October 23, 2014, 09:24:35 AM

Show Posts

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.


Messages - CarlTN

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 149
301
Landscape / Re: Sunset landscape
« on: March 24, 2014, 06:31:59 AM »
I'm in favor of whatever you can get consistent results with.  I had to tweak my monitor, it may not be perfect but it's more than close enough for me.  The factory calibrated mode is far too bright for my room, and a bit too warm to be neutral, in my opinion.  I think most people who are hyper critical about calibration, have some unique lighting in their room to control its brightness and temperature, when editing.  My room is usually just pretty dark with a single warm-colored light, much of the time.  There is one window, the drapes are always closed...if the sun is shining into it brightly, I can't edit.

Sorry to hear that, I wasn't really trying to be critical, hope you didn't take it that way.  I'm sure you will figure out what the problem is with the calibration on your laptop's screen, or whichever computer you use.  In my experience, the amount of (and color temperature of) ambient light present in the space where you do the reviewing or editing, makes a difference.  I wind up setting my Asus monitor fairly dark, because the ambient light in my computer room is dark...also on the warm side.

Hi Carl.
I must check the images on my laptop, lots going on at the moment. The pictures were downloaded to my desktop, no editing is done, I still haven't taken the plunge, I cannot afford expensive software at present and have yet to take up an offer I had for some help with DPP.
I have no idea what to change by how much, everything I do always seems to make things worse. Much as I'd love a 24" monitor I don't have the desk realestate to put it on, have to make do with my 17" monitor.

Cheers Graham.

Hi Folks.
Thanks for the reply CarlTN.
Is there an oops moment there, I just looked on my iPad and the dark one is real dark, nearly black? Not at all how it looked on my monitor or camera LCD. Best I check the calibration before sending too many more, thought I had the calibration about right! Is this just an iPad thing, picture 1712 looked almost as light as picture 1713, 1713 looked almost blown!

All look substantially darker than the original!

Cheers Graham.

No problem, and I have no idea, I don't own any apple products.  You should consider editing on a desktop computer with a 24 inch monitor though, in my opinion.  My monitor cost less than an iPad...

I also do not have any fancy calibration equipment, but I found a way that I thought worked better than the usual gamma and colour adjustments online. Its super simple, just get some prints at a reliable printer, that highlight problem areas, (skin tones, blues, dark shadows and almost blown highlights), hold them up next to your screen, and adjust so its closer. hard to get perfect but easy to get it closer. I always find the online calibration tools too subjective, although the windows 7 integrated one is pretty good.

302
Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: March 24, 2014, 06:27:21 AM »
shot this red tailed hawk from my back porch this afternoon

IMG_5043 by sedwards679, on Flickr

Nice work.

303
Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: March 24, 2014, 06:26:56 AM »
Some Red Kites feeding in the rain  :(







Nice set Viper28.

Those are nice, especially the second from the bottom.

304
Lenses / Re: Thinking about this but wanting your thoughts....
« on: March 24, 2014, 06:24:56 AM »
I've rented the 300 f/4L, and posted images of it with the 2x ii extender, shot with a 1D4.  So it's not like I don't have experience with it.  My cousin also bought one and uses it with a 1.4x on his 1DX.  It was usable in a pinch, but very terrible looking outside the middle 10% of the image, with the 2x ii.  I realize the extender iii is better, but not remotely enough to argue in favor of its use on this lens, in my opinion.  I mean, the 2x extender iii, on the 300 f/2.8 ii, is only BARELY better than the new Tamron 150-600, at 600mm, if it is closed to f/8.  So if you want to argue economics, just buy a Tamron.

I think my point was more about the lens being a good 300 at f/4.0 and 420 at f/5.6. I do not think people buy that lens thinking too much about 600, the main reason is the 300 and 420 at a reasonable price. At those lengths it is a very good lens for the money, and I would prefer it to the 70-300L. It has its pros and cons, one pro is Canon TCs will work with the 300 but not (properly at all lengths) with the 70-300, another is that little bit of extra light.

Well, that's not what you said, though.  You were talking about the 2x TC.  Now you're changing the subject a bit.

Just for the record this is what I said - prior to that post you quote:

The 70-200L II can also take a 2x and still AF.  You can stick a Canon 1.4x III on the 70-300L but the OP won't be able to AF (f/8 on the 70D) and he won't be able to use much of the shorter range either because the rear element of the 70-300L interferes with the TC.  The kenko TC is an option, but then you can't AFMA else you might lock it up.

