Photography/cameras and associated gear thread.

[The_Piper]

Why won't you want nice sharp video of your goggie, for instance?
Yours also has the high speed mode. You could watch the dog lapping up water in super slow mo.

[angelo]

It won't matter... Atmosphere shimmer is going to be your limiting factor.

This reminds me of the old days of High Fidelity. All types of gadgets were released to make the playing of vinyl records sound better. I remember buying a $600 cartridge for my parallel tracking Pioneer turntable which itself cost well over 1200 Aust. dollars.
But the limiting factor was always the hiss and scratching on the vinyl LP record. No matter what, it was always present. I even had an antistatic gun I aimed at the record before placing it on the super expensive turntable. You think this was expensive. There were turntables from Britain and the States as well as Japan that cost up to $5-6000.
Each upgrade of any equipment was minor improvement in sound quality, but the price always frightening.

[angelo]

Why won't you want nice sharp video of your goggie, for instance?
Yours also has the high speed mode. You could watch the dog lapping up water in super slow mo.

[The_Metatron]

It won't matter... Atmosphere shimmer is going to be your limiting factor.

This reminds me of the old days of High Fidelity. All types of gadgets were released to make the playing of vinyl records sound better. I remember buying a $600 cartridge for my parallel tracking Pioneer turntable which itself cost well over 1200 Aust. dollars.
But the limiting factor was always the hiss and scratching on the vinyl LP record. No matter what, it was always present. I even had an antistatic gun I aimed at the record before placing it on the super expensive turntable. You think this was expensive. There were turntables from Britain and the States as well as Japan that cost up to $5-6000.
Each upgrade of any equipment was minor improvement in sound quality, but the price always frightening.

Unrelated to photography, of course, but a similar situation exists in speaker cables.

For so many technical and environmental reasons, those low oxygen, fat, gold contact, 4.21 gigawatt speaker cables are a similar waste of money. Christ, if you're more than 20 years old, your ears simply can't hear the difference any more anyway. Never mind the environmental noise of a typical house.

Applying this concept to photography is what keeps me out of the expensive Nikon professional DSLR cameras. It would be a waste of resources to me.

This is also what is still staying my hand with my shopping for astrophotography imagers. I don't yet know enough about it to make the right choice for my equipment and likely usage. And, it's way too damned easy to over engineer (and over price) the solution.

[angelo]

Jesse, it's the main reason I stick to compact cameras. Even here, the money I've spent on compacts I could have bought a very good SLR camera with super dooper lens by now. With all the trickery available these days even a half decent compact can yield fair results to a layperson.

In all seriousness, I used to read comparisons by so-called experts on thousand dollars per meter super speaker cables and their recommendations. I wonder if they realy believe the bulltwang they write about or they chuckle to themselves as they're typing.

[The_Metatron]

Our carry around camera is a Lumix FP-8:



That little fucker takes great snapshots. The thing is, is it's so handy to have, one is much more likely to actually use it, and get some decent images.

[chairman bill]

... The thing is, is it's so handy to have, one is much more likely to actually use it, and get some decent images.

That's so true. I never have my camera with me & never take even a half-decent photo. If only I'd known before buying that DSLR

[The_Metatron]

I still have two, near mint (less than five rolls of film), Pentax K-1000 bodies if someone is interested...

A bit of postage and they're yours.

[The_Metatron]

Maybe that and a bottle of Scotch whisky.

[The_Metatron]

Just to demonstrate, on earth, what the difference is between a 50mm lens on the camera, and my telescope on the front of my Pentax K100D, here's the view from my terrace:

View from my terrace

IMGP9767.JPG (2.78 MiB) Viewed 984 times

Now, this is with eyepiece projection onto the CCD with a 26mm eyepiece:

Same view, looking through my telescope

IMGP9760.JPG (1.4 MiB) Viewed 984 times

That tower is poking just above the treetops, just off the eave of the third building away from the camera. I estimate that tower is 500 meters away.

[The_Metatron]

Here's an example I shot of atmosphere shimmer while looking through a telescope at Luna:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBRgc2pTyDc[/youtube]

While observing visually, your brain filters a lot of that shit out, and makes a sort of real-time composite of what your eye actually sees. This is why it's possible to see more detail by eye than a single exposure with a camera will yield.

