M 240, 35mm cron, and the Moon
Old 02-22-2019   #1
randolph
Registered User
 
randolph is offline
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 34
M 240, 35mm cron, and the Moon

hi guys, what settings are you using to capture the moon using an M 240 and a 35mm summicron ASPH?

I've been doing all kinds of test shots and settings, and just haven't been able to dial in a shot that shows some features of the moon without it being just a blob of light.

Thanks all
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2019   #2
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,949
Don't have an M-240, and sold my 35mm summicron ASPH, but shots of the moon are shots of the moon. Although I certainly wouldn't choose that camera and lens combo for the job, unless you're in the space shuttle orbiting the moon.

What you need to do is ignore the "in camera" light meter, which will read mostly the black sky, and way over expose the moon, making it look like "a blob of light". Set the camera to manual exposure, and starting with the "in camera" light meter reading, start closing down the aperture and increasing the shutter speed, one step at a time, until you get what you're looking for. Just take a shot, chimp, take another shot, chimp, until you're getting the level of detail in the moon you seek.

Best,
-Tim

PS: This was taken with an 810mm lens, ISO 3200, 1/640th second @ f4.5

__________________
http://www.timcarrollphotography.com

New Photo Books
Sturgis Stories
& Scenes From Sturgis
now available
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2019   #3
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,505
What Tim said. The moon shows up as a white blob because you are drastically overexposing it. Ignore the sky, just think about what the correct exposure would be for that bright white object.
Also, using a 35mm lens? The moon will be tiny in the image.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2019   #4
zuiko85
Registered User
 
zuiko85 is online now
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,892
The stats are; for every 100mm of focal length the image size of the moon is .9mm (point nine millimeters) diameter image size. Therefor 35mm would produce an image size of about .3 mm. I'd use a longer lens adapted to the M240. The M240 does have live view? Not sure, not up on current Leica M features.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2019   #5
robert blu
quiet photographer
 
robert blu's Avatar
 
robert blu is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Italy
Age: 70
Posts: 5,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
...
Also, using a 35mm lens? The moon will be tiny in the image.
yes, the moon will be small...so it's what it looks like with a 35mm lens on a full frame camera.
A few month ago we had a moon eclipse and just before it the moon goy a reddish/orange color.

I shot it with a 35 cron on my M10...of course the moon is very small but I got the atmosphere of the moment including the environment...

robert



PS: Of course if the interest is in the moon itself (only the moon) a long lens is required...very long...
__________________
Remember: today is the Day !
from Ruth Bernhard recipe for a long and happy life

my quiet photographer's blog

My RFF photos and my albums on RFF
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2019   #6
randolph
Registered User
 
randolph is offline
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuiko85 View Post
The stats are; for every 100mm of focal length the image size of the moon is .9mm (point nine millimeters) diameter image size. Therefor 35mm would produce an image size of about .3 mm. I'd use a longer lens adapted to the M240. The M240 does have live view? Not sure, not up on current Leica M features.
thank you, good point. i could try live view since it does simulate exposure; you can tell i don't use live view much!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2019   #7
randolph
Registered User
 
randolph is offline
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by robert blu View Post
yes, the moon will be small...so it's what it looks like with a 35mm lens on a full frame camera.
A few month ago we had a moon eclipse and just before it the moon goy a reddish/orange color.

I shot it with a 35 cron on my M10...of course the moon is very small but I got the atmosphere of the moment including the environment...

robert



PS: Of course if the interest is in the moon itself (only the moon) a long lens is required...very long...
robert, yes, this! i don't want a full close-up of the moon, but as point of interest in the shot and your example is what I was trying to do. your moon shows just enough detail at 35mm. do you happen to have your exposure settings?

curious at what you're aperture/shutter/iso settings are...
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2019   #8
randolph
Registered User
 
randolph is offline
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 34
thanks guys for all your help. i'll give these a shot this evening!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2019   #9
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,148
Two things to check... the first is that your lens is actually focusing on infinity. Live view is your friend here. The second is that you expose for the moon, literally reflected sunlight so the exposure is going to be much brighter than anything else around it.



This was f4 (or maybe 5.6) at ISO 100 at 1/125 of a second.

Shawn
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2019   #10
Larry H-L
Registered User
 
Larry H-L is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 587
The moon is about the same distance from the sun as we are here on Earth, therefore the amount of light falling on it during its daylight exposure isn't all that different. Our atmosphere does suck up a few stops of light, but it isn't all that different in the grand scheme of things.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2019   #11
maryland_fotos
Registered User
 
maryland_fotos is offline
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 723
A 35mm lens for that camera will indeed show the moon only as a small object, even well exposed it will be hard to make out much by the way of features.

Folks have already described much of this above. I have generally used a 500mm lens on a full frame Nikon for the moon, and I end up doing a good amount of cropping to get rid of the significant amount of sky around it. Live view indeed helps get the focus fine tuned.