This is why I recommended the 70-200 L ii or the 300 f/4.0 IS. The latter gives you that little extra reach with a 1.4X without much loss of IQ and can even take a 2X.

Anyway, that is the great thing about opinions - everyone has one and everyone is entitled to one. Maybe I should get my 70-300L out again and mess around with it, but to be honest I think I would prefer to sell it as I have not used it in such a long time.

So I got your quote mixed up with random orbits, but you're both saying similar things...my mistake though.  In any case, to have the 70-300L and never use it, makes zero sense to me.  You should definitely sell it to someone who will use it.

305
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Medium Format
« on: March 24, 2014, 06:18:35 AM »
In my assertion about what pros might be using in 10 years, I was not speculating at all that a sensor would be anywhere near that large.  Frankly that's just stupid...nobody thinks that would ever be in widespread use.  Even 10 years from now with lowered manufacturing costs and improved processes, a digital sensor that size would still cost $1 million, if not several.

In 2010 Mitchell Feinberg had two 8 by 10 inch digital back made (maxback), the cost were in "the low six figures". http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/08/23/mitchell-feinbergs-8x10-digital-capture-back/
So it can be done for a lot less than a million.

Ok then, but that has nothing to do with just wanting an image sensor that is slightly larger than 24x36mm.

306
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Medium Format
« on: March 24, 2014, 06:15:57 AM »
I was saying that the same focal length lenses are really not that much larger or heavier.  My mom's 300mm f/4 lens for the 67 format, is 3.4 pounds, and its made of heavy brass.  Yet its image circle allows an almost square sensor dimension that is 70mm wide!  That's hardly cubing the weight of Canon's lighter and more modern designed 300mm f/4 EF lens.  I really don't see this math adding up, to be honest, because you're forgetting that you wouldn't need to match the FOV... 

I'm not sure why you say you wouldn't need to match FoV. A 300mm f/4 lens for medium format is not the same as a 300mm f/4 lens for 35mm. Those are two radically different lenses, by FoV. The entire point is to match FoV, that's why were constantly referring to APS-C crop factors and multiplying lens focal lengths by them...FoV is everything. Assuming a 55x44mm sensor, your crop factor is once again 1.63x compared to FF/35mm. So a 300mm lens for medium format is a 184mm lens in 35mm format.

Going in the inverse, if you are interested in an EQUIVALENT medium format lens to a 35mm 300mm f/4, then you actually need a 490mm f/4 lens for medium format. Now, assuming we use all the same technology that Canon has for their 35mm format lenses, were basically talking about the EF 500mm f/4, albeit with a larger back barrel to support the larger image circle. In this case, a 500mm f/4 lens for medium format is probably going to weigh 7.3-7.5 pounds, vs. the 2.6 pounds for a 300mm f/4. That, as it turns out, is a 2.85x weight difference.

But it doesn't stop there. You have to consider minimum focus distances. A 500mm f/4 lens on MFD is a SHORT telephoto lens, not a long telephoto lens. Minimum focus distance of a 300mm lens on 35mm format is around 55 inches. The minimum focus distance of Canon's 500mm f/4 II lens is 150 inches. You would need a greater optical power to allow a closer focusing distance to actually achieve total parity, which means a greater curvature in the lens elements, which is going to increase the material in each lens element. That will further increase weight.

It's doubtful that the weight of such a lens would literally reach 17.5 pounds (which would be the actual cube of 2.6lb), but it will certainly be much larger and heavier in order to achieve parity with the 300mm f/4 lens for 35mm format. You can't compare 300mm f/4 lenses in both formats...you have to account for the crop factor.


If a medium format sensor say 40 to 45mm wide, has 100 megapixels, then you really wouldn't need to be cubing the weight of a 600mm lens, to get similar magnification at the pixel level, to what you get with the 5D3 with a 600mm lens.  If you don't need the full 100 MP, they could simply adopt Nikon's approach and allow you to shoot in crop mode.  (That would be the common sense approach).  Who cares if the actual focal length is shorter if the pixel size is similar to begin with?

Take a look at the average size and shape of modern medium format digital bodies. They are not only larger in width and height, but they are also considerably thicker, two to three times thicker depending on which sensor back you have installed. The weight of the body itself would be considerably greater than a 35mm format DSLR body. Ergonomically they are not as easy to hold.

