Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Moon shot: Viewfinder picture much better than photograph
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 8:28 pm    Post subject: Moon shot: Viewfinder picture much better than photograph Reply with quote
While looking around for a good teleconverter (thanks to those who made suggestions on a different thread), I took a few moon shots with a Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm (v1). Hand held shots were ok (not posting those here) but very difficult to pull off perfect focus on camera screen. Mounted on a tripod (a flimsy one) and after focusing, the moon looked crystal clear on the screen. Unfortunately, the photographs (see attachment) were not as amazing as what I saw on the live-view (Manual mode). Is this entirely attributable to the minor damping-shake after depressing the shutter button? I turned off the camera's IBIS for this shot. Even with IBIS, results were similar.

Basically, if the viewfinder image looks crisp and detailed, can I assume that the lens is functioning superbly? I am using a MFT camera, so theoretically what I see on the screen is what's on the sensor, so I should be able to capture what I see (I think). This sample is a 100% crop with no other modifications.



PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It does not look you are too far from perfection Very Happy , how many attempts have you made?
What was your shutter? What is your f-stop? ISO? All manual and mirror up... yes?
I think I'm seeing noise but I cant enlarge it yet.

If I see a crisp image in the viewfinder or lcd I would presume the lens is good... yes
I might try a slow bracket focus if you feel its a focus issue.
and a long shutter, a small aperture and a low ISO.

Last edited by Bruce on Sun Apr 17, 2011 9:04 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Flimsy tripod might indicate shake due to mirror slap. Was the mirror locked up?


PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Bruce wrote:
It does not look you are too far from perfection Very Happy , how many attempts have you made?
What was your shutter? What is your f-stop? ISO? All manual and mirror up... yes?
I think I'm seeing noise but I cant enlarge it yet.

If I see a crisp image in the viewfinder or lcd I would presume the lens is good... yes
I might try a slow bracket focus if you feel its a focus issue.
and a long shutter, a small aperture and a low ISO.


It's not a terrible pic but completely pales in comparison with what I saw at 10x on my camera-lcd. On screen, I could see various features (such as radiating lines from a crater) clearly, which are soft/blurry here. I took about 20-shots with varying shutter speeds and apertures. The posted sample was at ISO-100 at 1/800s. Unfortunately, I don't remember the f-stop -- my guess would be f8 or f11 (I don't think this was wide open).

Good idea, next time I will try bracketing per your suggestion.

Last edited by new_berlin on Sun Apr 17, 2011 11:59 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
martyn_bannister wrote:
Flimsy tripod might indicate shake due to mirror slap. Was the mirror locked up?


Sorry but I need to educate myself Smile 'coz I don't know what mirror lock up means. Although it might not apply in this case because I used a micro-4/3 camera, which don't have a mirror if I am correct.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here is a shot I took the other night handheld using my Tair-3C and EOS 10D, 100 ISO. 1/500 sec, no PP, this is how it came out of the camera:



PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Here is a shot I took the other night handheld using my Tair-3C and EOS 10D, 100 ISO. 1/500 sec, no PP, this is how it came out of the camera:



In your opinion, does your photo match what you saw on your viewfinder?

I was really looking forward to my pics but was disappointed compared to what I expected (based on what I saw on camera screen).


PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I always use the IR remote with delayed shutter, which on my camera also does the mirror up.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 6:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
new_berlin wrote:
martyn_bannister wrote:
Flimsy tripod might indicate shake due to mirror slap. Was the mirror locked up?


Sorry but I need to educate myself Smile 'coz I don't know what mirror lock up means. Although it might not apply in this case because I used a micro-4/3 camera, which don't have a mirror if I am correct.


Yes, no mirror, so that's not the problem. In which case I am baffled. Only reasonable explanation is perhaps that the "low" resolution of the viewfinder screen makes the shot appear crisp whereas the "actual" resolution of the final image disappoints. Try resizing the final image down to the same resolution as the screen. You might get the effect I describe.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 10:39 am    Post subject: One reason? Reply with quote
The diffraction limit for m4/2 cameras is about f8, I am told. It is f11 or less for larger sensors.

That might account for the resulting image, but the viewfinder image floors me! I am amazed at how clever the live views are!


PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 11:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
new_berlin wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Here is a shot I took the other night handheld using my Tair-3C and EOS 10D, 100 ISO. 1/500 sec, no PP, this is how it came out of the camera:



In your opinion, does your photo match what you saw on your viewfinder?

I was really looking forward to my pics but was disappointed compared to what I expected (based on what I saw on camera screen).


Well, I often see very sharp, beautiful images in the viewfinder only to discover they are out of focus when I get em on the PC.

Can only speak for the EOS 10D but for focussing the viewfinder is rubbish.

Anyone know if the 10D has Live View?

I'm slowly improving my focussing skills but with the crap viewfinder on the 10D there's plenty of guesswork involved. Sometimes I feel like carrying a tape measure with me and measuring the distance to subjects!


PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
new_berlin wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Here is a shot I took the other night handheld using my Tair-3C and EOS 10D, 100 ISO. 1/500 sec, no PP, this is how it came out of the camera:



In your opinion, does your photo match what you saw on your viewfinder?

I was really looking forward to my pics but was disappointed compared to what I expected (based on what I saw on camera screen).


Well, I often see very sharp, beautiful images in the viewfinder only to discover they are out of focus when I get em on the PC.

