The Moon with a telephoto lens and teleconverters

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

>
http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/moon-J...

Wait for a calmer atmosphere (winter is, from my experience, the worst
- spring and fall are better) and/or stack more frames. Here is one of
mine:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2745849

17 stacked JPEG's on a night of better than average "seeing". The
image was subject to a Laplacian sharpen post-stack, and maybe a bit of
USM after it was resized to 1280x1024 (it makes a wonderful desktop).

For precision focus, do not depend on AF: get the Canon Angle Finder C
or equivalent and manually focus. It works _much_ better, despite the
poor quality of the "C"'s image. However, this comment is based on
Canon 10D experience; maybe the 1DMkII's AF is more trustworthy. (And
your image appears to have suffered more from turbulence than focus.)

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi Roger,

I've been waiting for the Nikon D2x (as replacement for my D100), and the
fact that I've had a bunch of fine Nikon glass for years.

However, with the recent price announcement of $5,000 for the D2x, along
with the uncertainty about it's CMOS sensor performance, I'm considering
changing to a Canon system. I am NOT a fan of wide angle work so I'm NOT
considering the Canon 1Ds Mark II.

However, I AM considering the Canon 1D Mark II. I lean towards telephoto
work so the 1.3 factor of the 1D Mark II is a plus for me. And at $3,750
street price, it's $1,250 less than the D2x. Now, admittedly it will be
limited to 8.2mp versus the 12.4mp of the D2x, but I wanted to ask your
candid opinion of your 1D Mark II.

Any feedback on the 1D Mark II you can provide would be MOST helpful.

Many thanks in advance...




"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote in
message news:41F5F5B3.8080002@qwest.net...

> Here is a recent attempt at photographing the moon with
> a telephoto lens, on a stationary tripod:
> http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/moon-J...
>
> Canon 1D Mark II 8-megapixel digital camera, a 500 mm f/4 L IS lens with
> 1.4 and 2x teleconverters. The total focal length is 1400 mm
> for a full scale of 1.2 arc-seconds per pixel.
>
> Be sure and click on the full camera resolution link to see all the
> detail.
>
> Roger
> Other photos at: http://clarkvision.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net>
wrote in message news:41F5F5B3.8080002@qwest.net...
> Here is a recent attempt at photographing the moon with
> a telephoto lens, on a stationary tripod:
> http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/moon-J...
>

Looks good, with all the glass in between moon and sensor.
Just curious, how do you get optimal focus (any special tricks, or
multiple tries on manual)?

Bart

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote
> in message news:41F5F5B3.8080002@qwest.net...
>
>> Here is a recent attempt at photographing the moon with
>> a telephoto lens, on a stationary tripod:
>> http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/moon-J...
>>
>>
>
> Looks good, with all the glass in between moon and sensor.
> Just curious, how do you get optimal focus (any special tricks, or
> multiple tries on manual)?
>
> Bart

Bart,
The 1D Mark II autofocuses at f/8 and stacked teleconverters
only report one magnification, so with a 2x teleconverter
on the lens, f/8 is reported to the camera, then adding
the 1.4x between the 2x and camera, the camera still
sees f/8 and still autofocuses well. So I used
autofocus on the moon at f/11.2.

Roger

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Anonymous wrote:

> Hi Roger,
>
> I've been waiting for the Nikon D2x (as replacement for my D100), and the
> fact that I've had a bunch of fine Nikon glass for years.
>
> However, with the recent price announcement of $5,000 for the D2x, along
> with the uncertainty about it's CMOS sensor performance, I'm considering
> changing to a Canon system. I am NOT a fan of wide angle work so I'm NOT
> considering the Canon 1Ds Mark II.
>
> However, I AM considering the Canon 1D Mark II. I lean towards telephoto
> work so the 1.3 factor of the 1D Mark II is a plus for me. And at $3,750
> street price, it's $1,250 less than the D2x. Now, admittedly it will be
> limited to 8.2mp versus the 12.4mp of the D2x, but I wanted to ask your
> candid opinion of your 1D Mark II.
>
> Any feedback on the 1D Mark II you can provide would be MOST helpful.
>
> Many thanks in advance...

Hi
You might want to start a new thread so others might see it
who are not reading a post about the moon.

Having said that, your lenses (at least mine are and other
serious amateurs and pros) are probably more expensive than your
camera, and the lenses will generally last many cameras.
For example, I started with a Canon EOS 650, then elan I,
elan II, elan 7, film cameras, then digitals: Canon D60,
10D, and 1D Mark II. I still use some of my original
lenses. My newer L lenses will probably last for
many more cameras, and in general my lenses have cost
me more than all my cameras put together. Why did I choose
Canon for my first auto focus camera? Random at the time.
I might have just as easily chosen Nikon. I had no
preference for either at that time.

So, do you really have "a bunch of fine Nikon glass" that
you want to abandon, especially before seeing reviews on
the D2x? Nikon makes great equipment. Great lenses,
great cameras. Perhaps Canon is leading the digital
arena now, but Nikon is not far behind, and the front runner
could change in a couple of years.

Do you have a big telephoto, like a 500mm f/4? Since you say
you want to do telephoto work, I suggest if you don't have a
super telephoto, to get that first, then assuming you have
to wait and save money for a new camera, the whole camera
selection and market leader could be quite different,
and in general much better.

