> I had the *istD set on center spot autofocus, so I fixed the focus > on the critter, then reframed the shot.
Good technique. > I don't find it objectionable. In > fact, I find it quite interesting. Yes quite, great shot all the same. I was considering doing some nature photography in the New Year, birds mainly, but I've just discovered the term 'digiscoping' after a search for interesting sites to visit. These guys are using 80x spotting scopes with digicams attached, it's like having a 4000mm tele lens on the 35mm SLR!!!!!! John ---------- Original Message ----------- From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 11:09:17 -0500 Subject: Re: PESO" New Year's Day Walkaround > I had the *istD set on center spot autofocus, so I fixed the focus > on the critter, then reframed the shot. I'm not sure that this > phenomena should be described as CA either. Every long lens I've > ever used produces some strange bokeh with extremely out of focus > branches against a bright sky. I don't find it objectionable. In > fact, I find it quite interesting. Paul On Jan 2, 2005, at 10:36 AM, > John Whittingham wrote: > > >> It's probably chromatic aberration. It's most evident in this kind > >> of shot, where the background is extremely bright. I corrected it > >> somewhat in the RAW conversion, but couldn't eliminate it > >> completely. I think even my A 400/5.6 would show some CA with this > >> kind of background and minimal depth of field. > > > > I'm not entirely sure it's CA the minimal depth of field seems more the > > culprit but obviously unavoidable at 320mm. It would be interesting to > > know > > just exactly where the camera chose to focus or was the shot manually > > focused? > > > > Would it be better with a film camera?! > > > > John > > > > > > > > ---------- Original Message ----------- > > From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 10:02:13 -0500 > > Subject: Re: PESO" New Year's Day Walkaround > > > >> It's probably chromatic aberration. It's most evident in this kind > >> of shot, where the background is extremely bright. I corrected it > >> somewhat in the RAW conversion, but couldn't eliminate it > >> completely. I think even my A 400/5.6 would show some CA with this > >> kind of background and minimal depth of field. > >> > >> On Jan 2, 2005, at 8:58 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > >> > >>> Paul, I took another look at the pic ... meant to ask about the > >>> purple > >>> fringing. Is that chromatic aberration or something else. It really > >>> makes > >>> the lens far less useful ... > >>> > >>> Shel > >>> > >>>>> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3000223&size=lg > >>> > >>> > > ------- End of Original Message ------- > > ------- End of Original Message -------
