Chasing the moon
The March "super moon" got me started (crazed? loony?) photographing the moon again. This time I'm creating a test sequence, if you will, using the OM 300mm with the E-P2 and adapters. I bought the used OM 300mm to get a bigger image of the moon over the Zuiko Digital 50-200mm zoom. It was cheaper than buying either the EC-20 or a telescope and I can easily task the 300mm for other terrestrial uses.
Why do I keep doing this, especially when there's other resources like Nasa's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO)? Because there's something deeply satisfying in doing it yourself, even if it's no where near as detailed. There's something magical watching the terminator crawl across the surface of the moon, picking out craters in deep shadow. I'll never grow tired watching it happen, no matter how many times it repeats. That curvature, those shadows, show that the moon is a real body in space, something you can walk on. So close, and yet so far.
Even at 300mm, or 600mm effective focal length with the E-P2's sensor, the size of the moon's image compared to the size of the frame is small. To achieve what I would consider an effective image size, I'd want something to gives me four times the image size, or 1200mm (2400mm effective focal length). We're talking about a very expensive conventional optic here; for example the Canon EF1200mm 1:5.6 L sells used for $99,000. That is, if you can find one.
Maybe I really will get that telescope after all. My wife is going to kill me...
 |
| 9 April 2011 |
Why do I keep doing this, especially when there's other resources like Nasa's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO)? Because there's something deeply satisfying in doing it yourself, even if it's no where near as detailed. There's something magical watching the terminator crawl across the surface of the moon, picking out craters in deep shadow. I'll never grow tired watching it happen, no matter how many times it repeats. That curvature, those shadows, show that the moon is a real body in space, something you can walk on. So close, and yet so far.
 |
| 8 April 2011 |
Even at 300mm, or 600mm effective focal length with the E-P2's sensor, the size of the moon's image compared to the size of the frame is small. To achieve what I would consider an effective image size, I'd want something to gives me four times the image size, or 1200mm (2400mm effective focal length). We're talking about a very expensive conventional optic here; for example the Canon EF1200mm 1:5.6 L sells used for $99,000. That is, if you can find one.
Maybe I really will get that telescope after all. My wife is going to kill me...
Comments
Post a Comment
All comments are checked. Comment SPAM will be blocked and deleted.