moon shot w/ 55-300

darthku · 05-15-2008, 12:36 AM

Unfortunately I don't have a tripod, so this is hand held.
300mm, F/32, 1/15, ISO200

StarDust · 05-15-2008, 12:49 AM

A bit shaky yes, but still an ok avatar picture ;D
So this is the new 55-300 mm Pentax lens? How is it?

Mechan1k · 05-15-2008, 01:48 AM

Really ... that's a pretty good shot for handheld at that focal length ... a tripod is needed for sure. But really .. for a consumer grade long zoom ... it did a lot better than I was expecting.

How much is the image cropped????

ftpaddict · 05-15-2008, 01:54 AM

ISO 400 and f/11 would have helped a bunch, don't you think? Stopping down so much actually loses you some detail because of diffraction.

roentarre · 05-15-2008, 02:08 AM

Originally posted by ftpaddict

ISO 400 and f/11 would have helped a bunch, don't you think? Stopping down so much actually loses you some detail because of diffraction.

Very true. f8 is the ceiling for DSLR.

simonkit · 05-15-2008, 05:05 AM

Originally posted by roentarre

Very true. f8 is the ceiling for DSLR.

I hope not, otherwise all us landscape photography guys are in trouble !!

I find F11 no problem and F16 is pretty good too - never used F32

simon

ivoire · 05-15-2008, 06:17 AM

Nice shot, nice lens. but i envy the steady hands that can do a handheld shot like this even more.

roentarre · 05-15-2008, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by simonkit

I hope not, otherwise all us landscape photography guys are in trouble !!

I find F11 no problem and F16 is pretty good too - never used F32

simon

On films, I would love f32 as well. On DSLR, I had my fair share of lessons.

f11 might be ok but f16 would definitely suffer image degradation.

However, f16 would work wonderful for water blurr like seascape with waves, waterflow of creek or downpour of waterfalls...

darthku · 05-15-2008, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by StarDust

A bit shaky yes, but still an ok avatar picture ;D
So this is the new 55-300 mm Pentax lens? How is it?

The 55-300mm is a great lens, especially for the price. I'm still amazed how much better the images turn out compared to the Tamron 70-300mm I used to have

Originally posted by Mechan1k

Really ... that's a pretty good shot for handheld at that focal length ... a tripod is needed for sure. But really .. for a consumer grade long zoom ... it did a lot better than I was expecting.

How much is the image cropped????

The original was 3872x2592, I cropped it to 472x474.

Overall, I'm still very happy I went with this lens and would totally recommend it to anyone looking for a decently priced telephoto.

ve2vfd · 05-15-2008, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by ivoire

Nice shot, nice lens. but i envy the steady hands that can do a handheld shot like this even more.

Indeed, tell me about it!!!

I shake a little too much for nice shots like that.

Pat

05-15-2008, 12:36 AM	#1
darthku Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Bay Area, CA Posts: 108	moon shot w/ 55-300 Unfortunately I don't have a tripod, so this is hand held. 300mm, F/32, 1/15, ISO200

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Yet another moon shot... K7	fillerupmac	Post Your Photos!	6	06-20-2010 09:26 PM
Nature try to shot the moon with k-x and DAL 55-300	kraijeck	Post Your Photos!	9	12-04-2009 06:27 AM
Moon Shot with 1.5 TC	68wSteve	Post Your Photos!	0	03-10-2009 04:18 AM
Moon shot	xs400	Post Your Photos!	5	03-20-2008 05:18 PM
First moon shot	FWW56	Post Your Photos!	4	01-22-2008 01:39 AM

05-15-2008, 12:49 AM	#2
StarDust Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Posts: 400	A bit shaky yes, but still an ok avatar picture ;D So this is the new 55-300 mm Pentax lens? How is it?

05-15-2008, 01:48 AM	#3
Mechan1k Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 2,891	Really ... that's a pretty good shot for handheld at that focal length ... a tripod is needed for sure. But really .. for a consumer grade long zoom ... it did a lot better than I was expecting. How much is the image cropped????

05-15-2008, 01:54 AM	#4
ftpaddict Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Yurp Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,666	ISO 400 and f/11 would have helped a bunch, don't you think? Stopping down so much actually loses you some detail because of diffraction.

05-15-2008, 02:08 AM	#5
roentarre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 11,783	Originally posted by ftpaddict ISO 400 and f/11 would have helped a bunch, don't you think? Stopping down so much actually loses you some detail because of diffraction. Very true. f8 is the ceiling for DSLR.

05-15-2008, 05:05 AM	#6
simonkit Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: North Wales, UK Posts: 645	Originally posted by roentarre Very true. f8 is the ceiling for DSLR. I hope not, otherwise all us landscape photography guys are in trouble !! I find F11 no problem and F16 is pretty good too - never used F32 simon

05-15-2008, 06:17 AM	#7
ivoire Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,381	Nice shot, nice lens. but i envy the steady hands that can do a handheld shot like this even more.

05-15-2008, 06:25 AM	#8
roentarre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 11,783	Originally posted by simonkit I hope not, otherwise all us landscape photography guys are in trouble !! I find F11 no problem and F16 is pretty good too - never used F32 simon On films, I would love f32 as well. On DSLR, I had my fair share of lessons. f11 might be ok but f16 would definitely suffer image degradation. However, f16 would work wonderful for water blurr like seascape with waves, waterflow of creek or downpour of waterfalls...

05-15-2008, 08:29 AM	#9
darthku Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Bay Area, CA Posts: 108 Original Poster	Originally posted by StarDust A bit shaky yes, but still an ok avatar picture ;D So this is the new 55-300 mm Pentax lens? How is it? The 55-300mm is a great lens, especially for the price. I'm still amazed how much better the images turn out compared to the Tamron 70-300mm I used to have Originally posted by Mechan1k Really ... that's a pretty good shot for handheld at that focal length ... a tripod is needed for sure. But really .. for a consumer grade long zoom ... it did a lot better than I was expecting. How much is the image cropped???? The original was 3872x2592, I cropped it to 472x474. Overall, I'm still very happy I went with this lens and would totally recommend it to anyone looking for a decently priced telephoto.

05-15-2008, 09:24 AM	#10
ve2vfd Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Montreal, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,433	Originally posted by ivoire Nice shot, nice lens. but i envy the steady hands that can do a handheld shot like this even more. Indeed, tell me about it!!! I shake a little too much for nice shots like that. Pat

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search