1st ever Moon Pic

[weareborg]

Well it's been awhile since I posted on here, and even longer since I been out with my scope, but as I was finally off work and the skies were clear, I thought I'd try my luck at some lunar photography.

The equipment I used are: Skywatcher 200 Dobsonian & Canon 1200D at prime focus. I only took a few full view images as I was struggling to get focus for some reason but I finally cracked it. Can't seem to get perfect focus though.

 

 

[iwols]

as you say slightly out of focus try a StarSharp Bahtinov Focus Masks they are excellent for focus

[JemC]

Thats still a pretty decent capture, well done

[weareborg]

Thanks for the comments. Yeah I need to get a mask but in the mean time, I'm going try and use the function in APT next time out and see how that works out

 

[Steve Ward]

Nice job ... 

Don't go throwing money at a mask as it will be of no use on the Moon , they require pin-point light sources to function not large diffuse targets .

 

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I do not think it is far from focus at all. Very good first shot I would say, certainly for a single DSLR shot. Focusing on the (nearly) full moon is always tricky. I find that it is best to focus the edge (preferably the terminator, just visible on the right), as it shows focus best.  Then take multiple shots, stack these using AutoStakkert or Registax, and apply some sharpening.

[cjdawson]

For the moon, I'd say try a hartman mask rather than a bhatinov.

 

A BHatinov mask is great for focusing a star.  The way that it works is to make difraction spikes that form a 6 pointed star, reminds me of the special effects from Buck Rogers    It's fantastic for DSO's as they are on the so called celestial sphere i.e. at roughly the same focal plane as the stars nearby in the same region of sky.

 

However the moon is much much closer, and much bigger.   As the moon isn't a point source, I think you'll struggle to get anything useful from a Bhatinov mask.  (I must try this sometime to see what happens)

A Hartman mask is two holes cut out of a disc which covers the objective end of the scope.

The two holes will then show two images of your subject when the scope of out of focus,  as it comes into focus they will merge to form one single image.  Ok, granted that you may still have problems finding that sweet spot where the two images are perfectly on top of one another, but you'll get extremely close.    Remove the mask and you'll have your bright image back.

As the moon isn't a point source this works better as you have an opportunity to line up several features.

Also be aware that the moon is close enough that it doesn't have just one focal point.   The middle of the surface (near Ptolemaeus) is much closers to earth than the limb ( for example Mare Crisium)  This means that to get a full moon shot you'll need a large depth of field, or to use focus stacking techniques.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Actually, there is no real difference between focusing on the moon vs focusing on the star in a scope with e.g. a 1m focal length. Doing the maths tells you that  the shift between the two optimal focal positions is 2.6 nm, or less than 1% of the wavelength of light.

[todd8137]

Hi there focus is every  thing as you now no ,what focuser do you have ?, the ole rack and pinion is ok but not great ,whats best to is try and get focus then take a image ,slightly move the focus take another ect  do this inwards and outwards with the focus and see how you get on 

when you think you have focus drop the iso or time  as its easier to lighten a image of the moon than it is to,darken in my view 

hers a quick edit  its got plenty of detail 

Pat

[Astrosurf]

Lovely shot. As Pat has shown, you can bring out more detail. What processing software do you use?

Alexxx

[todd8137]

2 hours ago, Astrosurf said:

Lovely shot. As Pat has shown, you can bring out more detail. What processing software do you use?

Alexxx

And for those brave nights even stack a few 

pat