Just another moon shot, a day short of full moon...
So it's not a big deal.

I'm posting it, though, because of how it was captured.
Finally had one clear evening following a rain to clear, and to cool, the air.
This is from the K1 using a 400mm lens, so the native image is quite small in the full-frame.
This enlargement is about 150%, and is so enlarged that pixilation is noticeable around the edge of the moon.
The interesting part, for me, is that my 400mm Tokina lens simply does not have the resolving power to see clear detail on the moon's surface.
So, I switched and put on an adapter to use Pentax's venerable (and huge!) 6x7 medium format 400mm manual lens on the K1.
The resolution is, in my opinion, fairly respectable. Some green fringing is apparent on the inside of the top edge of the moon's image, but not much, considering the enlarging and cropping.
The tripod had to be large and heavy, and even so, I had to be careful to keep it from over-balancing.

So, I finally found a way to 'shoot the moon"!
Just sharing the fun with you good folk!
Angky.

[Photos-by-Chas]

Yes, it is a bit paradoxal as well. I think the measurement in EV should be compensated with one or two stops. I didn't have the opportunity now to test it, because the full moon wasn't visible this time due to the weather, But according to the list of EV I saw, the full moon should about 15 EV. If I put this value in zone V (and look at the calculator dial), and compare it with the F11-rule, it could make sense to compensate with a stop (or two). Somebody here on the forum with experience in astrophotography wrote that the moon is actually darker than we think, so this could explain it.
Another possibility is the focal length of the meter.Anyway, it is either all this or my meter is definitely broken.

Could the meter be picking up some extraneous light from somewhere, and skewing the reading? I'm not an expert on light meters or have any real experience with one except the ones built into my camera and trusting it. That is just a possibility that came to mind.

[angkymac]

Yes, it is a bit paradoxal as well. I think the measurement in EV should be compensated with one or two stops. I didn't have the opportunity now to test it, because the full moon wasn't visible this time due to the weather, But according to the list of EV I saw, the full moon should about 15 EV. If I put this value in zone V (and look at the calculator dial), and compare it with the F11-rule, it could make sense to compensate with a stop (or two). Somebody here on the forum with experience in astrophotography wrote that the moon is actually darker than we think, so this could explain it.
Another possibility is the focal length of the meter.Anyway, it is either all this or my meter is definitely broken.

Thinking a bit about what you are saying about the meter, I might offer this, if it might be helpful.
I preferred an incident light meter when I shot film (I shot positives--chromes). The dynamic range was nil with that stuff--2 or 3 stops--and the incident light meter was my best metering for even exposures. Now, with the amazing capabilities of the modern sensors, I can use my camera as an excellent spot meter. I restrict the meter to only the center spot, and, with a zoom, I expose the hottest spot with the zoom at max tele. I do the same with the darkest spot. After all this, I compose the shot and use an exposure that will give me acceptable detail in the darkest area (that needs detail). And I keep the dynamic range indicator within the extreme brightest for the hot spots. And since I can now see the image immediately (not like with film), I can adjust from there. That is for nature shots. (If I do people--which I seldom do--I expose a half stop over for the brightest skin tones on white skin--brightest spot on dark skin gets about a stop over. But I am not a good photographer of people, so I don't speak with any significant insight.)

That is how I handle exposures now that our equipment is so different from past days.
And I am very thankful for the outstanding capabilities of digital post processing apps!
Angky.

[Reciprocity]

Could the meter be picking up some extraneous light from somewhere, and skewing the reading? I'm not an expert on light meters or have any real experience with one except the ones built into my camera and trusting it. That is just a possibility that came to mind.

It is possible, I have problems with day one with this meter. But I think 10 EV is a really low measurement even though it wasn't a full moon, but still rather large, no half moon in any case, so no 50 procent light loss I suppose. Of course I am no astrophotographer so I have no clue as to what to expect in reading.

[Reciprocity]

Thinking a bit about what you are saying about the meter, I might offer this, if it might be helpful.
I preferred an incident light meter when I shot film (I shot positives--chromes). The dynamic range was nil with that stuff--2 or 3 stops--and the incident light meter was my best metering for even exposures. Now, with the amazing capabilities of the modern sensors, I can use my camera as an excellent spot meter. I restrict the meter to only the center spot, and, with a zoom, I expose the hottest spot with the zoom at max tele. I do the same with the darkest spot. After all this, I compose the shot and use an exposure that will give me acceptable detail in the darkest area (that needs detail). And I keep the dynamic range indicator within the extreme brightest for the hot spots. And since I can now see the image immediately (not like with film), I can adjust from there. That is for nature shots. (If I do people--which I seldom do--I expose a half stop over for the brightest skin tones on white skin--brightest spot on dark skin gets about a stop over. But I am not a good photographer of people, so I don't speak with any significant insight.)

That is how I handle exposures now that our equipment is so different from past days.
And I am very thankful for the outstanding capabilities of digital post processing apps!
Angky.

Thanks for the information, yes the spotmeter option in the camera could offer a solution.

[maucard]

Thanks for this beautiful moon shot and for explaining us how you obtained it. I also have that lens, from the years when I mostly used 6x7, but I still had not tryed it on K1, hence I' m interested in your "cross format" experiment. In your photo, considering the crop factor, I see the details are maintained very well, hence it seems in good hands this combo has worked well! Best regards, Maurizio

[angkymac]

Thanks for this beautiful moon shot and for explaining us how you obtained it. I also have that lens, from the years when I mostly used 6x7, but I still had not tryed it on K1, hence I' m interested in your "cross format" experiment. In your photo, considering the crop factor, I see the details are maintained very well, hence it seems in good hands this combo has worked well! Best regards, Maurizio

Yes, the combination produces good images, but it is very inconvenient to use.
The only necessity is to get an adaptor from 6x7 to 35mm K mount. These are not highly expensive since they use no operational connectors from lens to camera--all is totally manual.
Thanks for your note.
Angky.