Going to try mine on a tripod but from the top of the closest mountain. With luck the weather will stay clear. It's been overcast here every full moon since march.
I was just thinking, I did that handheld with 4 ounces of Black Russian in me too. I was enjoying Decaf Irish Cream coffee with shots of Black Russian in it. Didnt think about that until this morning.
I was just thinking, I did that handheld with 4 ounces of Black Russian in me too. I was enjoying Decaf Irish Cream coffee with shots of Black Russian in it. Didnt think about that until this morning.
At risk of starting something , I'm going to pose my comment as a question:
Between my own shots and many other moon shots on the site, why is it that I do not see any quality difference between shots taken at 200mm vs. 300mm? (a 55-200 vs the 55-300 or 70- 300)? I own a 55-200 and I realize the 300's (especially the 70-300, which I hope to get next year) are better lenses, but I honestly expected to see a bigger difference but I do not. Thoughts?
Pete has it right. The difference between a 200mm and a 300mm in shooting the moon is not significant. The secret, and it should not be a secret, with any long lens is the stability of the lens. Same long lens stability rules apply to shooting the moon as to shooting anything else. Very good hand held shots guys.
When I shoot the moon, I always have lens flare. The 70-300 was very bad flare. The following was shot with the 24-70mm and still get the flare. Pretty good moon out there tonight, but not able to get a good capture. I'm certainly up for suggestions?