Another way with a telescope is to focus the eyepiece image but requires a rather elaborate setup. I have a 1200 mm Apo Tessar and photographing this way, the moon more than fills the frame.
Why are there no speaker jacks on a stereo camera?
You are indeed better off using a long telephoto to photo the moon, whatever it takes to fill the frame on your 35mm. There are still some inexpensive 400mm T-mount lenses available for just over $100 new, then add a 2 power converter. This will get you close, but be aware, the setup is slow, as the converter also doubles the f-stop of the lens.
As for enlarger lenses, I have a Schneider Componon-S 80/f4 I was considering letting go of. PM me if you are interested.
I used a 2x tele on a 400mm once with the Minolta. At 4x6, the moon was about one inch. Great detail. Don't remember the exposure. It was in 2001/2.
"Wubba, wubba, wubba. Bing, bang, bong. Yuck, yuck, yuck and a fiddle-dee-dee." - The Yeti
You can try the 25mm Rodenstock but, even though it is a fantastic lens, your projection print will be blurry. On thing to remember is that at 100x enlargement your diffraction is related to the relative aperture, not the indicated aperture. So, even with that lens wide open, your relative aperture is going to be way into the diffraction range, like f400 or so.
Your Airy disks are literally going to be as big as the craters on the moon , so you won't have much resolution.
Here is a Moon picture taken on 2-1/4 x 3-1/4 with a baby Speedgraphic, and the Moon image enlarged by scanning at 4000 dpi with the Nikon 9000ED. You cannot expect to get much better if you enlarge your tiny 35mm image. As mentioned above, if you want to photograph and enlarge a Moon image, use a telescope. Moon is 1/2 degree diameter more or less and although it can appear large at moonrise, it is actually no larger when near to the horizon.
By denying the facts, any paradox can be sustained--Galileo
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
MTS... I think you dropped your ball of cheese in the sand. It's all grainy.
Yep. Looks blown all up to me.
made some test shots ttl of the telescope with the D60
will need camera mount
Telescope focal length divided by Eyepiece focal length = Eyepiece power
1000 v 25 = 40
The eyepiece power, or magnification is therefore 40X (approximately).
Clear aperture ..................114mm
Focal length .....................1000mm
Focal ratio .......................f/8.8
Resolving power.................1.0 arc secs
Max power .......................325X
Kodak Duaflex II with kodet lens
N75 N8008s D60
Yashica - D
Only a photographer knows the true value of infinity
Surprised no one has mentioned these two points yet:
Size of moon on negative = lens focal length / 109
Use the sunny 16 (or moony 11) rule when shooting the moon.
Aaaaah please don't start that discussion!
Originally Posted by paul_c5x4
People really need to spot meter IMHO. The sunny/luny/moony rules work much better when shooting something illuminated by the moon, but frequently fail for the moon itself because of the phases and atmospheric scatter and so forth. Why not spot meter- we have the technology! Also, if someone is trying to get moon detail then the shutter speed will prove to be the singlemost important factor. As high as 1/320 is not unusual for a ~full frame shot. I clearly saw motion blur below that speed when I did this at ~1200mm. For a small enlargement 1/200 seemed acceptable, but people think St. Ansel did 1 sec in Hernandez and so that must be fine and... not so for tight crops. Adams was a super-smart guy but he wasn't able to stop the moon in the sky