Jump to content

Welcome to NikonForums.com
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

How would I set my D5600 to be equivalent to "Moon Mode"? Got it working! [Edited title]

astrophotography night sky

  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1
Those Who Squirm

Those Who Squirm

    Junior Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Country Flag
[TL;DR version] How would I set up my manual DSLR to be equivalent to the "Moon Mode" preset on some of the newer Coolpix models?

If you need more details please read on, below.
/TL;DR]

Last summer I moved up from a Coolpix s8100 point-and-shoot to a D5600. Being interested in astronomy generally I always try to shoot such events as eclipses and supermoons. I've been getting surprisingly good results shooting stars and constellations, even from my typically light-polluted suburban neighborhood, with some 6th and even 7th magnitude stars showing up in the images. To make a reasonably presentable image I have to do a considerable amount of post-processing, but I was still amazed to discover that the stars evidently are all there in the unedited JPEG; and I can see them if I simply zoom in on the image.

However, with moon photos I'm still having trouble finding the right settings. If I don't catch it at just the right moment when the moon begins to look "lighted" while the surrounding sky is still pale enough to prevent moon-glare, the moon comes out looking like a lightbulb, globe- or crescent shaped depending on the phase. Truth be told I was getting better moon photos with the CoolPix.

I noticed just now that the newer Coolpix models have a "moon mode" setting for lunar photos, so how would I set up my DSLR to do the same? I would be using a 70-300mm lens, and I obviously have a tripod.

#2
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,589 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

The moon is ridiculously hard to meter and very easy to expose correctly. As the moon is always in bright sunlight, just use the old "Sunny 16" rule that was printed inside Kodak's film boxes. The rule states that the exposure in bright sunlight should be f/16 and the shutter speed the inverse of the ISO number. In practise, this means that for ISO 100, you should use f/16 and 1/100s. If there is some haze, you might need to let in some more light, but f/11 to f/16 usually works well.

 

This supermoon was shot on a flimsy tripod @600 mm. We had some slight fog around sunset on December 3, which hadn't condensed out yet when I shot this @17.01

gallery_1251_683_24410.jpg

 

Model: NIKON D300
Lens (mm): 600
ISO: 640
Aperture: 11
Shutter: 1/640

 

Your light meter doesn't understand a very bright subject against a very dark background and tries to even things out to a medium grey. That is why you get a blown out moon without any detail at all.



#3
mikew

mikew

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 798 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationNorth East Lincs

I dont normally jump in with this recommendation but if you are doing a lot of editing to your jpeg files you should try raw, there will be a lot more info in the file to work with.



#4
Those Who Squirm

Those Who Squirm

    Junior Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Country Flag

At the current 60-ish percent waxing gibbous phase, I've discovered that maximum aperture and extremely brief exposures, e.g. 1/3000s work very well. The latter minimizes the blur caused by trailing. My camera will go as short as 1/4000s but I think at that point you lose by the diminishment of light reaching the sensor.

For example, this was taken last night at very early dusk.

 

ISO:          640

FL:            302m

Aperture   f6.3

Shutter      1/1250s

Attached Thumbnails

  • DSC_0015.JPG


#5
Those Who Squirm

Those Who Squirm

    Junior Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Country Flag

And this one a few hours later.

 

ISO:          640

FL:            302m

Aperture   f6.3

Shutter      1/3200s

Attached Thumbnails

  • E_DSC_0014.JPG


#6
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,589 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

What were your full settings? The full exposure triangle consists of ISO, aperture and shutter speed.

 

What lens do you have? Very few lenses are at their sharpest wide open, but you don't need to close it down much to get a dramatic increase in contrast.



#7
Those Who Squirm

Those Who Squirm

    Junior Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Country Flag

What were your full settings? The full exposure triangle consists of ISO, aperture and shutter speed.

 

 

I did forget to mention ISO, didn't I.  I have added the settings to the individual photos above.

 

What lens do you have? Very few lenses are at their sharpest wide open, but you don't need to close it down much to get a dramatic increase in contrast.

.I used one of the two lenses that came with camera, a 70-300mm zoom lens shown here.  It's the version without VR, but since I almost always use a tripod on this type of shot, that shouldn't matter too much, should it?

 

Coming from a background of amateur astronomy makes me leery of reducing the light intake if there's any other way to get the photo I want.

 

As you can see from the later photo, I reduced the light by reducing the exposure time rather than reducing the aperture, but the image is slightly dim and colorless.  And that's even though I brightened it before uploading.   Moreover, the resolution seems significantly lower than in the early dusk version.  As for the aperture, f6.3 is as wide as this lens goes with the other two settings (including  either the 1/1250s or the 1/3200 shutter speed).   If I understand your comment regarding aperture, I should try going up one stop or two, even though this reduces the light gathering ability by one-half or one-quarter respectively.  I'll try this tonight and experiment with the other two settings.

 

 



#8
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,589 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

If you transpose the EV of 1/3200, f/6.3 and ISO 640 to 1/640 and ISO 640, you end up with f/14, which is 1/3 step wider than f/16. This is right where you usually end up when bracketing around f/16 for moon shots unless the air is nearly free from moisture and pollution.

 

To learn how exposure values work and how to transpose them, a spreadsheet can be a very valuable tool.

Here's a sample:

Skärmavbild 2018-02-26 kl. 20.17.22.png



#9
Those Who Squirm

Those Who Squirm

    Junior Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Country Flag

Very interesting information, thanks!



#10
Bhcc

Bhcc

    New Member

  • Forum Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Country Flag

How a about with a 500 Manual lens with a teleconverter?



#11
Nikon Shooter

Nikon Shooter

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,041 posts
  • Country Flag
  • Location: French Canadian living in Central Europe

This was taken with a Nikkor 600MM ƒ4 on a D810,

ISO 280 - 1/500s - ƒ 5,6 and EV -3 in RAW.

Processed in CO v.12.


B9039%201D.jpg



#12
TBonz

TBonz

    Sportz Guy

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,652 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationOn A Field Somewhere...

Site Supporter

BHCC

 

Understand that Nikon Shooter's image is show with a very high quality 600 mm lens.  If you are talking about Nikon's 500mm, it can be done.  I am not sure I would use the teleconverter.  If you are talking about the Nikon, Sigma or Tamron zooms that can shoot at 500mm, I don't think the TC is a good idea.  I have tried a couple of the cheap "long reach" lenses both with and without mirrors and have found them to not be worth the money.  I was glad I did not have to purchase them in order to test them.



#13
Nikon Shooter

Nikon Shooter

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,041 posts
  • Country Flag
  • Location: French Canadian living in Central Europe

I don't think the TC is a good idea.

 

Correct.
 

A TC is never a good idea but a compromise. If one wants
to go for quality, a long lens on a high pixel count body is
the way to go — given the combo was AF fine tuned first.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: astrophotography, night sky