And, again, you cannot compare a 600mm lens for 35mm format to a 600mm lens for MFD. Your completely ignoring the crop factor of the 35mm relative to the medium format. You would need ~1000mm lens for MFD to compare to a 600mm.

Additionally, by "just doing what Nikon did", by digitally cropping, you then just have a 35mm frame, so what's the point of having medium format in the first place? The entire point of using MFD is to get the larger FULL frame, not a higher density cropped frame. You want both larger pixels AND more pixels AND a larger sensor diagonal.

These are the reasons that pros, who already use medium format (it isn't something they "will" be using 10 years from now...they HAVE been using it, for decades), use it for studio, portraiture, landscapes, and architecture. These cameras ARE big and relatively heavy compared to 35mm or APS-C format cameras. Comparable lenses ARE larger and heavier, especially those that achieve similar IQ...it's a lot harder, requiring even more precise optics and manufacturing tolerances, to produce bigger lenses that achieve the same level of IQ as smaller lenses. The larger the optical elements, the more difficult it is to eliminate optical aberrations. That's WHY Canon's big white lenses are so expensive...they require much higher grade optical glass, and much tighter manufacturing tolerances, to produce the level of IQ they do. Imagine ALL of your MFD lenses costing that much...

Well, I guess I just am all wrong, huh?  You're not sure why I'm saying you wouldn't need to match the FOV?  I thought I already explained it.  It's not complicated.  If you have a 100 MEGAPIXEL sensor, you don't need that many megapixels with a very long telephoto lens, in my opinion.

A 45mm wide sensor that has 100 Megapixels, would not need a 3000mm f/4 lens, to get adequate pixels on subject of things like distant birds, sports, or anything.

You're completely ignoring the fact that the larger medium format sensor has vastly more, as in 5 times more megapixels...THAT'S WHY you don't need to match field of view.

Like I said, it's a stupid argument, you're nitpicking, and it's lame.  There's no reason to pile on me just because you're bored.  If your point of view is correct, then all of the people who use a 5D3 or 1DX with a 600mm lens, are fools...because they could do better with a 7D or 70D.  But that's just not right...and frankly I'm not going to waste time arguing about it.

307
6D Sample Images / Re: Anything shot with a 6D
« on: March 24, 2014, 06:08:20 AM »
Jason, those are all great!  I like the "reddish glow" the best, but I don't mind looking at the pretty young ladies!!

308
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM
« on: March 24, 2014, 06:06:23 AM »
I love this lens soooo much
added a 100% crop in below to see just how sharp it is and thin the Dof is at f2

Cute...the bokeh is wicked smooth, for a wicked wombat!!  :P

309
What aircraft have you flown in to take those and other shots?

I must admit that one day I hope to be a passenger in a fighter jet, must be one amazing experience and something you never forget.

The photos from the 310th FS were taken from a F-16D. I have been very privileged to be able to fly a few fighters, including the F-4E Phantom II, which is still in USAF service as a remotely piloted target. Each time, it is an an awesome experience but it sure is hard work, in a very unforgiving environment. 

Just breathing through the oxygen mask alone takes getting used to, it's like sipping breaths through a straw. At first you really think you aren't getting enough oxygen, but it's all about controlling your breathing - stuff you never really think about in every day life. And then there are the G-Forces, the ferocity of the changes in direction and attitude - it's a true assault on the senses. And that's even without considering taking any pictures.

Knock on wood, in all my sorties I haven't lost my lunch once but that doesn't mean I haven't been slightly green around the nose and pretty uncomfortable. If you are like me and you can't even read a book in the car without getting sick, then these photo sorties are totally awesome but also very hard work. After all, we're only burning a gazillion dollars a minute in fuel and post-flight maintenance time so you better deliver the goods :)

My 'office view' on that particular occasion :)


Bravo, and sorry to hear the F-4 Phantom is only being used as a flying target!!  I hope somebody in the world keeps a few of them flying for air shows.  I've never seen one at an airshow, but I used to see them fly over my area a lot in the late '70's, and early '80's.  Had some close calls with them flying low in a Cessna in uncontrolled airspace too, at about 400 mph!!

I'd love to fly in any fighter jet sometime, but I guess I'd need to be re-incarnated as a hot female tv reporter or something, haha...

