[nathanm]

Not gonna win any astronomy magazine centerfolds here, but not too bad.  Should've opted for a faster shutter speed in retrospect.  There's a bit of motion blur.

[ooheadsoo]

Cool.  I tried, just for chuckles, but forgot to turn off autoiso and 55mm wasn't giving me much, anyway.

[Grumpy_Git]

Nathan

Any change of some camera/film/settings info, I'm a geek for that stuff as much as the pics themselves.

I'm more of a spec fiend over photos (thats pics not equip) than my audio.... 

Nick.

[nathanm]

I think it was either 2 or 4 seconds @ f/11 ISO 80 lens at 300mm (which is I think the 35mm equivalent number, it's probably different given the actual small sensor size, camera is a Fuji S9100)  Exposure boosted up in Lightroom.

[Grumpy_Git]

Thanks Nathan, soo its much easier to appreciate now that we know it was taken with a digital not your usual LF and scanned and zoomed! 

Nick.

[nathanm]

I had the big camera there, but I would imagine the lens necessary to shoot a moon closeup on 4x5 would require a truck to haul around! Heh!

[Imperial]

That is VERY good pictures of the eclipse NathanM considering.
NONE of the pro's here in Norway managed anywhere near that quality on their pictures of the lunar eclipse.

 

Imperial

[Grumpy_Git]

Nathan

I seem to remember from my days working in a Vintage camera store that Nikon produced a Lense that was truck mounted and about 6-7ft long that might have done the trick. Thats after you've converted it from 35mm non-AI mount!!

Nick.

[Russell Dawkins]

Here's my try with my Fuji point and shoot F31fd. 1 second, ISO 400, f2.8.


I wanted to get those two stars in, but also it would not stand being enlarged any more - it's not that good!

[ooheadsoo]

a friend of mine took this pic of a californian eclipse.  i was jealous.  Russell, your point and shoot took better pictures than my dslr!

[Imperial]

Dang Russel D, "our" camera.. hehe seems to have the most detailed shot of the eclipse!
Waddayaknow!!! 

Imperial