Photo-a-day

[Whiternoise]

Really big moon at the moment, and yellow too - partial eclipse? - it looked like a harvest moon!



Sorry i didn't add anything for scale

[Blastuk]

Really big moon at the moment, and yellow too - partial eclipse? - it looked like a harvest moon!



Sorry i didn't add anything for scale

i was sorta expecting someone to post it
i saw how big it was too

[brammers]

Pretty! Did you use WB to enhance the colour, or was it really like that?

[Whiternoise]

It was like that

May have been the pollution around Cov, but it was really odd - hence why i wondered if it was a partial eclipse.

[Blastuk]

it was that colour over here in london too.. saturday night and really low in the sky

[Whiternoise]

Well, physics wise, it could just be due to Rayleigh scattering - i.e. the same reason that the sky is blue.

When the moon is near the horizon, the light is going through more atmosphere to get to your eyes. This means that most of the blue light is scattered away and what comes through is red/yellow. Similarly when the moon is right at it's apex, it appears pretty much white because there is less atmosphere to go through and less light is scattered (and as you know RGB = white rather confusingly).

Speaking of blue skies:



Circ. polariser, 200mm and a bit of PP for the contrast and upping the clarity. I love the way cumulus clouds can get that layered look!

[Bobster]

i was just on my way to bed last night when i spotted the moon

960mm @ f8 1/80 ISO400 (hand held - no IS )

oh and the moon doesnt change size - its an optical illusion when its near the horizon because of the ground clutter

[kalniel]

i was just on my way to bed last night when i spotted the moon

960mm @ f8 1/80 ISO400 (hand held - no IS )

oh and the moon doesnt change size - its an optical illusion when its near the horizon because of the ground clutter

Well it does in terms of relative size - at some periods it is actually closer to the earth and thus bigger, though this has nothing to do with it looking bigger on the horizon. But of course as an entity it doesn't change size.

[YorkieBen]

960mm @ f8 1/80 ISO400 (hand held - no IS )

960mm? What combo of lenses/tcs is that from?

[mmh]

960mm? What combo of lenses/tcs is that from?

from the exif, it was 300mm lens with 660mm equivalent crop...

[brammers]

from the exif, it was 300mm lens with 660mm equivalent crop...

Most of the 3rd party tele-converters don't pass Exif data on. If Bobster used a Sigma or Kenko TC the exif wouldn't know about it. I'm guessing a 300mm lens with the 1.6x sensor crop & a 3rd party 2x TC to give the 960mm.

[mmh]

why would you count the sensor crop?

I have 1.6x sensor crop too, but whenever i use the 400mm canon lense, i dont say it was shot at 640mm, i say it was shot at 400mm... likewise when i use the 400mm and the canon 2x extender... it would be 800mm, not 1280mm... the focal length hasnt changed, just the size of the sensor :/

[brammers]

Better ask Bobster that

Seriously, the photographic world generally standardises on 35mm fields of view to show the field of view given by any particular lens combo, from thumbnail sensor sized compacts to ridiculously large glass plates (less so that end, they're kinda expensive and elite, but even so I've definately seen people talking about wanting a '35mm equivalent Mamiya')

We do this because noone knows anything about FoV - we know focal lengths.

Would you rather Bobster told you that he shot the moon using lenses that gave him a 1.7° FoV, knowing that with Bobster's lineup he had to be using a 300mm + 2x TC to avoid the 2.6° FoV that would have resulted from a 300 + 2x TC + FF setup? I doubt it - I had to look up those angles to post this and people just don't use them!

[Bobster]

from the exif, it was 300mm lens with 660mm equivalent crop...

Most of the 3rd party tele-converters don't pass Exif data on. If Bobster used a Sigma or Kenko TC the exif wouldn't know about it. I'm guessing a 300mm lens with the 1.6x sensor crop & a 3rd party 2x TC to give the 960mm.

why would you count the sensor crop?

I have 1.6x sensor crop too, but whenever i use the 400mm canon lense, i dont say it was shot at 640mm, i say it was shot at 400mm... likewise when i use the 400mm and the canon 2x extender... it would be 800mm, not 1280mm... the focal length hasnt changed, just the size of the sensor :/

Better ask Bobster that

Seriously, the photographic world generally standardises on 35mm fields of view to show the field of view given by any particular lens combo, from thumbnail sensor sized compacts to ridiculously large glass plates (less so that end, they're kinda expensive and elite, but even so I've definately seen people talking about wanting a '35mm equivalent Mamiya')

We do this because noone knows anything about FoV - we know focal lengths.

Would you rather Bobster told you that he shot the moon using lenses that gave him a 1.7° FoV, knowing that with Bobster's lineup he had to be using a 300mm + 2x TC to avoid the 2.6° FoV that would have resulted from a 300 + 2x TC + FF setup? I doubt it - I had to look up those angles to post this and people just don't use them!

my Kenko Pro does pass on information if used with the correct glass, but i was using a MK2 Canon 75-300mm lens which isnt compatible, and i can only use manual focus because its a slow lens..

had i been using a full frame camera, i would have been shooting @ 600mm, but the crop factor has to be taken into account when shooting because it is magnifying the image..

[mmh]

my Kenko Pro does pass on information if used with the correct glass, but i was using a MK2 Canon 75-300mm lens which isnt compatible, and i can only use manual focus because its a slow lens..

had i been using a full frame camera, i would have been shooting @ 600mm, but the crop factor has to be taken into account when shooting because it is magnifying the image..

its not magnifying anything... its just not capturing as much as a full frame :/

this isnt beef with you, its beef with the way photographers in general look at cropped sensors...

its not magnifying anything more... if you put the same lens on a full frame camera, you will see the same, just more around the image aswell...

[brammers]

We know this mmh - it's just that the only 'correct' way to represent the view of a lens across formats is FoV measured in degrees.

I know that a 100mm lens, compared to how it would look on the established 35mm film standard, will look the same on my a900, but will look like a 160mm lens on 35mm on Bobster's 30D, a 150mm lens on my old 7D and a 200mm lens on an Olympus.

Could you give me the angle of view in degrees for all of those combinations without looking them up? I haven't got a clue. Hence the use of the 35mm standard for field of view. We use the word 'equivalent' because other things are not the same.