Near-Half Moon

[Hawkman]

September 1st. After a storm that came through this afternoon cleared out, the sky was clear and the nearly-half moon shone brightly as the sun began to set. So, even as the sun was still setting I started shooting. First with the SEL 55-210, then the SEL 50 (which had a hard time focusing on the moon, oddly enough). And finally, I dragged out the "big gun," the Celestron NexStar 6SE (6-inch aperture).

And one of the shots turned out pretty well. Ran it through some quick enhancements in iPhoto to brighten and enhance the local contrast (still haven't decided on other post-processing software yet), and voila...

View attachment 49129 Half Moon - 9/1/14 by SRHawk64, on Flickr
Celestron NexStar 6SE - 1500mm f/10, ISO 800, 1/200.

This may be one of my best yet, IIDSSM.

 

[davect01]

Well done

 

[chrid]

very nice

 

[NickCyprus]

Great!!!

 

[Bimjo]

Very nice! I gotta get a telescope. Or a Pentax Q/Nikon 1 body. Or something that makes bigger images of the moon.

 

[roundball]

Great detail !

 

[TonyTurley]

Very nice! I gotta get a telescope. Or a Pentax Q/Nikon 1 body. Or something that makes bigger images of the moon.

The Minolta MD 135 on my Q is a 756mm equivalent. I have actually taken hand-held photos of birds & squirrels that were decent, but even the tiniest shake can soften a photo at those lengths. As for the Moon, the photos from that combo are pretty good, but not tack sharp. I usually tweak the contrast and add some sharpening in PP. However, if it's a cheap telephoto combination you want, there you have it. Although I don't have one, the Q7 has a bigger sensor (1/1.7" vs 1/2.3"), and those who have it say the photos are better. I'll take my original Q and its magnesium alloy body.

Tony

 

[Bimjo]

The Minolta MD 135 on my Q is a 756mm equivalent. I have actually taken hand-held photos of birds & squirrels that were decent, but even the tiniest shake can soften a photo at those lengths. As for the Moon, the photos from that combo are pretty good, but not tack sharp. I usually tweak the contrast and add some sharpening in PP. However, if it's a cheap telephoto combination you want, there you have it. Although I don't have one, the Q7 has a bigger sensor (1/1.7" vs 1/2.3"), and those who have it say the photos are better. I'll take my original Q and its magnesium alloy body.

Tony

Yeah, I'd probably have to bury my 80-400 under sandbags to keep the shake down. Then again, over 2000mm has a certain geek appeal.

 

[Hawkman]

My thanks to everyone for the positive reinforcement. I think I'm getting the hang of this process of shooting with the telescope.

Although I didn't have the 'scope at the time, the possibilities for using an ILC with a telescope was one of the (admittedly somewhat minor) reasons for my choice to jump into the E-mount world last fall.

Now I'm hoping this new RM-SPR1 Remote Commander that Sony announced alongside the A5100 also works with the A3000 so I can cut the shakes down even more. So far Sony's only showing the A5100 as compatible.

 

[Zanner]

Oh how I wish I had a telescope like that. My 8 yr old daughter is obsessed with space. She would love it.

Beautiful!

 

[José De Bardi]

Oh how I wish I had a telescope like that. My 8 yr old daughter is obsessed with space. She would love it.

Beautiful!

I keep nearly buying one! You can get a decent beginners one with a motorised equatorial mount for £150 here. I dare say in the States it's cheaper!

 

[Hawkman]

Oh how I wish I had a telescope like that.

Actually, telescopes don't have to be very expensive at all. Especially when compared to mid- to high-end E-mount lenses. They are certainly obtainable for less-than-Zeiss costs.

While mine - a Celestron NexStar 6SE Schmidt-Cassegrain hybrid reflector - was a gift (mostly... long story) so I didn't have to shell out the full cost, it is a decent sized one with good light gathering ability for a "starter" 'scope, and is definitely sub-Zeiss money. "Under US$800."

Here it is on Amazon: NexStar 6SE

You can also get one of its little brothers - the 4-inch or 5-inch versions - for even less.

The 4-inch.

The 5-inch.

And for a good intro to the types of telescopes and good examples of each, here's an article from Space.com that I found very helpful.

We felt that the hybrid reflectors like the NexStar 6SE represented the best value and usability with the least potential maintenance. And the powered star-pointing system Celestron has is a nice benefit... though I haven't really used it much yet (it needs you to set it up by pointing to three prominent objects in the sky, any three, and then running an alignment - finding three prominent objects in our urban sky is tough most nights and I just use the SkyGuide app on my iPhone to find objects and point at them most of the time).

My 8 yr old daughter is obsessed with space. She would love it.

At 8 years old, I too was obsessed with space. And I still am.

Beautiful!

Thank you.

 

[Zanner]

If she stays this interested in space, then we may just invest come tax refund time. I always have loved stargazing myself, so it would be a fun family thing to have. For right now, I've bought her a space encyclopedia for kids to look at. And we have the glow in the dark planets hanging from her ceiling in her room. Daddy's working on a model rocket to hang up there too.

And the star walk app on our phones is her favorite to have around the bonfire too.