A new 2.7x zoom (say hello to my little freind)

PS-RagE said:
Heh, changed my mind - D2X on order. Gonna sell the D70 after all.

BTW, I've put the giant lens away for now so those of you bumping the thread can stop. It is just too much for my current tripod. I've got a Wimberly on back-order. Should have it middle of March or so. That plus a Gitzo 1500 will do the trick.
Click to expand...

:eek:

You have too much cash man :D
 
PS-RagE said:
BTW, I've put the giant lens away for now so those of you bumping the thread can stop. It is just too much for my current tripod.
Click to expand...
Oh come on you promise Moon pictures and we are going to wait for them. BTW that is a nice lens and huge :eek:
 
LOL! ETA for Wimberly is March 14th. Gitzo should be here by end of week. Next full moon is March 23rd.

D2X? Dunno, could be awhile.
 
moon800.jpg


Nikon D70
2005/03/25 21:10:15.8
Lens: 300-800mm F/5.6 D
Focal Length: 800mm
Exposure Mode: Manual
Metering Mode: Spot
1/50 sec - F/16
Sensitivity: ISO 200


This is how large it was in the frame:

moon800sm.jpg


Not as sharp as I'd like. I suspect it is "motion blur" - it actually moves quite fast. Going to open up two stops and increase ISO to 400 so I can lower shutter speed to 1/500 for next attempt (tonight maybe).
 
PS-RagE said:
Nikon D70
2005/03/25 21:10:15.8
Lens: 300-800mm F/5.6 D
Focal Length: 800mm
Exposure Mode: Manual
Metering Mode: Spot
1/50 sec - F/16
Sensitivity: ISO 200


This is how large it was in the frame:

Not as sharp as I'd like. I suspect it is "motion blur" - it actually moves quite fast. Going to open up two stops and increase ISO to 400 so I can lower shutter speed to 1/500 for next attempt (tonight maybe).
Click to expand...


How much did you extrapolate that? 6x? That might be why it's a little "unsharp" but shit, how sharp do you want it? If anything, it's a little bright. Lower light moon shots provide much better visible topography.

And as far as motion blur goes? I don't think so. The moon, relative to your frame, isn't moving. Photographic motion blur? Definitely not. Relativistic motion blur....... not really. The moon is fast, but not that fast. 1x10^3 m/s is not Relativistically fast.
 
mwarps said:
How much did you extrapolate that? 6x? That might be why it's a little "unsharp" but shit, how sharp do you want it? If anything, it's a little bright. Lower light moon shots provide much better visible topography.
Click to expand...

That image was re-sized down, not up.


And as far as motion blur goes? I don't think so. The moon, relative to your frame, isn't moving. Photographic motion blur? Definitely not. Relativistic motion blur....... not really. The moon is fast, but not that fast. 1x10^3 m/s is not Relativistically fast.
Click to expand...

I'm just guessing with the "blur" theory. I had read not to go less than 1/30 and 1/50 is in that ballpark. I suppose it could also be because the thing is fully frontlit in this picture and has no detail to offer (i.e. flat).
 
SidewinderX said:
can you get a 1.4x or 2x TC? :evil grin:
Click to expand...

Actually, I have both and have modified them to work not only with this lens but together as well (i.e. 2240mm) :cool: Needless to say, manual focus only at f16 and pretty big hit in the optical quality
 
PS-RagE said:
That image was re-sized down, not up.




I'm just guessing with the "blur" theory. I had read not to go less than 1/30 and 1/50 is in that ballpark. I suppose it could also be because the thing is fully frontlit in this picture and has no detail to offer (i.e. flat).
Click to expand...

You're saying it was BIGGER than that??? Good LORD man.

*goes and plays lottery so can afford one*


Last month at full moon, I did 1/100 of a second for a couple shots at F8.. some at 1/500 F8, which were obviously darker, but not much.

It is frontlit, but if you cut down the exposure enough, you can get great detail, otherwise, it's a washout.
 
Nice pics.

How does the Sunny 16 rule work out for this shot? IIRC the moon is actually a grey color and not too bright. I'm not sure how much it might be over-exposed here, although there isn't any highlight clipping so it isn't necessarily bad to over-expose; just pull it a bit (ie, EV -2/3 or so to the NEF on conversion).


And ditto on the flat light. There are no shadows to showcase the texture of the moon, hence why it looks so plain. So under-exposing won't bring anything out, it would just bring it closer to the natural color. Just try getting a slightly more grey color for the moon, and wait for a moon phase with more shadows, and prepare the tele-convertors. :)

I should figure out how to mount my lens to my mirror telescope, although working with the tiny eye-piece just isn't cool (only my Nikon CoolPix 995 P&S would "fit")...
 
that is a neat shot. this is my best shot of the moon: http://www.deviantart.com/view/5393631/

that is a shot i took thru my dads telescope. its 3 images merged in photoshop, hehe couldnt fit the whole thing on the frame. it was like using a 2050mm lens x1.6 fov crop :] i could see the limits of the resolution on the glass of my dads telescope with my camera :p
 
just out of curiosity... those lake pictures.. how far accross is that lake? (if not sure... estimate :D )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top