Padfield

[Jack Harrison]

Hand held shots of the Moon should not be difficult. After all, it is the same distance from the sun as is the Earth so similar exposures wuld be appropraite.

A significant problem photographing the Moon without any tracking is that it moves (well, Earth rotates) about 1 degree every four minutes or a Moon diameter every two minutes.

Jack

[Jack Harrison]

Canon SX50?

Jack

[Padfield]

Canon SX50?

Close - SX520 HS. I'm on a tight budget and that was £209 from ukdigitalcameras.co.uk. I'm very pleased with it, though, and it outperforms my previous Canon compact on all tests so far. It's a little bulkier but only about 100g heavier, which is what counts when you spend your summers cycling up mountains with a dog in the backpack ...

Exposure times for the moon can indeed be very short and celestial drift doesn't seem to be a problem. They're quite short for Jupiter too, so I expect improved shots of that planet with this camera; but I doubt any interesting resolution of Saturn will be possible. Needless to say, I will give it a try! Little by little I'm learning the black art of post-processing, which can rescue awful shots. Winter seems to have arrived in Switzerland (I arrive later today) so butterflies are not on the cards for the next couple of weeks or so.

You can get a very good pint of London Pride in the North Terminal at Gatwick.

Guy

[PhilBJohnson]

Hi,
The sun looks approx. the same size as the moon due to it being much bigger but also much further away.
Also, don't forget that it has been proved by the use of accurate and powerful lasers that the moon is in fact slowly moving away from the earth.
If this is about butterflies, I might try a Canon SX520 HS if it has a better optical zoom than my Canon SX50HS. I will do some research.
regards and best wishes,
Philip

[Jack Harrison]

I just looked it up. TheSX520 HS indeed is significantly cheaper than the SX50 and probably just as capable.

As far as I can make out, the SX520 has a fixed screen. That would rule it out for me. The SX50 has a fully articulated screen and is possibly my next camera once the present Panasonic FZ150 gives up - that's already three years old and still going strong so I can't find an excuse yet!!

Query (maybe on wrong ukb thread). Surely it must be possible to add an articulated screen to almost any camera that has a hot shoe mount? I have been unable to find anything though.

Jack

[Padfield]

No chance of a New Year red admiral here! I did visit the hotspots in the Rhône Valley but with maximum afternoon temperatures not quite making it up to zero even the Swiss sun could not lure anything out. Quite right - that is how winter in Switzerland should be.








(a token lep ...)

Here is the moon, hanging above the Grand Chamossaire, photographed from Aigle station on my way home:



Swallowtails hilltop there in June ...

Guy

[David M]

Good to see you got back to la Suisse safely, Guy.

For sure, you shouldn't expect any active butterflies in those conditions, but if temperatures increase by a few degrees, you will doubtless see your regular winter specialists and make us all green with envy here in the UK.

Happy New Year, by the way!

[Jack Harrison]

I reckon Guy should have made a New Year's resolution to stop p***ing us off with reports of butterflies in January and pictures of pristine snow under blue skies.

Jack

[Padfield]

Just for you, Jack, here's a picture of cloud:



And here's a purple emperor caterpillar (either Trijaṭā or Sugrīva):



You don't get many of those on Mull ...

Guy

[MikeOxon]

Thanks for the tip about the 'Stellarium' program. At first glance, it seems a very effective and easy to use star viewer. I have an ancient copy of 'Skyglobe' and was surprised to find that Uranus is mis-placed, so it seems to have errors in the orbit calculations.

For those comparing Canon SX50 and SX520 cameras, note that the SX520 lacks the eye-level electronic viewfinder.

Mike

[Jack Harrison]

...Uranus is mis-placed

That must be most uncomfortable.

Jack

[David M]

...Uranus is mis-placed

That must be most uncomforatable.

Trust you!

[Padfield]

Ahem ...