I was pretty happy with the exposure on this one - 1/3200s, f/8 and ISO500, and the 500mm lens has a foot for stablizing on the tripod. One thing at that focal length (and the longer the focal length, the more quickly this is going to happen), the moon moves very rapidly across the frame.

The craters in particular seem to show the best a couple days either side of the full moon. On full moon day (well really night), the brightness wipes out the shadows which help define the craters.

DSC_9624 by Maryland Photos, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2019   #12
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,148
We used the same lens on our moon shots. Nikon 500mm f4P, outstanding piece of glass!

Shawn
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2019   #13
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,491
I seem to recall the suggested exposure of f 4 at shutter speed=1/ISO.
Shawn: F4 ISO 100 speed 1/125.
Maryland Photos: F8 ISO 500 speed 1/3200, which is equivalent to F4 ISO 500 speed 1/800. There is slightly less exposure time.

Did I get it right here?
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2019   #14
Beemermark
Registered User
 
Beemermark's Avatar
 
Beemermark is online now
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wilmington, NC
Posts: 1,679
The sunny F16 rule works fine for determining the correct exposure for shooting the moon. The sunshine reflected off the moon is the same sunshine reflected off your lawn at noon!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2019   #15
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
I seem to recall the suggested exposure of f 4 at shutter speed=1/ISO.
Shawn: F4 ISO 100 speed 1/125.
Maryland Photos: F8 ISO 500 speed 1/3200, which is equivalent to F4 ISO 500 speed 1/800. There is slightly less exposure time.

Did I get it right here?
Should we call it “full moon 4”, alongside “sunny 16”
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2019   #16
zuiko85
Registered User
 
zuiko85 is online now
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawn View Post
Two things to check... the first is that your lens is actually focusing on infinity. Live view is your friend here. The second is that you expose for the moon, literally reflected sunlight so the exposure is going to be much brighter than anything else around it.



This was f4 (or maybe 5.6) at ISO 100 at 1/125 of a second.

Shawn
First of all, really nice shot!
Now, this is what I don't get. If the moon is a sunlit object, then why couldn't a person start with the 'sunny 16' exposure calculation? Of course the moons dark regions would probably require a bit more exposure. That said your exposure of 5.6 at 1/125 would seem like it should be a couple of stops over but no, it looks right on my screen.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2019   #17
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,148
Thanks.

Looking at it in RawDigger I think my exposure is just about right. There is the tiniest bit of clipping in a very small area of the image but the rest of it is fine.

I'm not 100% certain I was shooting at f4. It might have been f5.6. I doubt it was anything higher than that as I would be loosing a lot of detail into diffraction. I was also trying to stay at base ISO as the camera I was using gets noisy quickly as ISO goes up.

If I had run Sunny 16 I would have underexposed by 4 stops, assuming my actual exposure was f4. That would have killed this shot with noise.

Looking online there are a few rules of thumb for the moon. One site I saw said Moony f8. My assumption for why Sunny 16 doesn't work is because the reflection from the moon is *vastly* further away than any reflection on Earth. The energy reflected from the moon is diffusing and spreading out in space as it travels to the Earth. The average energy per area is decreasing. Basically the inverse candle power rule.

Shawn
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2019   #18
robert blu
quiet photographer
 
robert blu's Avatar
 
robert blu is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Italy
Age: 70
Posts: 5,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by randolph View Post
robert, yes, this! i don't want a full close-up of the moon, but as point of interest in the shot and your example is what I was trying to do. your moon shows just enough detail at 35mm. do you happen to have your exposure settings?

curious at what you're aperture/shutter/iso settings are...
it was shot hand held @ iso 3200 F=4 1/15 sec.

I hope it helps. Of course experimenting is the key for the results, try it !
robert
__________________
Remember: today is the Day !
from Ruth Bernhard recipe for a long and happy life

my quiet photographer's blog

My RFF photos and my albums on RFF
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2019   #19
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelwj View Post
Should we call it “full moon 4”, alongside “sunny 16”
As discussed above, it is a Moon Rule of F4 (or F5.6)
at shutter speed= 1/(film speed)
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2019   #20
randolph
Registered User
 
randolph is offline
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 34
the moon rule, i love it. thanks guys, i'll give it a shot tonight.

unfortunately, it was cloudy here last night so couldn't really do anything. i hope this evening is better and will post some results.

thanks again guys!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2019   #21
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by robert blu View Post
it was shot hand held @ iso 3200 F=4 1/15 sec.