310
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Medium Format
« on: March 23, 2014, 06:28:54 PM »
An alternative from Canon, where they made a body with a 36x36 size sensor, would be interesting.

That would give a number of advantages:
- 50% area increase
- 27MP with the same pixle size as the 1DX sensor (or 54MP with the same pixle size as the a7r/800)
- All EF lenses would work

If I could get a 40MP-ish sensor, with proper high ISO performance, a fair fps and Canon user interface in a reasonably sized body ... It would put a abrupt stop to my Phase One ambitions ...

I know some will oppose a square image format, but that would be OK with me. Thoughts?

I don't see why that would be any better than just going up a centimeter in each dimension, and making a whole new line of lenses.  It's not as if many couldn't afford to buy new lenses.  And like I said, 10 years from now, it's quite possible they would be making super telephoto lenses to go along with the new mount and larger image circle.  Weight need not be an issue, the physical size of everything would not be much bigger.
Double the sensor and you cube the weight of the lens to get the same field of view.... That's twice as long, twice as high, twice as wide.... Eight times the weight...

These two lenses have the same field of view and F-stop. The small one is from an Olympus 4/3 system and the big one fits Canon FF....a lot of the width of the small one are the focus motors, just look at the lens caps to get an idea of the difference in the weight of the glass....

I, for one, will not be paying for a lens that dwarfs the Canon "big whites"

I agree, I wouldn't want to be using lenses that much larger than the Canon great whites. That said, if Canon ever did enter the medium format market, I suspect they would be serving the same customers as the current offerings in that market: Studio photographers, and possibly landscape and the rare wedding photographer. That's really what medium format services.

Those cameras usually don't even have frame rates much above 3fps, and nothing anywhere close to 10-12fps. Achieving that kind of readout rate would be rather difficult as well. Canon achieved it once with the 120mp APS-H, but as far as I know that was with a special test bench, not an actual camera with existing data storage devices.

If we figured on 4µm pixels, a 44x33mm sensor (the "crop" sensor of the medium format world) would be 90mp. If we figured on a 54x40mm sensor (the size of an IQ180), that would be 135mp. If we also assume 16 bit data, rather than 14 bit, were talking a LOT of data to move around for each frame, 180 to 270 megabytes per raw image. You could get 0.9fps with a single DIGIC5+ (which has 250mbps throughput), and less than 2fps with dual DIGIC5+. You would need something like a DIGIC7+ with some 7x the performance of a single DIGIC5+ to get 5fps at those image sizes, and there is no question you would need MUCH faster memory cards to handle that kind of throughput for a useful continuous buffer depth. Even then, I still don't see such a camera being used for action photography...it would just be too big and unwieldy. Even if it was mirrorless, it's the body and lens size that really kills you at longer focal lengths.

I was saying that the same focal length lenses are really not that much larger or heavier.  My mom's 300mm f/4 lens for the 67 format, is 3.4 pounds, and its made of heavy brass.  Yet its image circle allows an almost square sensor dimension that is 70mm wide!  That's hardly cubing the weight of Canon's lighter and more modern designed 300mm f/4 EF lens.  I really don't see this math adding up, to be honest, because you're forgetting that you wouldn't need to match the FOV... 

If a medium format sensor say 40 to 45mm wide, has 100 megapixels, then you really wouldn't need to be cubing the weight of a 600mm lens, to get similar magnification at the pixel level, to what you get with the 5D3 with a 600mm lens.  If you don't need the full 100 MP, they could simply adopt Nikon's approach and allow you to shoot in crop mode.  (That would be the common sense approach).  Who cares if the actual focal length is shorter if the pixel size is similar to begin with?

My point of view is sound, here, I believe.  Nobody expects a 3000mm f/4 supertelephoto lens to be used on a future medium format camera whose sensor is 100 MP, and have it be portable.  That was not what I was saying at all.  To argue that is rather silly.

As for lugging 4x5 film cameras around...that's also missing the point entirely.  I'm calling anything from around 40mm wide and larger, as "medium format"...4x5  inches is a sensor 127mm wide.  In my assertion about what pros might be using in 10 years, I was not speculating at all that a sensor would be anywhere near that large.  Frankly that's just stupid...nobody thinks that would ever be in widespread use.  Even 10 years from now with lowered manufacturing costs and improved processes, a digital sensor that size would still cost $1 million, if not several.

