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]

Looks quite nice to my eyes. I see some fairly fine details in that photo. I'd say, a job well done. Thanks for sharing.

[MikeNArk]

Pretty nice shot Angky. The image does have pretty good detail. Glad that you had some satisfaction in creating this image. Your work was rewarded.

[angkymac]

Looks quite nice to my eyes. I see some fairly fine details in that photo. I'd say, a job well done. Thanks for sharing.

Thank you! That lens has quite good resolution.
Angky.

---------- Post added 12-19-21 at 09:16 PM ----------

Pretty nice shot Angky. The image does have pretty good detail. Glad that you had some satisfaction in creating this image. Your work was rewarded.

Yes, work was rewarded!
It took a lot of work to deal with that setup, but the lens turned it out nicely.
Thanks for your affirmation.
Angky.

[Janse]

Well done. I am wondering of shooting the moon my self one night. :-)

[nonpigliounoshoot]

Nice job

[angkymac]

Well done. I am wondering of shooting the moon my self one night. :-)

Yes, you will find the exercise interesting and enjoyable. And the outcome will be different from any other moonshot that you have seen.
Angky.

---------- Post added 12-20-21 at 09:21 PM ----------

Nice job

Thank you. I had no idea what the outcome would be, but it turned out.
Angky.

[Reciprocity]

I think this is decent work, you see much detail. Btw, is 400 mm small on full frame?

[angkymac]

I think this is decent work, you see much detail. Btw, is 400 mm small on full frame?

The way I understand it, the "full frame" 35mm format became the norm for measuring lenses--whether APS-C, 6x7, or other size. In fact, my little point and shoot Sony marks its zoom increments in terms of the 35mm format, though it has only a 1-inch sensor.
The better way to understand these lens sizes, if I get it right, is to measure them in terms of magnification power. So a 400mm lens comes out to be about eight magnifications from normal (400mm / 50mm = 8power).

Not sure if I'm answering the intent of your question, so I'll add this. The image I got of the moon, from either my 35mm dedicated 400mm Tokina lens, or the 6x7 medium format 400mm lens--those two images were the same size on my sensor.
My sensor, being "full-frame" had a very small image of the moon on it--most of the space being occupied by (city light-polluted) dark sky.
I'll see if I can post the unedited image so that the native image size becomes evident.
Hope I've made sense of what you asked...
Angky.

[angkymac]

Here is the unedited moon image to show the amount of cropping.
If this had been shot onto an APS-C sensor, the moon would have taken up more of the image space, since the sensor is smaller, while the magnification from the lens would have remained the same--8x.
Obviously, in the editing process, I brightened the image significantly along with enlarging it.
Angky.

[Reciprocity]

The way I understand it, the "full frame" 35mm format became the norm for measuring lenses--whether APS-C, 6x7, or other size. In fact, my little point and shoot Sony marks its zoom increments in terms of the 35mm format, though it has only a 1-inch sensor.
The better way to understand these lens sizes, if I get it right, is to measure them in terms of magnification power. So a 400mm lens comes out to be about eight magnifications from normal (400mm / 50mm = 8power).

Not sure if I'm answering the intent of your question, so I'll add this. The image I got of the moon, from either my 35mm dedicated 400mm Tokina lens, or the 6x7 medium format 400mm lens--those two images were the same size on my sensor.
My sensor, being "full-frame" had a very small image of the moon on it--most of the space being occupied by (city light-polluted) dark sky.
I'll see if I can post the unedited image so that the native image size becomes evident.
Hope I've made sense of what you asked...
Angky.

Yes, that is the trouble with sensor size. Overlooked that you are on full frame, indeed, 400 mm for the moon on full frame is far from filling the whole picture.

---------- Post added 12-22-21 at 09:46 PM ----------

Here is the unedited moon image to show the amount of cropping.
If this had been shot onto an APS-C sensor, the moon would have taken up more of the image space, since the sensor is smaller, while the magnification from the lens would have remained the same--8x.
Obviously, in the editing process, I brightened the image significantly along with enlarging it.
Angky.

I measured the moon yesterday with my Pentax spotmeter and it gave 10 EV, a rather odd value I think. And it is hard to interpret this in terms of Zone System. Is the moon disc a zone V?

Do you have any knowledge of EV values of the moon ? Because it seems that the F11-rule is still the most correct for taking a good exposed picture of the moon.

[angkymac]

Yes, that is the trouble with sensor size. Overlooked that you are on full frame, indeed, 400 mm for the moon on full frame is far from filling the whole picture.

---------- Post added 12-22-21 at 09:46 PM ----------


I measured the moon yesterday with my Pentax spotmeter and it gave 10 EV, a rather odd value I think. And it is hard to interpret this in terms of Zone System. Is the moon disc a zone V?

Do you have any knowledge of EV values of the moon ? Because it seems that the F11-rule is still the most correct for taking a good exposed picture of the moon.

I cannot answer you on this topic. It has been many a very long day since I ever worked with EV and zones. And I didn't do very well at it in those days!
I typically simply read the brightest spot of what is important, and the darkest of what I want detail in, and then set my camera to capture the shadows (darkest) without blowing out the highlights. This K1 has such a wide DR, and it handles underexposure so fantastically, that I can adjust my image in post if I get it off when exposing it.
I under-exposed this moon by quite a bit unintentionally since I had never taken a picture of the moon that was any good.
Angky.

[5ks]

Excellent moon photo. Thanks for sharing the image and its story. Very interesting combination of a 6x7 format lens and FF body.

[angkymac]

Excellent moon photo. Thanks for sharing the image and its story. Very interesting combination of a 6x7 format lens and FF body.

Yes, that old 6x7 lens is a very fine lens, and the FF 35mm uses its "sweet spot" to great advantage.
Very complex, though, to manage that huge barrel, completely mechanical, and with an added adapter(!), with this "small" camera mounted on its tail!
Thanks for the note!
Angky.

[Reciprocity]

I cannot answer you on this topic. It has been many a very long day since I ever worked with EV and zones. And I didn't do very well at it in those days!
I typically simply read the brightest spot of what is important, and the darkest of what I want detail in, and then set my camera to capture the shadows (darkest) without blowing out the highlights. This K1 has such a wide DR, and it handles underexposure so fantastically, that I can adjust my image in post if I get it off when exposing it.
I under-exposed this moon by quite a bit unintentionally since I had never taken a picture of the moon that was any good.
Angky.

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.