I hope it helps. Of course experimenting is the key for the results, try it !
robert
Hi Robert,
Your beautiful image was most likely not exposed entirely for the (small) moon in the image. This is why your exposure is not following the "Moon Rule"
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2019   #22
Benjamin Marks
Registered User
 
Benjamin Marks is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,660
Apologies for being pedantic, but what you are doing is under-exposing, not over-exposing, right? You want to treat the moon as a sun-lit white object and let less light hit the film/sensor so that the highlights don't get blown out. Black sky - small white sphere -- under-expose if using autoexposure to make things darker than the program would otherwise like them to be.
__________________
Benjamin’s Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2019   #23
randolph
Registered User
 
randolph is offline
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Marks View Post
Apologies for being pedantic, but what you are doing is under-exposing, not over-exposing, right? You want to treat the moon as a sun-lit white object and let less light hit the film/sensor so that the highlights don't get blown out. Black sky - small white sphere -- under-expose if using autoexposure to make things darker than the program would otherwise like them to be.
that's what I understood as well. alas, the moon eludes me. it was cloudy once again last night and i'm sure it will be again with more rain in the forecast...
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2019   #24
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is online now
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Marks View Post
Apologies for being pedantic, but what you are doing is under-exposing, not over-exposing, right? You want to treat the moon as a sun-lit white object and let less light hit the film/sensor so that the highlights don't get blown out. Black sky - small white sphere -- under-expose if using autoexposure to make things darker than the program would otherwise like them to be.

Not sure to which post you're replying.. what you're saying is essentially right, but I think using "underexposing" this way leads to confusion. Using exposure compensation to avoid overexposure of the moon is not underexposing (it is correctly-exposing as it will result in correct exposure, not underexposure). Let's just call it "using exposure compensation" please.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2019   #25
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 5,098
In Apollo 8 orbiting the moon, the earth rise photo was shot at 1/250s and f11 on 168 ASA colour film, which is close to just sunny 16. They must have been using an exposure table. For us the most complete is Fred Parker’s Ultimate Exposure Computer.
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2019   #26
Bike Tourist
Registered User
 
Bike Tourist's Avatar
 
Bike Tourist is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Central California
Age: 83
Posts: 1,221
Expose as you would for daylight (sunny 16). Can't imagine that the rest of the scene would benefit much. I think that 35mm as a lens to image the moon's features is the wrong choice.
__________________
Dick Thornton

Stock Portfolio:
http://www.shutterstock.com/g/biketourist
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2019   #27
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Age: 78
Posts: 5,946
Ansel Adams wrote that "The moon is at daylight intensity." So you would think that Sunny 16 would apply. And yet, "Moon 4" apparently works for the moon (Raid, et. al.), while Richard G points out that Sunny 16 has worked, too. Well, I guess maybe this range must be due to the question of what constitutes a proper exposure for the moon. Or then again, the "Moon 4" shots posted are black and white, and the film could tolerate some extra exposure; whereas a color film might work best closer to Sunny 16.

How about "Moon 8, plus or minus?"
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2019   #28
Fraser
Registered User
 
Fraser is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1,713
16fbpicMarchmoons_022b by Fraser Bremner, on Flickr

Not with a Leica but the moon, always find when shooting the moon better to underexpose, but sometimes exposure checking on the lcd screen in the dark is quite tricky as everything looks bright!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2019   #29
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob-F View Post
Ansel Adams wrote that "The moon is at daylight intensity." So you would think that Sunny 16 would apply. And yet, "Moon 4" apparently works for the moon (Raid, et. al.), while Richard G points out that Sunny 16 has worked, too. Well, I guess maybe this range must be due to the question of what constitutes a proper exposure for the moon. Or then again, the "Moon 4" shots posted are black and white, and the film could tolerate some extra exposure; whereas a color film might work best closer to Sunny 16.

How about "Moon 8, plus or minus?"
The sunny 16 rule will give us a "perfect grey" exposure across the image. Most moon shots show a large portion of black sky. Using the sunny 16 rule will not give you blacks.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2019   #30
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob-F View Post
Ansel Adams wrote that "The moon is at daylight intensity." So you would think that Sunny 16 would apply. And yet, "Moon 4" apparently works for the moon (Raid, et. al.), while Richard G points out that Sunny 16 has worked, too. Well, I guess maybe this range must be due to the question of what constitutes a proper exposure for the moon. Or then again, the "Moon 4" shots posted are black and white, and the film could tolerate some extra exposure; whereas a color film might work best closer to Sunny 16.

How about "Moon 8, plus or minus?"
My shot isn't in B&W. You can see a slight touch of chromatic aberration on the sides of the moon. Proper exposure maximizes the signal to noise ratio of the sensor without loosing a lot of highlights. Notice the chroma noise levels on all the shots. Part of the reason mine is lower is due to the exposure, it certainly isn't due to a more expensive camera. I took that with a Pentax QS-1.

Shawn
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2019   #31
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraser View Post
16fbpicMarchmoons_022b by Fraser Bremner, on Flickr

Not with a Leica but the moon, always find when shooting the moon better to underexpose, but sometimes exposure checking on the lcd screen in the dark is quite tricky as everything looks bright!
Use the blinkies on image review.

Shawn
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2019   #32
randolph
Registered User
 
randolph is offline
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 34
Thanks for all the ideas guys. But really, ever since I posted my original question, there hasn't been a clear sky to shoot the moon!

Funny how that always seems to be the case...
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:44.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.