On Dec 21, 2010, at 1:36 PM, paul stenquist wrote: > Soft, but fun to see. I assume you mean you used two 2x converters? One > converter and a crop would have worked better. But at least you tried. I was > sound asleep.
I guess that the test would be to shoot a resolution target from some set distance, and see where the resolution on the sensor actually decreases by adding teleconverters. In previous tests of the moon, my memory is that my best results were with my bigma and a 2x. But, as I said, it was silly trying to get a shot of the moon with less than optimal equipment on a cloudy when there was nothing that could be done aesthetically in terms of composition or anything. People with real telescopes and cameras set up for astrophotography undoubtably got much, much better shots than I did. On the other hand, I did get some fun night time landscape shots, so the evening wasn't a total waste. > Paul > On Dec 21, 2010, at 3:58 PM, Larry Colen wrote: > >> >> On Dec 21, 2010, at 12:49 PM, David J Brooks wrote: >> >>> I can see my house. >> >> I think I'd need more than a 1200/11 (300/2.8 + 2x) to see your house, >> unless you've moved to the ISS. >> >>> >> >> -- >> Larry Colen [email protected] sent from i4est >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- Larry Colen [email protected] sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
