For Chris101...

Discussion in 'Night, InfraRed, and UltraViolet Photography' started by cwilt, May 22, 2005.

  1. cwilt

    cwilt

    Apr 24, 2005
    Denver, CO
    22706124-L-1.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Flew

    Flew

    994
    Jan 25, 2005
    Alabama
    Hey, you got the WB right (I missed it on my shots....;-)). Very nice shot. What was your set-up?
     
  3. You and Frank (Flew) must have been out on the same night.
     
  4. cwilt

    cwilt

    Apr 24, 2005
    Denver, CO
    This is what my setup looks like Frank. I have pushed this as far as I can. Next step for me would be a telescope. That could be fun. :)

    12152426-L.
     

    Attached Files:

  5. Chris101

    Chris101

    Feb 2, 2005
    Arizona
    That is sweet Charles!!!

    Sorry I didn't catch it earlier - you've got great detail all along the edge. The central peak of crater Pythagoras (left edge, just above center) is very well defined. Watching sunrise on that crater is something loonies like to do as the moon approaches full phase. Good job.

    If this sort of thing excites you, a telescope will certainly improve on the details you can catch, as well as get you hooked into staying up all night just to look through it.
     
  6. cwilt

    cwilt

    Apr 24, 2005
    Denver, CO
    Thanks Chris. It has been cloudy the last 2 nights so no moon shots. The telescope does interest me but it will have to wait. Going to be taking the family on some weekend trips to the local national parks here. I'm looking at buying an image storage device next. Mesa Verde and Rocky Mountain are the targets.

    These trips should decide if I stay with the precision of primes or switch to the convenience of zooms.

    Thanks for looking.
    Charles
     
  7. Chris101

    Chris101

    Feb 2, 2005
    Arizona
    Some zooms these days are getting pretty precise - look at UF's work with his Beast. I find the choice is one of attitude and shooting style. Well, and maximum aperture. ;)

    Primes suit my 'for fun' style (walking all around a jubject, shooting at night, smaller lenses), while zooms are better for working because of the time and effort savings in not needing to move as much and not changing lenses.

    Oh, and PS, you don't need an expensive 'scope for the moon. A 6 dobsonian (around $250) can do marvelous photos of the moon (and let you see avarything.) You will, however need something that tracks the sky to photograph anything less bright than the moon though. The work you've done with your camera lens though is really marvelous!
     
  8. cwilt

    cwilt

    Apr 24, 2005
    Denver, CO
    Chris,

    I agree that the zooms are getting better and in some cases matching the primes. UF does excellent work. I would probably get 3 zooms. 12-24, 28-70, and a 70 to 200. All would need to be fast and I would probably go for the full frame versions instead of the smaller digital versions.

    I was looking at one of the Meade scopes for about $1000 with tracking. D2x images of deep space objects might be interesting. It would be time consuming to stack 25 RAW images from a D2x though.

    Thanks for the comments. I may take your idea of doing a full lunar cycle and making a pano of the series. :)

    Charles