• Tired of adverts on RWI? - Subscribe by clicking HERE and PMing Trailboss for instructions and they will magically go away!

Full moon - Feb 8 2012

madcatlancelot

I'm Pretty Popular
21/12/08
1,876
108
63
I've seen full moon photos too many times over the net, magazines, etc, and I've always wondered what settings do people use. I was walking back home when I noticed it was full moon today, I had to give it a go and try taking some picts.

This is one of the better outcome of my experiment, I used the settings F8, 1/400s, ISO 200, cropped and some sharpening using Nikon's ViewNX (free) software.

DSC_4890_1_001.jpg
 

R2D4

Admin
Advisor
15/4/07
14,908
56
48
Nice picture. Any space ships cross your lens? lol
 

olworthers

I'm Pretty Popular
17/8/07
2,171
33
48
Awesome picture, wish I had the patience and skill (and equipment!) to take pictures like that!


-OW
 

madcatlancelot

I'm Pretty Popular
21/12/08
1,876
108
63
Thanks guys!

Surprisingly, this result is as easy as taking a wrist shot for any decent entry level dslr, once you move to M mode with the settings that I used with the max zoom, you should be able to get similar results.

The aliens were busy buying reps and their spaceships were nowhere to be found, they just got an update via newsletter the CNY holidays are over. lol
 

Mr. Pap

Section Moderator
Section Moderator
5/6/08
7,350
173
63
Nice shot... I suppose the camera worth every penny of it...
 

mike 8

Legendary Member
13/8/11
10,742
15
38
It's the "Blizzard Moon"
Extreme tides, both high and low....Great pic
 

madcatlancelot

I'm Pretty Popular
21/12/08
1,876
108
63
@pap: Indeed the camera (a D7000) is worth the every penny, it handles very well compared to my 6yr old Nikon D80, not to mention that the camera is a 7th wed anniversary gift from the missus. :)

thanks mike :)


I had few test shots using the camera and the photos looks good.

DSC_0117_001.jpg


PAM367_05.jpg


BreitlingSeawolfwristshot.jpg


DSC_1084_resize.jpg


RolexExpII42mmresize.jpg
 

donaldejose

I'm Pretty Popular
20/12/08
1,196
2
0
Moon: Most people think the moon would be hard to photograph because it is out at night but if you think about it the moon is in full daylight so normal daylight exposure is all you need. You have to use manual mode because so much of the sky is black. If you were shooting through a telescope so you could full your frame with the moon you could use auto exposure and about +1 exposure compensation to keep the moon bright and stop it from turning medium gray. What is really hard about photographing the moon is to get it to fill your frame. That takes a huge lens or a telescope.

D80: That is the camera I used to take most of the watch photos I posted on RWI. If you have not seen them do a search for the threads I have started and you will see tons of large photos of watches. The D80 captures about 10 megapixels of data in an image. I had to downgrade all my photos from 10 megapixels to about 1 to 2 megapixels to display them on RWI. If I had not downsized the photos one photo would fill about three monitors wide and about two monitors tall. You would have to have about 6 normal monitors stacked two tall and three wide to see the whole image at the detail captured by the camera. Surprisingly enough, the D80 is "ancient history" in the world of DSLRs even though it only came out in 2006. Two years later it was replaced by the D90.

D90: The first upgrade from the D80 came out in 2008. It captures about 12 megapixel of data in an image. I have one and it is a better camera in many ways but as you can see from the photos I posted the D80 has enough resolution to produce very sharp photos of a small object such as a watch. You don't need a D90 but it will produce better images than a D80. Yet, it too is now outdated.

D7000: This came out in 2010. It has a 16 million pixel sensor. I have this one too and shoot mostly with it now. It has soooo much resolution many of the pixels have to be discarded in order to make the image small enough to fill a computer monitor and RWI wants images even smaller than that! Basically, when you are looking at a D7000 image on RWI about 80% of the pixels in the original image have had to be discarded because there is no room for them on the web page. So it is far more than you need here. Look at that image of a watch hanging in a Christmas tree posted above. You think that is sharp and contains lots of details? It consists of less than one megapixels. The D7000 sensor sees and records 16 megapixels of detail. You are looking at less than 1/16th of what the camera actually recorded. But I certainly recommend it as the best "bang for the buck" in Nikon cameras last year. In 2012 the D7000 is expected to be replaced with a D7100. We have no details on it yet but the sensor may contain 24 million pixels.

D800: Nikon has announced this camera but it is not out yet, will be out in about a month or so. The body alone (lens not included) costs $3,000 so it is not cheap! But it will have the highest megapixel sensor you can get today in a digital single lens reflex camera. Here is a comparison. You have a 55 in HDTV and you see a big sharp picture. How many pixels are displayed on the TV to make that sharp HDTV image that size? About 2 mega pixels. When the D7000 records an image how many megapixels does it have in its sensor? About 16 megapixels, eight times more than are needed for a HDTV image. In order to show the D7000 image on your big HDTV that original image has to be downgraded (converted to a lower pixel number). Now what about this new D800 that is coming out in a month or so? It will have 36 megapixels. Yes, 36 million pixels on a sensor the size of a 35mm slide. You see why it has much more detail than can be shown on RWI or HDTV? Images on RWI generally contain less than 1 megapixel, less than 1/36th of what the D800 records. Sort of overkill isn't it? It will be awesome but most people seeing an image taken with the D800 on their high definition computer monitor will never actually see more than about 1/18th of the detail that is in the original photo file! You would really have to print the photos at poster size to see all the detail that has been captured in the photo file. (A photo printed at 20 inches by 30 inches and larger displays more pixels than are contained in an HDTV image.)

