For some it meant pure fun here in Florida, last Thursday afternoon of the Palm Beach.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
argh! why are these lenses so expensive?? I recently installed a new engine in a friends S10. We paid $2100 for a brand new GM 2.2L engine, NEW, from the local GM dealership. Think of how much metal, engineering, etc is in an engine. For the price of ONE lens, we could buy three new engines!
I do not understand :-/ The time to precision-grind glass? Umm...
LOL, I still want one!
Optical glass (high clarity glass) is not a cheap thing, and there's a lot of glass in these things!
After the Walkman there was someting that made Sony genius(es) scratch its (their) head (heads): it's called iPod; followed by iPhone; followed by iPad; followed by...
Sony might be the "800 pound electronics industry gorilla" (to quote The Luminous Lanscape article) but let's say that in photo, serious photo, they are not quite there yet. And they need not just one innovation, but a few dozens more.
My point is not to drop your current C or N gear just yet. If you think that the two old crows (Canon & Nikon) cannot make a "wundercamera" you are quite wrong. They can. But it is not a matter of possibility & tech, but of price; you cannot have a 36 MP FF shooting at 20 FPS and at ISO 102000 or more and filming in FULL HD (or maybe not, 21:9 or 2560/1080 will do great too - ouch, it was Philips that implemented that first hand and not Sony, right?...) for 2000 USD...
CANON EOS 1V (35 mm film SLR) was able to shoot at 10 FPS FF. A decade ago; with 45 AF points etc, tank-like construction etc; NIKON F6 - a monster camera; again, just think about price - here is the real war.
I love the HDR look, even the "painterly" HDR look that puts emphasis on colorfulness instead of absolute fidelity to a scene. But it doesn't really fit my working style and that's OK. I have gotten used to working instead with deep black shadows that only suggest forms to shape the bright space left in the photos.
A lot of the time, like the cloud photos dr croubie mentions, or even just birds on branches - I often curse the inability of the camera and lens to capture all that detail in one exposure, but I've given up on bracketing with an eye to future HDR'ing. Just peek the result and adjust if necessary. Dynamic range is something I want more than anything else in the next generation of cameras (well, sensitivity could go up a bump too, but I actually am about where I need to be even at ISO 400 with f/2.8 and faster lenses).
Actually, the moon and the sun are two subjects that are great for mirror lenses. They don't move very fast (manual focus, live-view), they're bright, and you won't see any bad bokeh.
As for 300/4, sure, that would be nice. But it's an expensive lens, and you won't need aperture; you'll be stopping down! So 70-300/4-5.6 gets you the same thing. That said, you could mount a 1.4x TC on a 300/4.
Just a note on shooting the sun at long telephoto ranges. (and anything at those lengths)
The longer the lens the closer up you get to some of the weird things that happen in nature.
Atmospheric perspective, heat distortion, etc...
This will vary based on your location. If I shot this in Antarctica there would be less distortion due to clearer air and cooler climate.
1Ds Mark III + 600mm + 2X TC = 1200mm
^ very cool photo! How did you pull that off?