Prev: Flower macros
Next: Why P&S's should do some reading before taking the plunge with real cameras
From: Rich on 31 May 2010 13:17
On May 31, 2:45 am, Val Hallah <michaelnewp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 12:42 am, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 30, 1:59 pm, Val Hallah <michaelnewp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 30, 5:58 pm, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Perfect example.  Guy shoots a Panasonic GH1 hand-held at 1/3 sec and
> > > > f16 and wonders why his shots aren't sharp.  P&S's are weaned on
> > > > cameras that have infinite DOF and limited apertures (often don't
> > > > close down to lower than f6.3) so to them, the discipline needed to
> > > > shoot a DSLR or EVIL camera is alien.
>
> > > >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=35451698
>
> > > he needed one of these
>
> > >http://www.flickr.com/photos/40732837(a)N07/4628023291/
>
> > Here's one with the camera (well, the G1, GH1 with lesser sensor) he
> > couldn't get a sharp shot with and a long lens.
>
> >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/116038333/original
>
> how much did that lens cost ;?)

$300.00 I built it myself. All it is is a 120mm wide, f8 1000mm
achromat.
From: Rich on 31 May 2010 13:18
On May 31, 10:12 am, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 May 2010 08:58:15 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Perfect example.  Guy shoots a Panasonic GH1 hand-held at 1/3 sec and
> >f16 and wonders why his shots aren't sharp.  P&S's are weaned on
> >cameras that have infinite DOF and limited apertures (often don't
> >close down to lower than f6.3) so to them, the discipline needed to
> >shoot a DSLR or EVIL camera is alien.
>
> >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=35451698
>
> I have been posting exactly this view - that P&S users will encounter
> focusing problems with Micro Four Thirds and larger sensors - for some
> weeks now.
>
> They do say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so I
> thank you for your sincere flattery.  ;-)

Good thing though, the EVIL cameras have much less shutter slap and
are able to produce sharper images with extremely long lenses.
From: Val Hallah on 31 May 2010 13:34
On May 31, 7:17 pm, Rich <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 2:45 am, Val Hallah <michaelnewp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 31, 12:42 am, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 30, 1:59 pm, Val Hallah <michaelnewp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 30, 5:58 pm, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Perfect example.  Guy shoots a Panasonic GH1 hand-held at 1/3 sec and
> > > > > f16 and wonders why his shots aren't sharp.  P&S's are weaned on
> > > > > cameras that have infinite DOF and limited apertures (often don't
> > > > > close down to lower than f6.3) so to them, the discipline needed to
> > > > > shoot a DSLR or EVIL camera is alien.
>
> > > > >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=35451698
>
> > > > he needed one of these
>
> > > >http://www.flickr.com/photos/40732837(a)N07/4628023291/
>
> > > Here's one with the camera (well, the G1, GH1 with lesser sensor) he
> > > couldn't get a sharp shot with and a long lens.
>
> > >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/116038333/original
>
> > how much did that lens cost ;?)
>
> $300.00 I built it myself.  All it is is a 120mm wide, f8 1000mm
> achromat.

sounds cheap, do you have a picture of it ?
From: bugbear on 1 Jun 2010 10:39
DanP wrote:
> On May 30, 11:42 pm, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 30, 1:59 pm, Val Hallah <michaelnewp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 30, 5:58 pm, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Perfect example. Guy shoots a Panasonic GH1 hand-held at 1/3 sec and
>>>> f16 and wonders why his shots aren't sharp. P&S's are weaned on
>>>> cameras that have infinite DOF and limited apertures (often don't
>>>> close down to lower than f6.3) so to them, the discipline needed to
>>>> shoot a DSLR or EVIL camera is alien.
>>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=35451698
>>> he needed one of these
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/40732837(a)N07/4628023291/
>> Here's one with the camera (well, the G1, GH1 with lesser sensor) he
>> couldn't get a sharp shot with and a long lens.
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/116038333/original
>
> It looks like it was shot through a telescope.

It does, doesn't it ;-)

BugBear
From: bugbear on 1 Jun 2010 10:43
James Nagler wrote:
>
> My 16" diameter (20" dia. OTA) reflector telescope weighs a total of 255
> lbs. when completely set up. The cast-iron mount and counter-weights alone
> weighing in at about 150 lbs. of that. Yet I can lightly tap the telescope
> tube and it take about 20-40 seconds for the vibrations to completely
> dampen down. (The "tap test" is well known to amateur astronomers, anything
> under 60 seconds for vibrations to dampen down is considered "good".) It is
> a well balanced telescope, just a standard 9v battery is enough to power
> the tracking and go-to system (it is that well balanced). But at high
> magnifications (600x-1000x) even the slightest disturbance will set up
> visually obvious oscillations.

Indeed. Fortunately most photographers are working
at the equivalent of MUCH smaller
magnifications.

BugBear
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Flower macros
Next: Why P&S's should do some reading before taking the plunge with real cameras