Taylor

    Ron Hunter Guest

    If you wait long enough, maybe you can get a telescope with adaptive
    optics. grin.
     
    Ron Hunter, Apr 25, 2005
    #11
  12. David J Taylor

    RichA Guest

    Doesn't matter on planets or the moon. Light pollution only effects
    "deepsky" objects like nebula, galaxies, stars, etc.
    -Rich
     
    RichA, Apr 25, 2005
    #12
  13. These are really quite good for a "simple" handheld camera. I'm very
    impressed.

    Joe (a professional astronomer)
    ------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
    For a quality usenet news server, try DNEWS, easy to install,
    fast, efficient and reliable. For home servers or carrier class
    installations with millions of users it will allow you to grow!
    ---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dnews.htm ----
     
    Joseph Miller, Apr 27, 2005
    #13
  14. Joseph Miller wrote:
    []
    Thanks for your comments, Joe. A bit of fun, as I said. My wife (who was
    once a professional astronomer working with the Cambridge Schmidt
    telescope) commented on the level of crater detail.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 27, 2005
    #14
  15. What disappointed me is that they were clearly better than my own shots
    with my new Nikon 8800. Not that I should necessarily be any better at
    taking pictures like this, but I would have thought that the 8800 could
    do just as well. Last night I did some experimenting and may have found
    the reason. At full aperture the camera focuses perfectly on infinity
    if put on autofocus, but is very slightly out of focus if the
    "landscape" (mountain logo) focus is selected. It's enough out of focus
    to explain my disappointing pictures, which were taken with the set
    focus. I have some more experiments to do to see what is going on
    (repeatability, manual focus to longest distance, etc.,), but I don't
    know if this discrepancy is grounds for sending the camera back.
    Perhaps the landscape setting is purposefully set to be just shy of
    infinity.

    Joe

    (I've used some data obtained with that Schmidt to select objects for my
    own research on quasars.)
     
    Joseph Miller, Apr 27, 2005
    #15
  16. Joseph Miller wrote:
    []
    Well, the 8800 doesn't have quite the same zoom IIRC. Yes, it's 350 vs
    432mm equivalent at its long end. The exposures suggest that the image
    stabilisation or camera-shake shouldn't really be an issue, and these
    shots were both taken after a dinner party with wine. I would normally
    set "infinity" on my 8400 (or my 5700) for taking photos from an aircraft
    window, but perhaps that actually sets the hyperfocal distance rather than
    a true infinity? On the Panasonic I simply used auto-focus, and it worked
    fine. The FZ5 doesn't even have an "infinity" setting! As you say,
    perhaps the 8800 is just shy of infinity?

    When Cecilia used the Schmidt, optical star position were more accurate
    than radio star positions, so she was responsible for calibrating the
    measurements obtained from radio telescopes.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 27, 2005
    #16
  17. Joe Miller wrote:
    []
    Almost exactly - 432mm * sqrt (5/8) = 340mm (approx) and the 8800 is 350mm
    equivalent.
    Quantity rather than quality of wine is perhaps the more important fact
    affecting camera stability (and indeed, personal stability!). That
    Californians tried to sell me French Burgundy rather than their own
    excellent wine was always a surprise to me!
    Yes, indeed, Joe, she knew Cyril, although it has been over 30 years since
    she had any contact. I'll e-mail you a reference.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 28, 2005
    #17
    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.