311
Lenses / Re: Thinking about this but wanting your thoughts....
« on: March 23, 2014, 06:17:02 PM »
I've rented the 300 f/4L, and posted images of it with the 2x ii extender, shot with a 1D4.  So it's not like I don't have experience with it.  My cousin also bought one and uses it with a 1.4x on his 1DX.  It was usable in a pinch, but very terrible looking outside the middle 10% of the image, with the 2x ii.  I realize the extender iii is better, but not remotely enough to argue in favor of its use on this lens, in my opinion.  I mean, the 2x extender iii, on the 300 f/2.8 ii, is only BARELY better than the new Tamron 150-600, at 600mm, if it is closed to f/8.  So if you want to argue economics, just buy a Tamron.

I think my point was more about the lens being a good 300 at f/4.0 and 420 at f/5.6. I do not think people buy that lens thinking too much about 600, the main reason is the 300 and 420 at a reasonable price. At those lengths it is a very good lens for the money, and I would prefer it to the 70-300L. It has its pros and cons, one pro is Canon TCs will work with the 300 but not (properly at all lengths) with the 70-300, another is that little bit of extra light.

Well, that's not what you said, though.  You were talking about the 2x TC.  Now you're changing the subject a bit.

The 70-300L is a wide range zoom though, so to each their own.  You can't take a 70mm shot one second, and a 300mm the next...with the 300mm f/4 (or especially being able to zoom while tracking something coming toward or going away from you...can't do that with a prime lens).  The IQ at 300mm is just not that much better, either.  Sure it gives some lower ISO capability, but with the 6D, I'm very comfortable using it in post sunset conditions.  In pre-sunset conditions I can comfortably get 1/2500 second exposure at 300mm f/5.6 if I want to, and still have plenty of dynamic range and low noise.

Also, the bokeh smoothness is every bit as good on the 70-300L, as on the 300 f/4L. 

I admit servo tracking in such very low light (with the 6D), would be more of an advantage with the f/4 lens, moreso than ultimate image quality when not servo tracking.  But servo tracking is not very reliable on any body with any lens, in very low light (I'm talking light levels a bit brighter than ambient full moonlight at midnight, but not by much.) 

You don't buy the 70-300L to be primarily used with any TC.  If you do, you will be disappointed...so that was not really part of my original point.  It's designed to work best, given its max aperture, without one.  You buy a zoom, to use at all its focal length range, and not just the long end.  I use mine everywhere in its range...as I do my 120-400 Sigma lens.

312
Lenses / Re: Thinking about this but wanting your thoughts....
« on: March 21, 2014, 05:40:27 AM »
The 70-200L II can also take a 2x and still AF.  You can stick a Canon 1.4x III on the 70-300L but the OP won't be able to AF (f/8 on the 70D) and he won't be able to use much of the shorter range either because the rear element of the 70-300L interferes with the TC.  The kenko TC is an option, but then you can't AFMA else you might lock it up.

This is why I recommended the 70-200 L ii or the 300 f/4.0 IS. The latter gives you that little extra reach with a 1.4X without much loss of IQ and can even take a 2X.

The 300 f/4L with 2x TC, is actually quite terrible looking.  It's also native f/8, so not able to be used on anything other than modded 5D3 or 1DX (at present anyway).

The 5D Mark III does not need to be modified for it to AF at f/8.0 and AF at f/8.0 works on all 1 bodies. Here is a list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_Extender_EF#List_of_EOS_bodies_that_can_AF_at_f.2F8

I agree that it is not an ideal 600 but 300 f/4.0 and 420 at f/5.6 is pretty good and excellent value for money. And it can still be used at 600 with a 2X TC if you want to.

In fact a guest last year posted two very interesting pictures in the lens gallery section. One was with the 300 f/2.8 IS ii with 2X TC and the other image of the same subject with the 300 f/4.0 IS with 2X TC. It is a perfect example of just how good that lens is, as it does suffer with the 2X but the images are still more than ok. Both images are 5616 x 3744 so you can see all the detail. You can see the images half way down the page here:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=2662.15

When you look at those two images, remember the f/4.0 costs US$ 1,300 -1,500 ish and the f/2.8 closer to US$7,000. There is absolutely no question that the 2.8 is the better lens, but for value for money it is hard to beat the f/4.

