I can't help but wonder what the image quality would be like at say 8x10 :) The scopes optics would have to be very good indeed at that magnification.
John ---------- Original Message ----------- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] Sent: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 19:29:02 +0000 Subject: Re: PESO" New Year's Day Walkaround > Thanks. The spotting scope sounds like fun. But you're going to need > one heck of a sturdy tripod. I suppose a gimble head would be in > order as well. Paul > > > > 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 ------- > > ------- End of Original Message -------
