Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Say what happens when the camera takes picture of the moon at f/3.5, 1/160s as opposed to f/3.5, 1.0s.
So what you're trying to say is that using flash on a point and shoot fools the camera into using a faster shutterspeed which can reduce motion blur at the expense of under-exposing the moon. That makes sense, although I don't know why you have to speak in parables to make your point.
So what you're trying to say is that using flash on a point and shoot fools the camera into using a faster shutterspeed which can reduce motion blur at the expense of under-exposing the moon. That makes sense, although I don't know why you have to speak in parables to make your point.
Parable? But yes, the point with flash was that while light won't reach the moon, it can help freeze the action.
I'll have to give this a try next time. It's worth a shot. I've always had issues trying to take shot of the Moon.
Not particularly useful, mostly because you can't control it at all, and f/3.5 at 1/160 of a second is going to over expose the moon significantly except during a total eclipse.
Note this article from a couple of weeks ago:
Quote:
Originally Posted by WyoNewk
You can't use auto exposure with all that black sky around the moon. If you can set the exposure manually, it would be about the same exposure as you use in daylight on earth. (It has the same light source that Earth has.) At ISO 400, that would be about f11 at 1/500 second, IIRC.
That is dead on, both for the cause/effect and about what to do.
Not particularly useful, mostly because you can't control it at all, and f/3.5 at 1/160 of a second is going to over expose the moon significantly except during a total eclipse.
Well, f/3.5, 1/160s was just a number tossed in for a point. It may over or even under expose the shot, also depending on the ISO. Many point and shoot start at ISO50. It is also possible that the lens wouldn't have as large an aperture at maximum zoom.
Well, f/3.5, 1/160s was just a number tossed in for a point. It may over or even under expose the shot, also depending on the ISO. Many point and shoot start at ISO50. It is also possible that the lens wouldn't have as large an aperture at maximum zoom.
Exactly. You can have no clue as to what it will do, and there is no way to control it. It's not a useful tool.
Exactly. You can have no clue as to what it will do, and there is no way to control it. It's not a useful tool.
What isn't? In auto mode, the photographer has little control anyway (in many cases, not even over ISO). But don't assume that f/3.5 will produce an overexposed picture, but overall exposure will also be dictated by brightness of the moon, the ISO and the shutter speed. I should know, considering that last I took aim at the moon, it was with a short tele preset lens without any aid from the camera (135mm, M42 mount on Sony A55).
Again, when I quoted the settings, I wasn't recommending a setting, I was pointing at differences between what flash-on setting might do versus not. But now that I think about it, that setting may actually work with ISO50.
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 11-29-2011 at 01:47 PM..
But now that I think about it, that setting may actually work with ISO50.
At ISO 50 the Sunny 16 Rule would be 1/50 at f/16; hence, f/3.5 would appear to be far from a correct exposure for the moon.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.