Panasonic FZ5 & FZ20 moon pictures

Just for fun, unretouched moon pictures taken (at different times) with
the FZ5 and FZ20 cameras, hand-held, but supported on a window-ledge.
Spot metering with a tweak downwards of the exposure.

http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/F...23-2223-53.jpg

http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/F...23-2335-01.jpg

Both images about 150KB.

Cheers,
David

Well done...

"David J Taylor"
wrote in message k...
Just for fun, unretouched moon pictures taken (at different times) with
the FZ5 and FZ20 cameras, hand-held, but supported on a window-ledge. Spot
metering with a tweak downwards of the exposure.

http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/F...23-2223-53.jpg

http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/F...23-2335-01.jpg

Both images about 150KB.

Cheers,
David

David J Taylor wrote:
Just for fun, unretouched moon pictures taken (at different times) with
the FZ5 and FZ20 cameras, hand-held, but supported on a window-ledge.
Spot metering with a tweak downwards of the exposure.

http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/F...23-2223-53.jpg

http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/F...23-2335-01.jpg

Both images about 150KB.

Cheers,
David


Very nice. I am impressed with the FZ5 picture, since it is quite a bit
cheaper.


--
Ron Hunter

Ron Hunter wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:

Just for fun, unretouched moon pictures taken (at different times)
with the FZ5 and FZ20 cameras, hand-held, but supported on a
window-ledge. Spot metering with a tweak downwards of the exposure.

http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/F...23-2223-53.jpg

http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/F...23-2335-01.jpg

Both images about 150KB.

Cheers,
David

Very nice. I am impressed with the FZ5 picture, since it is quite a bit
cheaper.


--------
Glad to see a side by side comparison of the two cameras.
Nice pictures too!
Thank you!

David J Taylor wrote:
Just for fun, unretouched moon pictures taken (at different times) with
the FZ5 and FZ20 cameras, hand-held, but supported on a window-ledge.
Spot metering with a tweak downwards of the exposure.

http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/F...23-2223-53.jpg

http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/F...23-2335-01.jpg

Both images about 150KB.


Excellent pics, they really do show what's possible with consumer cameras
these days.

pete
--
"Send lawyers, guns and money...."

Harmless wrote:
[]
Glad to see a side by side comparison of the two cameras.
Nice pictures too!
Thank you!

Please be careful - whilst the subject is the same the timing, lighting,
and atmospheric viewing conditions are not.

I published two comparison photographs a couple of weeks ago (now taken
down) taken under identical full aperture conditions to show the lens at
it worst. The general conclusing was that while the results were slightly
different, they were generally very similar, and neither was obviously
better.

Glad folks have the enjoyed the pictures, though, thanks for all your
comments.

Cheers,
David

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 06:19:31 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote:

Harmless wrote:
[]
Glad to see a side by side comparison of the two cameras.
Nice pictures too!
Thank you!

Please be careful - whilst the subject is the same the timing, lighting,
and atmospheric viewing conditions are not.

Probably not enough magnification to worry about atmospheric (seeing)
conditions. If the stars are really twinkling, that's a sign that
the atmosphere is unsteady and detail can be washed out.
I thought the shots were good because there was crater detail and yet
they were taken without a driven astronomical mounting.
-Rich

RichA wrote:
[]
Probably not enough magnification to worry about atmospheric (seeing)
conditions. If the stars are really twinkling, that's a sign that
the atmosphere is unsteady and detail can be washed out.
I thought the shots were good because there was crater detail and yet
they were taken without a driven astronomical mounting.
-Rich

The elevation of the moon was only about 20 degrees in the shot from this
year, hence my comment. The exposure was just 1/500s at f/4 (according to
the EXIF data). One day I'll get a proper telescope (been saying that for
30 years) but the atmospheric light pollution just gets worse and worse
here so there's not much point.

Thanks for the comments, though. Just fun shots with a new toy!

Cheers,
David

Probably not enough magnification to worry about atmospheric (seeing)
conditions. If the stars are really twinkling, that's a sign that
the atmosphere is unsteady and detail can be washed out.
I thought the shots were good because there was crater detail and yet
they were taken without a driven astronomical mounting.
-Rich

You don't need a astronomical mounting to photo the moon when the exposure
will be around 1/500th, unless you plan to use very long focal lengths. I've
used a 400mm+1.4x convertor on a 10D with no problems.

David J Taylor wrote:
Harmless wrote:
[]

Glad to see a side by side comparison of the two cameras.
Nice pictures too!
Thank you!


Please be careful - whilst the subject is the same the timing, lighting,
and atmospheric viewing conditions are not.

I published two comparison photographs a couple of weeks ago (now taken
down) taken under identical full aperture conditions to show the lens at
it worst. The general conclusing was that while the results were slightly
different, they were generally very similar, and neither was obviously
better.

Glad folks have the enjoyed the pictures, though, thanks for all your
comments.

Cheers,
David


In any case, both cameras produced quite acceptable images, with minimal
visible noise. I would call that a good result.


--
Ron Hunter