Sort of interesting isn't it? Insanity maybe? More pixels than we need? Sure. But to a photographer pixels are like horsepower to a car nut. You don't need much hp to go 100 mph but it seems you want much more than you need. If fact, often you want more than you really can use. Consider the new Porsche 911S. Surely, its performance envelope far exceeds any type of driving we will be doing on public roads. You would have to take it to a race track to use its full potential. But do we want it anyway? Sure we do. Same with the D800.
 

trailboss99

Head Honcho - Cat Herder
Staff member
Administrator
Certified
30/3/08
43,943
20,344
113
I could have bought an old F90, motor wind and 28-80 Nikon lens for 60 bucks today.
 

jesseharmon81

I'm Pretty Popular
17/6/10
1,201
1
0
I have shot a lot of my pics with D80, I just bought a D5100. Love it! Thanks for the info Donald, enjoyed the read...
 

madcatlancelot

I'm Pretty Popular
21/12/08
1,876
108
63
Thanks for the additional info Donald, almost all my photos since I joined the forum is done with the D80. I've had decent photos with the old camera, and it's not even making full use of the 10Megapixels.

Here's some shot I had over the years.

PAM243lumeshot-1.jpg

PAM359KHstrap05.jpg

PAM359KHstrap01.jpg

OmegaSMPChronowristshot02resize.jpg

BCEblackdial01.jpg

BreitlingSkylandAvenger02a.jpg

BreitlingSkylandAvenger04.jpg


I've seen your photo reviews and they are amazing. :)
 

donaldejose

I'm Pretty Popular
20/12/08
1,196
2
0
Trailboss: Buy that F90 if you still have any interest in shooting film! It was the pro back up camera of choice during the final years of film days because it was rugged and had all the features you needed. They have become dirt cheap today. I bought two of them just because they were great cameras at an extremely cheap price. They originally sold for about $1,000 in the early 1990s. Someday I plan to go shoot film in them and have that film scanned to digital.

jesseharmon81: I didn't cover the D3100 (14 megapixels - I have discussed it in the entry level DSLR thread) or the D5100 (same 16 megapixel sensor as the D7000) in my comments section above but I will make a few comments now. Both are great and will produce stunning photos for many hundreds of dollars less than the D7000. If you work with one of each you will see the difference. The D7000 has a metal body for durability and some functions just happen faster and there are more buttons on the body for quick access to some features without having to scroll through the menu. Basically, it is designed more rugged and a bit faster. Neither of which you need for watch photography or people photography. The increased shooting and handling speed is helpful if shooting fast action sports. In good light shooting with the same lens at normal exposures the D5100 and the D7000 will produce the very same picture quality. There is a rumor that later this year the D3100 will be updated and replaced by the D3200 which will contain a 24 megapixel sensor. I sort of doubt that rumor. 24 megapixels seems too high for the D3200. I think it is more likely Nikon will now put the same 16 megapixel sensor in the D7000 into the new D3200. There is also a rumor that the "best bang for the buck" is coming out this fall when Nikon replaces the D300s with a D400. Most likely the D400 will have a 24 megapixel sensor and cost about $1,700 to $2,000. It should be very hot and in great demand because it should be a tremendous value.

madcatlancelot: great photos. The D80 can be used to make amazing photos. I see used D80s now selling for about half their original price. Good buy and all you really need, if you know how to use it to its maximum potential.
 

donaldejose

I'm Pretty Popular
20/12/08
1,196
2
0
Just a note to update some info since I happened to look at this thread today:

My "minimum" recommendation now for an older Nikon camera body is the D90. It has a few features better than the D80 which are worth the few dollars extra you have to pay for it. The D90 gives you more options in Picture Controls to control the image the camera will produce, it has AutoD lighing which automatically reduces the highlights a bit and fills the shadows a bit, the matrix meter is more accurate. These three features do allow you to produce better photos right out of the camera.

The D3100 and 5100 remain very fine cameras with more than enough megapixels to deliver sharp images and they do have all the features I mentioned in the D90 above. They just are smaller, more "plastic," and have fewer direct access buttons to controls meaning you have to enter the menu structure to change some items which takes time when you might rather make the change more quickly so you don't lose the shot. The same things are true for the new D3200 and D5200 which both have a 24mp sensor.

The D7000 is still a very fine camera. It is now near the end of its "life span cycle," is being significantly discounted and will soon be replaced (early 2012) by a D7100 or D7200 which is expected to also have 24mpixels. Finally, a D400 should be out around next summer which will the be the top of the line of Nikon's DX sensor size cameras.

Professional photographers like to use Nikon's FX sensor size camera bodies. These start with the D600, go to the D800 and end with the D4 ($6,000 for the body alone - more if you want a lens!). I won't discuss the FX bodies and lenses because they are too specialized for the interest of 95% of the people who read RWI.