[Ducatigaz]

1200mm times 1.4 is not 2520mm. What am I missing?

1200 X 1.4= 1680 +1.5 crop factor = 2520 in 35mm terms.

More Short Eared Owl shots with my K-5/Sigma 800mm F5.6 APO EX/Gitzo 5532LS

---

Last edited by Ducatigaz; 03-05-2020 at 03:36 AM.

[Trissa]

With that focal length you're in the realm where a mosquito flying past will generate wind causing the lens to vibrate as if there were an earthquake.

Sometimes a good tripod could help

this is a crop out of the big picture:


The biggest issue is the big city directly "under the moon" with millions of lights and in wintertime the hot air from the heaters going up to the sky. That's one of the reasons that the lower part of the moon is more unsharp than the upper part.

---------- Post added 05-03-20 at 12:12 ----------

1200 X 1.4= 1680 +1.5 crop factor = 2520 in 35mm terms

As the pixel size of the K5 is nearly the same as of the K1 the crop factor can be neglected - if you compare pictures of both cameras. The only issues you will observe is, that the moon does not fit on the sensor of APS.C with 2m lenth. When I took the picture of the moon I had to turn the K1 by 90° to get the complete moon in one image. But at full moon this will not be enough.

But sometimes 400mm is also sufficient

[MossyRocks]

Thank you for the description, can you post a photo?

There was a link to the thread for it but if you want here is a new link to the thread over in the astro group for it.

Ahhh, that would explain why no one has done it before. What about the other bits of junk left behind? Or the tyre treads from the lunar rover - or will they have all been obscured by now by surface impacts and resulting dust movement?

I think again that most of it is all too small and even with perfect conditions would be eaten by the diffraction limit of a lens. Even trying to photograph something much close like the ISS the diffraction limit kicks in the best anyone has ever managed around here for imaging it is this. If you read through the entire thread there is a stacked imaged of the ISS created from the 12 captured frames. With stacking and processing we were basically hitting the diffraction limit of his gear so going much further out like to the moon the angular size of even big things from earth would end up putting them well under the size of what could be resolved with ideal equipment. Again that ignores the 100 miles or so of turbulent atmosphere before you hit about 240,000 miles of space.

Diffraction at f/20 is a killer.

[Shedking]

K-S2 and DA*300, handheld. I think I'm pushing the limits a bit here, not only with the lighting and my own technique but possibly the system as well. Could I do more in PP?

Attached Images

   

[luftfluss]

K-S2 and DA*300, handheld. I think I'm pushing the limits a bit here, not only with the lighting and my own technique but possibly the system as well. Could I do more in PP?

Given that there is no EXIF available for the photos, it's hard to advise...

[jacamar]

Down by the riverbank everything is quiet and peaceful....





and then it's not.

[lidy]

Brrr, scary creatures. I'd be off in a hurry as well! Great timing on your side though!

[Shedking]

Given that there is no EXIF available for the photos, it's hard to advise...

It was only ISO640 to get 1/800th @ f/6.3, then a x2 crop, but I don't like the OOF areas much at all. Photoshop has more filters than I know how to use - perhaps one of the Blur options would have improved the result?

[Arjay Bee]

There was a link to the thread for it

Thank you for the relink - a very interesting series of posts at the two links, and i now have a better understanding of the limits of this type of image. Aalso

i have learned that you cant believe everything you see portrayed in tv shows where if you have the gear you can zoom into anything.

[MossyRocks]

I think I'm pushing the limits a bit here, not only with the lighting and my own technique but possibly the system as well.

Maybe. Good picture shooting technique is very much like good actual shooting technique. There was a thread a little while back where someone went over in great detail how good rifle shooting technique is really the same as good picture shooting technique but I can't find it.

Could I do more in PP?

Probably, but going beyond the simple sliders in Adobe products has a big learning curve

I don't know what settings you were using but I would assume you were referring to reducing the noise in post processing. It looks like you did very little and a while back I gave someone else's image a good try at noise reduction over in the critique forum. If you want to see what was done there you can look here.

[lidy]

One of the dogs we used to dogsit for at the time.



K5 + FA*300 f/4.5
Cross-posted in Your Pet a Day.

[Aaron28]

only had a few chances and blew them with over exposure....Madison county lake, alabama….K-3ii....sigma 150-500os.....x posted where relevant

[luftfluss]

Down by the riverbank everything is quiet and peaceful....





and then it's not.

This is meme-worthy

[stemked]

Taken several years ago.

[luftfluss]

It was only ISO640 to get 1/800th @ f/6.3, then a x2 crop, but I don't like the OOF areas much at all. Photoshop has more filters than I know how to use - perhaps one of the Blur options would have improved the result?

I often use a light amount of noise reduction in my images, and sometimes selective sharpening. In my experience, the blur filters in Photoshop often wind up making the image look artificial, because the areas where the blur is used look noise-free while other areas (like the subject) have more noise in comparison.

Sometimes you can clone out part of the background and then try to subtly soften it. I hope you don't mind me mangling your photo a bit I cropped off some of the right side, then removed the branch with Photoshop's "clone" tool. I then masked the background sky area and went into Camera Raw and applied -20 Clarity. I then went back into Camera Raw and reduced the overall exposure of the photo by -.15 and reduced "Whites" by 20, and finally added a vignette of -30. IMO this de-emphasizes the background fairly naturally and makes the beautiful bird pop a bit more... of course you may think it's all rubbish and I wouldn't be offended if you do!