In other matters astronomical, comet Lovejoy is in the sky, and just visible near Orion. Unfortunately, the moon is very bright - just after full moon - so there is little contrast in the sky and it is difficult to see the comet. Here it is, though:



And in a larger context:



If your screen is not very bright it probably won't show at all in these pictures. Here is the culprit, actually photographed at about 06h30 this morning:



Guy

[Padfield]

It's been brilliantly sunny for the last three days but still no butterflies on the wing, even in the hotspots. A gentle breeze has prevented temperatures really building up.

Here is my first purple hairstreak egg of the year, pressed onto an oak bud:





I was pleased to find it as this species has plummeted in numbers in the last few years. In 2010 almost every oak tree had eggs - last year I didn't find a single egg.

Guy

[Padfield]

I did a little more comet watching this evening. The moon rose later and was less full, so early in the evening the skies were quite dark. Even so, I didn't really get any better views than yesterday.

Of course, Lovejoy has moved since yesterday. The first picture shows where it was tonight in relation to Orion and the second picture zooms in a little on the spot.





As before, if your screen brightness is not high enough you won't see a thing in either shot! The stars show as short lines because of the rotation of the earth. In fact, when I took IS off to get sharper pictures with the tripod, the lines were much clearer and the picture looked worse, so I put it back on again, rounding out the stars.

I wanted to get some shots of the moon rising but missed the moment by messing around first with a video and then with the wrong settings. You only get about 2 mins from start to finish of moonrise, so there's not much room for experimentation. I'll know what to do next time. This is just before the moon rose:



And this is after moonrise:



Jupiter is a bit to the left of the moon tonight. I had a few goes at photographing it but the problem is, if I adjust the light so its moons are visible the planet itself is burnt out and if I adjust the light for the planet the moons are invisible.

This is Jupiter with the correct exposure (in fact, I focused and metered on the moon, then turned the camera on Jupiter while holding the settings).



You can just make out the two dark bands.

This next one reveals the moons but no details of the planet. Ganymede and Europa are on top of each other on the top right and Io is on the bottom left. Callisto is passing in front of the planet).



Guy

[David M]

Your moonrise image is superb, Guy.

How the hell can you locate that comet though?

[Padfield]

How the hell can you locate that comet though?

In binoculars, comets look quite different from stars, however faint they are. One sweep and you can pick them out.

I've known my way around the night sky since I was seven or eight, when I would sit on the garage roof and identify the constellations using my precious Ladybird book of the stars. I even daubed glow-in-the-dark paint on the pictures so I could use the book in the pitch black, though to be honest that didn't help a lot. It was fun for studying them in bed, though, after lights out. Later I got more professional star atlases but it was in those very early days when I really learnt the sky - and I still see the constellations in the same way they were depicted in the Ladybird book.

Guy

[David M]

I too absorbed all I could regarding astronomy at a similar age - I even got a telescope for Christmas in 1979 when I was 11 - but I've never been able to locate celestial objects like you can!!

I think you are a naturally more patient human being than I am!

[Padfield]

Anyone can learn patience, David, if they're prepared to work at it long enough ...

Speaking of which, here is Sarasvatī this morning:



She has barely moved a muscle since I took this picture on 3rd November last year:



There's another two-and-a-half months to go before she will think about moving again and probably three months before she will take her first meal of 2015.

For the fourth consecutive day it was sunny today, but like the last three days it has also been just too chilly, with just too much breeze, for butterflies to fly. The weather changed back to cloud this evening, scuppering any hopes of further comet-watching.


(lunchtime walk)




(clouds arriving like flying saucers)

Guy

[trevor]

HI Guy,

Many thanks for your comment.I am in awe of some of your images, and of some of the exotic species,
you have in Switzerland. I find it amazing that as well species common enough in the British Isles you have
such beauties as Camberwell Beauty,Large Tortoishell, and Southern White Admiral etc. living side by side with
our regulars.

Looking forward to your dairy in 2015.
TREVOR