2 replies to this topic

[jkevn]

I am getting ready to try photographing the moon with my DSLR. I have a Canon 5D Mark IV with a 70-200mm telephoto and a 2x extender, and a heavy GITZO tripod and ball mount. What are the pros and cons using a ball mount for doing this? I don't have access to different kinds of mounts, like a gimbal or fluid mount to try them out. One advantage I've noticed with the ball mount is that I can point the camera at zenith without it hitting the tripod. A disadvantage is that it can only be balanced when the camera is level.

[vidrazor]

If you're shooting full res frames, almost any tripod will do. The ball mount is fine, although a fluid head will make life easier if you want to shoot a series of frames to stack. Just stop down and use a high enough shutter speed and ISO, and use the self timer or intervalometer to expose. You may be better off not using the 2X, try it both ways.

Edited by vidrazor, 20 November 2023 - 11:34 PM.

[jeffry7]

The trouble with ball heads, and any mount that uses friction, is that when you point the camera up, they slouch. So you have to point above your target to take that into account.

The moon is moving, so repeat constantly through your session.

When I do this, I use a gear head. You can dial in where you are aiming the camera, and it doesn't slouch when you let go.

BTW, if it takes a while to gather the stills you want to stack, you may suffer from field rotation. How long is a while depends on your latitude and where in the sky the moon is.

Autostakkert has an experimental mode to help with this, but your shots must be evenly spaced in time.

An equatorial mount will cancel this out.