Threads
Comets
Well, this seems to be the month of comets. In addition to Encke, ISON, and the new Lovejoy, four other comets were discovered this month (C/2013 V1 (BOATTINI), C/2013 V2 (BORISOV), C/2013 V3 (NEVSKI), C/2013 V5 (OUKAIMEDEN)). Nevski and Oukaimenden are moving right along. Nevski is passing by the constellation Leo, and Oukaimeden is approaching Jupiter in the sky. Not sure if/when they might put on a show, but currently, we have Encke (a main belt periodic), ISON and Lovejoy sharing the sky and putting on a show for at least binoculars and telescopes.
Given the plethora of cometary beauties moving through the skies right now, I thought it might be worth it to start a Comet thread. I had originally intended to have a Celestron EdgeHD 11" with their DX equatorial tracking mount...but circumstances have left me with only a 600mm f/4 lens. Not particularly ideal, but it allowed me to get a basic shot of Lovejoy:
If you've been photographing comets (especially if you have a tracking mount and a telescope), post em here! Would love to see them!
Given the plethora of cometary beauties moving through the skies right now, I thought it might be worth it to start a Comet thread. I had originally intended to have a Celestron EdgeHD 11" with their DX equatorial tracking mount...but circumstances have left me with only a 600mm f/4 lens. Not particularly ideal, but it allowed me to get a basic shot of Lovejoy:
If you've been photographing comets (especially if you have a tracking mount and a telescope), post em here! Would love to see them!
Views from Waterloo Bridge, London
- By petach
- Street & City
- 9 Replies
6D +70-300L
Waterloo Bridge View (East) by petach123 (Peter Tachauer), on Flickr
Waterloo Bridge View (West) by petach123 (Peter Tachauer), on Flickr
Waterloo Bridge View (West) B&W 2 by petach123 (Peter Tachauer), on Flickr
Waterloo Bridge View (East) by petach123 (Peter Tachauer), on Flickr
Waterloo Bridge View (West) by petach123 (Peter Tachauer), on Flickr
Waterloo Bridge View (West) B&W 2 by petach123 (Peter Tachauer), on Flickr
My Theater Photography
I'm not sure if this belongs in portraits, but I was the production photographer for my college's production of Shakespeare's The Tempest a few weeks ago, and I'm looking for some feedback. Personally I think these are some of my best work. The fact that the lighting and set design for the show were amazing certainly helped.
tempestSteveFallon-1458 by Steve_Fallon, on Flickr
tempestSteveFallon-1319 by Steve_Fallon, on Flickr
tempestSteveFallon-389 by Steve_Fallon, on Flickr
tempestSteveFallon-888 by Steve_Fallon, on Flickr
tempestSteveFallon-1458 by Steve_Fallon, on Flickr
tempestSteveFallon-1319 by Steve_Fallon, on Flickr
tempestSteveFallon-389 by Steve_Fallon, on Flickr
tempestSteveFallon-888 by Steve_Fallon, on Flickr
Refurbed lenses and sharpness
- By Ruined
- Canon Lenses
- 9 Replies
Hi all,
So while I have bought refurbed bodies, I've never bought a refurbed L lens. I can see why someone would return a body because it did not meet their needs, but returning an L lens I would find less likely for this reason as its pretty clear what a lens is able to do upfront.
Reason behind my train of thought is the below:
1) Canon refurb stock to my knowledge is generally customer returns in the 30 day period or dealer demos
2) I've heard lots of people who will do sharpness tests with brand new lenses and return them if they do not match some of the reference tests online. Or sometimes they will order multiple copies and return the less sharp ones.
3) Most of the time due to copy variation less sharp copies are generally considered in spec (i.e. look at lensrentals data), and thus Canon would not adjust it
4) Thus, when buying a refurb lens and thus a customer return, there might be a higher probability you would get a less sharp copy than if you bought new
Is this reasoning crazy, or do others agree?
I do know many people are happy with refurbed lenses, and I am not talking about getting a lemon here, just a lesser chance of getting the brightest bulb of the bunch. I've also heard quite a few stories of people getting refurbed lenses with a lot of dust inside, though it is unlikely that would affect image quality.
So while I have bought refurbed bodies, I've never bought a refurbed L lens. I can see why someone would return a body because it did not meet their needs, but returning an L lens I would find less likely for this reason as its pretty clear what a lens is able to do upfront.
Reason behind my train of thought is the below:
1) Canon refurb stock to my knowledge is generally customer returns in the 30 day period or dealer demos
2) I've heard lots of people who will do sharpness tests with brand new lenses and return them if they do not match some of the reference tests online. Or sometimes they will order multiple copies and return the less sharp ones.
3) Most of the time due to copy variation less sharp copies are generally considered in spec (i.e. look at lensrentals data), and thus Canon would not adjust it
4) Thus, when buying a refurb lens and thus a customer return, there might be a higher probability you would get a less sharp copy than if you bought new
Is this reasoning crazy, or do others agree?
I do know many people are happy with refurbed lenses, and I am not talking about getting a lemon here, just a lesser chance of getting the brightest bulb of the bunch. I've also heard quite a few stories of people getting refurbed lenses with a lot of dust inside, though it is unlikely that would affect image quality.Filter
Forum statistics
Gallery statistics
- Categories
- 1
- Albums
- 29
- Uploaded media
- 372
- Embedded media
- 1
- Comments
- 25
- Disk usage
- 1 GB