Shoot the upcoming eclipse

[chauncey]

Years ago I got some images of the moon that were semi-descent using a 300mm lens.
I want to shoot the upcoming eclipse but...this time I want to fill the frame with the moon.

Set up a reflected moon in a mirror and use a macro lens to capture that image.

Is this a viable method...or another one of my dumb ideas?

[James G]

Hi William, It won't work I'm afraid. The mirror would only give you an image the same size as you already get with the lens, (any lens). So using a macro would not magnify the image any further. I have to admit, it had me going as a problem and I just couldn't get my head round it. Not A dumb idea though since I intuitively thought you could.

So I got my 100mm Canon macro, and attached the solar filter I use normally on my 500mm tele and then tried to snapping the sun using a flat mirror on the windowsill. Image size of the sun stayed the same regardless how close I got to the mirror, 3ft down to 6 inches from the mirror makes no difference to 97m miles

Daft thing is I still think it should work!

[dem]

You'll still have to focus on infinity either with the mirror or without, so the mirror is not going to help, I'm afraid. A mirror cannot change the field of view of a lens. It does not have any image on its surface, it only deflects incoming rays of light.

You can try focussing manually on a reflection of an object in the mirror and check the focus distance. It is not going to be the distance to the mirror (~1 foot) but the distance to the mirror plus mirror-to-subject distance (~10 feet).

I like your idea though
If only it worked...

[rachel]

I'd forgotten it was an eclipse! Sadly it's not going to be visible where I am but those in W Europe and Eastern USA should get lucky, check here http://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/l...5-september-28

In april 2014 I got very lucky with dark, clear skies for the total lunar eclipse. I sat on the roof all night with my little camera and though it was a cold, lonely night, it was well worth it. I look forward to seeing your photos after the event.

[chauncey]

It's not focusing distance that concerns me...it's filling the frame.

[Dave Humphries]

Try it with a magnifying shaving/make up mirror?

However, IQ is likely to be bad; there will be a double image caused by the rear silvered mirror and front surface glass - even if it doesn't seem so, it will be there - degrading the detail.

[jcuknz]

My understanding is that you use the telescope as a projector and focus it on a white surface and then use your camera to photograph that image.
I didn't fill the sensor with my eclipse image as I only had a 280mm lens but coped with the brightness of the sun by using my IR filter to cut out 'all visible light' though even so AE picked 1/3500 at f/7.9 [ the smallest aperture the camera had ].


So instead of messing [ a polite word for what I am thinking ] with mirrors I suggest the tried and proven method I first suggest.
The question then becomes can your camera focus sufficiently close to fill the sensor? I have my doubts unless you have a good stock of extension tubes. I'd suggest a 135mm lens with around 200mm extension.

Thw point od using the longer lens is to provide space between lens and image to enable the image to be projected onto the surface. If I was using a short macro lens I would organise the image focused on a ground glass screen and have the camera lens behind it.
However the first shot shows what I have done and the following are just ideas And others may not have acquired the junk that I have over the years [ tubes/bellows]

edit..... though in 'film days with just a 50mm lens and my SLR I had two sets of extension tubes and put one of the camera and the other on the lens and connected them loosely with a length of plastic tube to copy part of a projected 16mm film frame. I had the gate mechanism of an old projector turned into the film holder for a 16mm optical printer using my Bolex camera to copy the frames.
[Mad experiments of the past ]

[Jimr1961]

Man, I forgot about this. It will be fully viewable from my area, so I've already planned to head to Joshua Tree in the desert and go for some shots.

[Jimr1961]

John, I think that method works for a solar eclipse. This will be a lunar eclipse.

[jcuknz]

Thanks Jim My error ... you are likely right the best I got of the moon was using my Raynox 2020 on my x12 FZ59 to give me a 950mm AoV lens. SOOC image

I think at this stage that the answer maybe to photograph an 'aerial' image from the telescope with it focused some distance behind the telescope using the macro lens.

This is a rough idea of how I did it way back .....at least 35 years ago

[rachel]

These are my attempts from last year with a Finepiix HS30 compact bridge camera (In case you think it looks upside down, I was viewing from the southern hemisphere)

https://rachel29002.smugmug.com/Luna...pse-april-2014

[Cantab]

These are my attempts from last year with a Finepiix HS30 compact bridge camera (In case you think it looks upside down, I was viewing from the southern hemisphere)

https://rachel29002.smugmug.com/Luna...pse-april-2014

Rachel, this is a nice set of photos. Am I correct in assuming you used a tripod?

[jcuknz]

So long as the mirror is surface coated I think it could be a good idea, not to gain magnification but to made the job easier with the telescope in the vertical but camera on tripod horizontal for comfort.

Nice as Rachel shots are they do not fulfill the 'filling the frame' desire of William's. Though they do show what a modern bridge camera can do and that the DSLR user has problems in matching without considerable expense. The HS30 seems to have just a 720mm AoV lens so not quite the maximum that today's bridge give..

[Jimr1961]

Rachel, those are pretty cool. This was my attempt last Oct. ISO 400, 300mm, F/8, 6 seconds. Shot over the ocean, so there was a bit of atmospheric haze, but not much.

[rachel]

Yes, I used a tripod, it's a cheap 15€ one but since it's not a DLSR the camera isn't too big or heavy for it. I didn't have a remote but think I probably used the 2 second timer on the camera. It was the night I discovered the merits of a flip out screen, much of this was directly overhead. Santiago de Chile, where these photos were taken, suffers from smog and haze which makes it difficult to get good pictures near the horizon - often the autofocus can't deal with it. But by the time the moon gets a bit higher the air is clearer it's easier. I can't remember what settings I used (although i think smugmug allows you to check) but I usually use the P setting with ISO 100 and the exposure set at minimum. If for whatever reason that's still too bright then I use M and just play with the shutter speed until I get a result I like.

It really was a great experience to see the whole thing from start to finish.

[rachel]

John, you're right, they don't quite fill the frame and in that sense the little compact F80 I used to use was better. But the image quality is better with the HS30 and they usually bear cropping.

FWIW worth I'm now with a HS55. I left my HS30 at home and brought instead the Nikon D5300 I've been learning with and a little panasonic compact zoom. I have to say I think the panasonic is vastly inferior to the Finepix compact I used to use and I honestly don't think I get such good quality images from the Nikon as I always did with my Fujifilms. So I went shopping here in kathmandu and the HS55 was what I found. It has the advantage of being 24-700mm so while I don't quite get the widest I do with the Nikon at 18mm, I don't have to carry extra lenses and it's lighter.

[dem]

...advantage of being 24-700mm, so while I don't quite get the widest I do with the Nikon at 18mm, I don't have to carry extra lenses and it's lighter.

You actually do, because 24 mm on the compact refers to "full frame equivalent focal length", while the actual 18 mm on the APS-C sensor of your Nikon is 18*1.5=27 mm ff equivalent. If you check them side by side, the compact should give a wider angle of view.

[rachel]

Dem, thanks - I might have a play with both to compare.