Can only speak for the EOS 10D but for focussing the viewfinder is rubbish.

Anyone know if the 10D has Live View?

I'm slowly improving my focussing skills but with the crap viewfinder on the 10D there's plenty of guesswork involved. Sometimes I feel like carrying a tape measure with me and measuring the distance to subjects!


10D certainly doesn't have live view, nor my 5D Mk1. AFAIK, 5D Mk2 has, but can't afford one of them Sad

Someone once tried to explain to me (on this forum IIRC) how the DOF in the viewfinder never gets below f5.6 whereas the lens does. At least I think that's what they were trying to tell me. Didn't understand it at the time Sad

Doesn't explain live view differences though, unless the same could apply?


PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
martyn_bannister wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
new_berlin wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Here is a shot I took the other night handheld using my Tair-3C and EOS 10D, 100 ISO. 1/500 sec, no PP, this is how it came out of the camera:



In your opinion, does your photo match what you saw on your viewfinder?

I was really looking forward to my pics but was disappointed compared to what I expected (based on what I saw on camera screen).


Well, I often see very sharp, beautiful images in the viewfinder only to discover they are out of focus when I get em on the PC.

Can only speak for the EOS 10D but for focussing the viewfinder is rubbish.

Anyone know if the 10D has Live View?

I'm slowly improving my focussing skills but with the crap viewfinder on the 10D there's plenty of guesswork involved. Sometimes I feel like carrying a tape measure with me and measuring the distance to subjects!


10D certainly doesn't have live view, nor my 5D Mk1. AFAIK, 5D Mk2 has, but can't afford one of them Sad

Someone once tried to explain to me (on this forum IIRC) how the DOF in the viewfinder never gets below f5.6 whereas the lens does. At least I think that's what they were trying to tell me. Didn't understand it at the time Sad

Doesn't explain live view differences though, unless the same could apply?


Well, one would think that live view works by locking up the mirror then showing you what the sensor is seeing.

However, maybe it actually works by having a second, small sensor within the reflex prism system and that produces the live view image?

Live view is going to be top of the list of features when I can afford a new camera...


PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
What camera are you using? Does it have shake reduction and was it turned off when mounted on the tripod?

Also, I always use 10 second timer when shooting the moon to avoid any shake from pressing the shutter button (or use a remote release when I remember it Laughing).

Finally, were you shooting RAW or JPG?


PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
What camera are you using? Does it have shake reduction and was it turned off when mounted on the tripod?

Also, I always use 10 second timer when shooting the moon to avoid any shake from pressing the shutter button (or use a remote release when I remember it Laughing).

Finally, were you shooting RAW or JPG?


I am using an Olympus E-P1. Yes it has anti-shake in the body but I turned it off. Using it was not making a difference. Also while I theoretically use the lens at 210mm, I have no way of being sure that's exactly what I am getting -- and I have to manually set the IBIS focal length in the camera for this lens. Worth trying it again though.

On the tripod, I do set it on a 12 second timer (no remote shutter release though) but I can see the image still slightly shaking (huge lens, flimsey tripod).

Shooting jpg 'coz I found the Olympus jpeg to produce as good results as my best PP on RAW.

I did some basic post-processing on the image and there seems some minor improvement...But I am not good at PP (usually am happy with out of camera jpegs.)


PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Are you hitting "infinity focus" when the moon looks good in your viewfinder?
You might have an adapter thickness issue.
I suggested earlier a bracket focus might determine an inaccurate viewfinder, but if you are "maxing out" at infinity a bracket focus might be of little help.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

Well, one would think that live view works by locking up the mirror then showing you what the sensor is seeing.

However, maybe it actually works by having a second, small sensor within the reflex prism system and that produces the live view image?

Live view is going to be top of the list of features when I can afford a new camera...


Live View shows what the sensor is seeing. The mirror is up and, with my EOS, exposure is adjusted based on what is actually being viewed. So, if I center LV on the moon at night, for example, it will attentuate the signal so the features of the moon are not washed out.

Still, I shoot manually, and I alway use a formula for the moon that I learned many years ago. ISO 100, 1/125, f/8 or f/11. I prefer f/11 usually because it seems to provide more contrast, plus the additional depth of field can't hurt.

Actually, I think you did a good job with that first photo. Especially considering it was "only" a 70-210 zoom. Me, I consider just about the minimum focal length for moon shots to be 400mm. Your image is a bit dark, though. One advantage to raw instead of jpg, at least with Canon's raw processor, is it is easy to adjust the exposure without negatively affecting image quality. So next time, you might want to shoot raw just for this reason.

Anyway, I don't think you can expect much better for a moon shot than what you've achieved with a 70-210. Really it's a pretty decent photo.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 1:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Actually, I think you did a good job with that first photo. Especially considering it was "only" a 70-210 zoom.


I was just going to say the same thing. I've shot far worse moon pics with a 500mm lens. Is this the best shot out of many attempts? If not, I'd suggest focusing, then taking a few shots, refocusing, take a few more, etc., etc. When I've attempted moonshots in the past, the various framess varied a lot in sharpness due to factors unknown.

If some of the shots look sharper, but suffer from noise, you might be able to stack a few of the best ones using the Registax lunar/planetary stacking program, which still appears to be a free download. Possibly, some of he sharpening and image enhancement features might improve the combned image quite a bit, after the pixel noise has been reduced by the stacking.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1