[ElDiablo]

Our carry around camera is a Lumix FP-8:



That little fucker takes great snapshots. The thing is, is it's so handy to have, one is much more likely to actually use it, and get some decent images.

A while ago I got a Canon S95 - I liked that it had manual controls. I carry it in a camera pouch on my belt and don't have to take it off to sit down in my car. This makes it a no-brainer to take everywhere. I've documented family stuff that wouldn't have been documented if I only hadmy DSLR.

[ElDiablo]

Here's an example I shot of atmosphere shimmer while looking through a telescope at Luna:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBRgc2pTyDc[/youtube]

While observing visually, your brain filters a lot of that shit out, and makes a sort of real-time composite of what your eye actually sees. This is why it's possible to see more detail by eye than a single exposure with a camera will yield.

Wow!

[FBM]

Not sure how old this is, but I think I made it last year with a Sigma 400mm, 2X teleconverter and a Nikon D90. I'm still working on ways to get sharper images of the moon. It's harder than I expected.

Focusing is critical for astro shots. Don't rely on autofocus. Use live view magnified as much as possible to adjust focus.

Also you may want to compare the shot with ordinary photos to see what you can expect.

I took this moon shot many years ago with my Sony V1 compact DC through a $50 Newtonian reflector. I took a few dozen shots and stacked them together.

That's very good advice! Thanks! My eyesight has been limiting me. It hasn't dawned on me to focus while in live view. Next time I get out, I'll take multiple shots and stack them, too. I've done that with other images, but not the moon.

Ah. My scope is a Meade ETX-90 (3.5"). Nothing noteworthy, and I've only had it out a few times, but each time I'm learning more tricks. The 'focus in live view' tip makes me eager to get it out again.

[FBM]

Here's an example I shot of atmosphere shimmer while looking through a telescope at Luna:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBRgc2pTyDc[youtube]

While observing visually, your brain filters a lot of that shit out, and makes a sort of real-time composite of what your eye actually sees. This is why it's possible to see more detail by eye than a single exposure with a camera will yield.

Wow!

What he said!!

[Wiðercora]

I still have two, near mint (less than five rolls of film), Pentax K-1000 bodies if someone is interested...

A bit of postage and they're yours.

Don't tempt me. I already have...eight...nine...ten...eleven, twelve, thirteen cameras within about 3' of me.

[angelo]

I've had around 12 compacts in probably 5-6 years. My first compact was a Nikon that wouldn't shut off. The store I bought it from told me to take back to the distributor which I did halfway across the city. The replacement took bad toy looking shots no matter what I tried. I lost my temper and smashed it against a wall and swore to never again buy a Nikon branded camera. A Choice Magazine on compact cameras also wrote a bad review on that camera and gave it 1 star out of five. I bought a camera they gave 4 stars to. It was a Canon. Can't remember any of the model numbers. My last compact I passed on to my daughter a Fujifilm T 200. Which only got 2 & half stars rating from another photo/camera magazine. That's why I gave it her.

[The_Piper]

I took some pics with the new TZ19. It's ok, but nothing special. My also not that great Sony hx7n took sharper pictures. Dammit.
Also it froze while using where I had to remove and replace the battery to get it to respond. I hope that doesn't happen again.
Good things to say...it has a touch screen where I can touch the part I want it to focus on. How that works in practice is yet to be seen, but I expect it to be nearly useless.
I kid, I kid.
Also the 20x zoom is neat, though easy to blur of course.

[angelo]

I took some pics with the new TZ19. It's ok, but nothing special. My also not that great Sony hx7n took sharper pictures. Dammit.
Also it froze while using where I had to remove and replace the battery to get it to respond. I hope that doesn't happen again.
Good things to say...it has a touch screen where I can touch the part I want it to focus on. How that works in practice is yet to be seen, but I expect it to be nearly useless.
I kid, I kid.
Also the 20x zoom is neat, though easy to blur of course.

Sounds as you're not that impressed with it. Is it made in China or Japan, as the TZ30 is made in Japan, but seeing that apart from a different coloured lens barrel it's the same camera.

[angelo]

Hold it. Did you say TZ19 or TS 19 ? The TZ 19 has a 16x zoom. http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/ ... 19_review/