Taking The Long Way Home With Nikon!!

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Rita Ä Berkowitz, Jan 1, 2008.

  1. Nonsense! The difference is I shot through branches and you didn't. Once
    you do than we will have "similar" images to compare, though I doubt a Canon
    lens will ever produce decent bokeh with only 8-blades. I do understand
    your apprehension of pushing you L glass to the limits.





    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Jan 2, 2008
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    PixelPix Guest

    OK one last time.... how does that make any difference to background
    bokeh? Please explain.
     
    PixelPix, Jan 2, 2008
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    M-M Guest

    It will be well positioned for viewing most of this month after the 10th.
     
    M-M, Jan 2, 2008
    #23
  4. I'll get "Killer" warmed up and ready. Thanks.





    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Jan 2, 2008
    #24
  5. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    M-M Guest

    Actually you'll need to get it cooled down to match the outside air.
     
    M-M, Jan 2, 2008
    #25
  6. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Annika1980 Guest

    Give Rita some credit. So he rented a crap lens with lousy bokeh. He
    can always return it and rent a different one that hopefully will be
    better. I mean, it's not like he was stupid enough to waste a bunch
    of money buying that shitty lens.
    Now that would really be funny if he did something as stupid as that.
     
    Annika1980, Jan 2, 2008
    #26
  7. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Scott W Guest

    Telescopes are good for what they are good for, subjects are not
    moving much and where you have a long time to mess with the focus.
    But a telescope is not a replacement for a photographic lens. Add to
    the camera lens image stabilization and there are even more cases
    where the telescope is simply not going to be useful, compared to a
    real camera lens.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jan 2, 2008
    #27
  8. LOL! Five days left on the rental. God news! I'm asking for the Fabulous
    500 and I'm getting a two-week free rental because I complained about the
    bad bokeh Nikon has. It's great to have experts in the group. He wouldn't
    cut me any rental slack on the Mk III.




    Rita

    ..
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Jan 2, 2008
    #28
  9. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Annika1980 Guest

    When I go up to view the sandhill cranes there is usually at least one
    person there with a Leica spotting scope or something similar. While
    the optics are probably as good as it gets for spotting scopes, there
    is usually lots of vibration from the wind even though they are tripod-
    mounted.

    How does one go about connecting a DSLR to one of these scopes?
    I have a EOS T-Mount I could use. Do you shoot through the scopes
    eyepiece or does the camera replace the eyepiece? Eyepiece projection,
    I think they used to call it back in my telescope days.
     
    Annika1980, Jan 2, 2008
    #29
  10. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Scott W Guest

    You can go either way. I believe if you don't use the eyepiece to
    project the image you need an adapter with some optics in it. I use
    to do this kind of thing with microscopes and had two setups, one was
    an adapter that looked like a Nikon lens on one side and on the other
    slid in where the eyepiece would go, the other set up used larger film
    and a very long camera using the eyepiece to project the image onto
    the film.

    A big problem that I see if focusing, the telescope is running at a
    fairly slow f/number and is manually focused. The slow f/number makes
    it harder to manually focus, compared to a lens that is fairly open
    when focusing and then stops down when the photo is taken. This is ok
    if you are photographing the moon but for the things I normally
    photograph not so good.

    A telescope is not a bad way to go to get a very long lens cheap, but
    it has a lot of limitations that go along with it.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jan 2, 2008
    #30
  11. Rita,

    Do you want to buy another 2X converter? I wish I had never bought the
    P.O.S.

    Mick Brown
     
    Michael Brown, Jan 3, 2008
    #31
  12. It's much cheaper connecting a P&S with a small sensor to it, because
    these scopes have optics and exit pupils designed for a human eye on
    the end of it, and a small P&S lens and sensor is a much closer
    approximation to that in optical and physical terms than a DSLR. This
    is one kind of application in which for the same investment you'll get
    a better higher quality higher resolution image out of a P&S than a
    DSLR :)

    But if you want to use a DSLR there are plenty of telescope optical
    converters available, varying in sophistication and price depending on
    your purposes.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 3, 2008
    #32
  13. Only if it gives me donut shaped bokeh when I stack it with my current 2x.
    Seriously, I do realize it is a compromise, but what do you find
    objectionable about it when used with the 400/2.8?





    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Jan 3, 2008
    #33
  14. Softness,

    In my profession, I need sharpness, and the 2X is just not acceptable. 1.4
    is great though.

    MB
     
    Michael Brown, Jan 3, 2008
    #34
  15. You might want to revisit testing that old 2X TC on the 400/2.8 as it might
    not be as soft as you think when on the D3. Most "softness" can be
    attributed to motion blur.
    I think lack of lightning fast AF would be more of a problem for sports
    shooting. Though a bit slower than I like the 500 and 2X TC on the D3 track
    birds in flight really well. I agree that the 1.4X is probably a better
    choice for your needs.



    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Jan 3, 2008
    #35
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.