Sam,
The full moon is a notoriously low-contrast object; if your 1Kmm lens was a
conventional photo telephoto, it's entirely likely that craters and other
surface features would be difficult to discern in the viewfinder screen because
of low contrast, and low resolution on the screen. This is why most of the
astrophotos of the moon's surface that you see are actually shot in regions near
the terminator to get more contrast and oblique lighting. It's analogous to a
ring-lighted photo subject, only worse because the light source in this case
(the sun) is actually almost a point source and is almost directly behind you,
the observer.
BTW, that must have been one helluva TV camera lens to do what you suggest...
regards,
m.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 00:51:03 -0600
From: "Samuel Morales" <dolphans1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [OM] Re: question on the moon
Hey guys,
for those of you who photographed the moon. I have a question did the moon
appear sharp to you? I used a 1000mm lens and could not discern the craters
on the moon. Could any of you see the craters clearly through your lens? I
have never photographed the moon before and did not last evening because I
was disappointed on how it looked through the view finder.
Was anyone out there satisfied with their picture quality? The photo's I
saw in the paper looked like a large ball of light. I recall watching a
Monday night football game on TV a few years ago and the camera zoomed up to
the moon and the detail was amazing. I know it's not fair to compare their
lens with a camera lens, but did anyone have a better view of the moon in
detail than I did?
Sam ....
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|