https://imgur.com/a/9qNXNlb

Planet (not sure which one - lmao at thinking this is a solid red rock elon is going to land on, this shit is TWINKLING LUMINESCENCE mother fucker):

https://imgur.com/a/cbdaYI6

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5128997&forum_id=2).#44669193)

idk i bought this thing a week ago

it's pretty creepy actually, i was 1/3 mile away and zoomed in on some people eating lunch on a rooftop like i was 10 feet away. 83x zoom is a doobsian nightmare.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5128997&forum_id=2).#44669213)

The main drawback of a small sensor is going to be low light capability, and of course pixel count is restricted. The advantage is that lenses can be made exponentially smaller. The reason I recommended the Sony is because it has a big sensor and a zoom lens, and in some models the reach of that zoom is quite impressive. It's 20mp, so if you shoot a pic of a bird from far away, you can crop it and still get a good image. Your camera has a 16mp sensor, which is high native resolution for a sensor that size, so you can still crop too, though why would you? The disadvantage to zooms for wildlife photography though are that they are slow and have a lot of chromatic aberrations and shit when shot upward against the bright sky. I think you're better off with a camera that's calibrated to avoid all those issues and that gives you that big ass sensor, but no RX100 is taking a pic like that moon shot either and for $800 you can take pics I can't take with my like $15k of camera gear.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5128997&forum_id=2).#44671872)

https://imgur.com/a/vtMxAI7

My camera has a built-in astrotracer but I haven't learned how to use it. I think with that I can sharpen up the images a big, but I'll never get higher resolution.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5128997&forum_id=2).#44671811)

I don't know if it's the angle of the sun, but yours doesn't look totally spherical, and it could well be lens distortion. You should run it through Lightroom and have it correct for that. It has profiles for all the popular consumer lenses.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5128997&forum_id=2).#44671832)

supermoon on june 14

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5128997&forum_id=2).#44671815)

https://imgur.com/a/B1Jk1fF

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5128997&forum_id=2).#44671949)

As for ISO, I would keep it at or below 1600, but play around with different ISO values while holding it constant at f11. I'm guessing it looks like shit over ISO 1600 but maybe you can clean it up in lightroom. It not only corrects lens distortion but it has denoise profiles for specific cameras, so you might shoot all the way up to ISO 6400 and see how that cleans up in lightroom vs something shot at 1600 or lower.

Anyway, holding ISO constant, try taking it down from there to f9, f8, f7.1, or whatever options the camera gives you in between f11 and f6. You can take it over f11 but I don't see the point. That camera is already going to have deep as fuck focus just because the sensor is so small. Make sure you wait a good long time before hitting the remote shutter because cameras shake for a long time after you stop touching them. On tripods some people get better results disabling shake reduction though it probably doesn't matter for that camera.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5128997&forum_id=2).#44672837)

I’ve toyed around with all sorts of sensor sizes, but have kind of settled (for now) on an Olympus EM1 III w/ the 12-100 (24-200 eq) f/4 lens + a 20/1.7 pancake prime. It’s small and light enough that it’s not a hassle to hike / travel with and the sensor is “big enough”, really only sacrificing that thin DOF that full frame easily achieves.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5128997&forum_id=2).#44672723)

https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/ef319.html

The lens on OP's camera has an effective focal length of 2.0 meters. I thought OP was flaming us with a stock photo and had to edit after I googled that camera.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5128997&forum_id=2).#44672772)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAfSbNt_uYI

OP has some wackadoo camera with an actual lens. It's a $80 sensor and $700 lens. Also I was wrong OP doesn't have bad distortion, the moon is actually that shape.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5128997&forum_id=2).#44672798)

My current DSLR handles m42 screwmount lenses natively with a simple ring adapter. It's designed to accomodate that format specifically, so that lets me use a lot of old cheap lenses that are cumbersome to adapt to other digital cameras. I can also use bayonet mounted lenses going back to the 70s, and tons of film era lenses with fully working autofocus and shit with it. So I just put garage sale lenses on it and see what do.

Just fucking around tonight, I had this old Sigma 70-300mm zoom that I never used because it always seemed like it took pure shit pics. After the moon thread tonight I took it out to see what it could do. Too many clouds to see the moon, but this is a close crop of a pic I took on the walk back, fully zoomed in at 300mm at 800 ISO. It looks sharp as fuck and contrast is good. I'm shocked. I think I got this lens for free.

https://imgur.com/a/d8cAATC

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5128997&forum_id=2).#44673415)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZw2S8z22CI

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5128997&forum_id=2).#44674003)

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51+AQsuIRfL.jpg

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5128997&forum_id=2).#44674872)

Other things: your camera has a preset JPG mode. Select b/w or monochrome if you can. Its image processing engine might do a better job than you can do in Lightroom. Also convert your moon images to monochrome in post processing. There is absolutely no reason to have color noise. Go ahead and shoot at ISO 6400 and see if you get good monochrome results. This is a rare instance where it color noise isn't something you need to worry about.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5128997&forum_id=2).#44673472)

i'm shooting in raw, so in theory i can make all those edits in lightroom, right? as opposed to jpeg mode, which would lock in the settings into the photo itself? not 100% i understand how that works

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5128997&forum_id=2).#44680511)

If your camera has a JPEG mode that doesn't create RAW files at all, I wouldn't use that mode and just shoot RAW all the time. Hopefully it doesn't force you to choose one or the other. Some cameras let you do post processing in camera, so you shoot RAW, then open up the file in camera and select a post-processing option. From there, just select the monochrome pic that looks the best and see if you can beat it in lightroom.

If your camera does exposure bracketing, that's an easy way to nail exposure. Have it shoot with exposure at -1ev, -2, -3, etc for each shot. If it has that function it will take all three shots each time you press the shutter. You'll end up with 3x as many files but you might find that -3ev gets you even better results then -1 or -2, especially when you don't need color accuracy.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5128997&forum_id=2).#44681144)

it's magically "gravity locked" so it only faces one direction (earth) instead of rotating. simple explanation, goys, no 2D plasma to see here!

also why would the side that's gravity locked to the earth (i.e., has big brother earth protecting it from asteroids) have so many PERFECTLY round craters? there would either be not that many craters near the middle, or they would be at weird sideways angles

there is fuckery afoot. the next thing i need to try and capture is a lunar wave, although that might be difficult as they appear to be pretty rare. but that is probably the strongest proof that the moon is NOT what we think it is

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5128997&forum_id=2).#44680518)

being able to point this thing at the sky and see the moon in that detail is one of the only "holy shit" moments i've had in the last decade

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5128997&forum_id=2).#44680514)

https://flic.kr/p/2k3fLv5

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5128997&forum_id=2).#44709867)

https://www.nikonusa.com/p/coolpix-p950/26532/overview#ratings-reviews

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5128997&forum_id=2).#49330866)