Incidentally I just looked at the exif data which is still there and the camera used was a 5D Mark II which is why he/she manually focussed I guess on the f/4.0.

It does not say which version of TC was used.

I've rented the 300 f/4L, and posted images of it with the 2x ii extender, shot with a 1D4.  So it's not like I don't have experience with it.  My cousin also bought one and uses it with a 1.4x on his 1DX.  It was usable in a pinch, but very terrible looking outside the middle 10% of the image, with the 2x ii.  I realize the extender iii is better, but not remotely enough to argue in favor of its use on this lens, in my opinion.  I mean, the 2x extender iii, on the 300 f/2.8 ii, is only BARELY better than the new Tamron 150-600, at 600mm, if it is closed to f/8.  So if you want to argue economics, just buy a Tamron.

313
There's no reason to attack Rienz.  The guys on here like to look at attractive female models, big surprise.  I do too...but I'd rather just look at...well...it starts with a "p", and has 3 other letters !!

To feign outrage and spout charges of sexism, if you're a guy...I mean dude, let's be real here, and not be hypocritical.  Sure, this thread has degenerated into a hot girlie thread for the last couple of pages, but it will likely return to normal soon enough.

I feel qualified to call attention when I see others' tempers flaring...because mine never has, nor have any of these nice gentlemen ever piled on me :).  It's just the a-holes that I grow tired of!!

314
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: March 21, 2014, 05:25:41 AM »
Once you get below around -12°F to -15°F, the mechanical and some electronic things definitely start having some trouble. I remember when I was imaging the moon all those years ago that the shutter sounded as though it was struggling. Shutter speeds are pretty slow, though, you usually have second long to many minute long exposures with solar system and deep sky imaging. With slower shutter speeds, shutter performance isn't nearly as important as in high speed photography.

Long term, I don't plan on staying with a DSLR for my astro work. I'm probably going to be moving to an SBIG STx-8300M, not sure whether it will be the STT or STF line. It may be another brand, QHY makes some great imagers, Atik makes some good ones that are usually cheaper than the competition (i.e. it usually costs about $10k for a true 36x24mm FF CCD sensor imager, Atik sells one for about $6000). Astro CCD imagers are specifically built for operation in the extreme cold. Most have a dual-stage TE cooler, and the temp deltas range from -40 to -80 degrees Celsius from ambient. During winter you usually leave the cooler off, or turn it on low. During summer you crank it up. The general idea is to keep the sensor temperature to somewhere between -10° to -20°C.

Dedicated astro imagers also support all the astro imaging stuff. They are monochrome, so generally have higher spatial resolution than DSLRs while still having larger, more sensitive pixels. They often directly support, or even have built in, off-axis guiding (OAG) sensors. They support filter wheels, so you can pop in LRGB and Ha, SII, and OIII and opaque filters, allowing you to program and completely automate extensive multi-spectral imaging sessions.

For a complete astro CCD package from SBIG, for example, with the imager, the filter wheel, OAG, and filters, it usually costs about $5000. So I'll be sticking with my DSLR for at least the next year. ;P

I don't blame you at all, there.  Ever see any unusual objects when you're out?  I find that I get at least one satellite most times I do night imaging.  (I realize in a narrower FOV such as at 600mm on a crop sensor, you won't get as many, obviously).  One I did about a week ago, with the 135 f/2 on my 6D, pointed north with the horizon in the bottom...only a 30 second exposure...captured two satellites, and I forget how many jets (it was a Friday night, usually loads of air traffic on Fridays).  I could only see one or two of the jets with the naked eye.  I know you're fond of capturing meteor showers...but just wondered if you've seen anything more strange than that?

I wish I could have captured some of the bright meteors, but there's no forewarning.  The one that I heard its sonic boom last year, would have been nice to attempt to capture.  But you can never know about those big ones I guess.

I would think there are other interesting military or otherworldly sky phenomena you could see out in the desert southwest...that's probably not something the heavily invested astro imaging people you converse with on those forums, will discuss often though...lest they be mocked or something!  Oh wait, nobody ever mocks anyone on forums, do they?  :P

315
Landscape / Re: Waterscapes
« on: March 21, 2014, 04:32:04 AM »
One of my first attempts to use my new neutral density filter.
Shot at Samara Beach - Costa Rica.

EOS 70D - EF 17-40L

Slightly a dark exposure lacking some "punch", but I like the smoothness of the water!

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 149