If money is no object, and you can afford to change cameras
and super telephotos and all other lenses, then go for it.
The Canon lenses and cameras are superb too. But don't forget
the Nikon D2x has some innovations the top Canon's do not
have.

Having said all that, the Canon 1D Mark II is a wonderful camera.
The speed is awesome, the auto focus accuracy and speed is excellent,
the signal to noise is excellent, battery life is excellent,
etc., etc. I've been able to get action shots I could not
get with my previous cameras. But I do wish for more
megapixels. The speed of the 1D Mark II and the pixels
of the 1Ds Mark II (16.7 MPixels) would be ideal.
Maybe next year....

Roger
>
>
>
>
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote in
> message news:41F5F5B3.8080002@qwest.net...
>
>
>>Here is a recent attempt at photographing the moon with
>>a telephoto lens, on a stationary tripod:
>>http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/moon-J...
>>
>>Canon 1D Mark II 8-megapixel digital camera, a 500 mm f/4 L IS lens with
>>1.4 and 2x teleconverters. The total focal length is 1400 mm
>>for a full scale of 1.2 arc-seconds per pixel.
>>
>>Be sure and click on the full camera resolution link to see all the
>>detail.
>>
>>Roger
>>Other photos at: http://clarkvision.com
>
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Many thanks Roger. It was just the feedback I was looking for...


"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote in
message news:41F70A75.6010804@qwest.net...
> Anonymous wrote:
>
>> Hi Roger,
>>
>> I've been waiting for the Nikon D2x (as replacement for my D100), and the
>> fact that I've had a bunch of fine Nikon glass for years.
>>
>> However, with the recent price announcement of $5,000 for the D2x, along
>> with the uncertainty about it's CMOS sensor performance, I'm considering
>> changing to a Canon system. I am NOT a fan of wide angle work so I'm NOT
>> considering the Canon 1Ds Mark II.
>>
>> However, I AM considering the Canon 1D Mark II. I lean towards telephoto
>> work so the 1.3 factor of the 1D Mark II is a plus for me. And at $3,750
>> street price, it's $1,250 less than the D2x. Now, admittedly it will be
>> limited to 8.2mp versus the 12.4mp of the D2x, but I wanted to ask your
>> candid opinion of your 1D Mark II.
>>
>> Any feedback on the 1D Mark II you can provide would be MOST helpful.
>>
>> Many thanks in advance...
>
> Hi
> You might want to start a new thread so others might see it
> who are not reading a post about the moon.
>
> Having said that, your lenses (at least mine are and other
> serious amateurs and pros) are probably more expensive than your
> camera, and the lenses will generally last many cameras.
> For example, I started with a Canon EOS 650, then elan I,
> elan II, elan 7, film cameras, then digitals: Canon D60,
> 10D, and 1D Mark II. I still use some of my original
> lenses. My newer L lenses will probably last for
> many more cameras, and in general my lenses have cost
> me more than all my cameras put together. Why did I choose
> Canon for my first auto focus camera? Random at the time.
> I might have just as easily chosen Nikon. I had no
> preference for either at that time.
>
> So, do you really have "a bunch of fine Nikon glass" that
> you want to abandon, especially before seeing reviews on
> the D2x? Nikon makes great equipment. Great lenses,
> great cameras. Perhaps Canon is leading the digital
> arena now, but Nikon is not far behind, and the front runner
> could change in a couple of years.
>
> Do you have a big telephoto, like a 500mm f/4? Since you say
> you want to do telephoto work, I suggest if you don't have a
> super telephoto, to get that first, then assuming you have
> to wait and save money for a new camera, the whole camera
> selection and market leader could be quite different,
> and in general much better.
>
> If money is no object, and you can afford to change cameras
> and super telephotos and all other lenses, then go for it.
> The Canon lenses and cameras are superb too. But don't forget
> the Nikon D2x has some innovations the top Canon's do not
> have.
>
> Having said all that, the Canon 1D Mark II is a wonderful camera.
> The speed is awesome, the auto focus accuracy and speed is excellent,
> the signal to noise is excellent, battery life is excellent,
> etc., etc. I've been able to get action shots I could not
> get with my previous cameras. But I do wish for more
> megapixels. The speed of the 1D Mark II and the pixels
> of the 1Ds Mark II (16.7 MPixels) would be ideal.
> Maybe next year....
>
> Roger
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote
>> in message news:41F5F5B3.8080002@qwest.net...
>>
>>
>>>Here is a recent attempt at photographing the moon with
>>>a telephoto lens, on a stationary tripod:
>>>http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/moon-J...
>>>
>>>Canon 1D Mark II 8-megapixel digital camera, a 500 mm f/4 L IS lens with
>>>1.4 and 2x teleconverters. The total focal length is 1400 mm
>>>for a full scale of 1.2 arc-seconds per pixel.
>>>
>>>Be sure and click on the full camera resolution link to see all the
>>>detail.
>>>
>>>Roger
>>>Other photos at: http://clarkvision.com
>>
>>
>>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:

> Wait for a calmer atmosphere (winter is, from my experience, the worst
> - spring and fall are better) and/or stack more frames.

The problem here on the eastern side of the mountains in Colorado
is turbulence from air blowing over the mountains. The atmospheric
seeing is rarely better than 2 arc-seconds, and usually much
worse. At the extreme magnification with my 500 mm +2x +1.4x
TCs, optical image distortion prevents stacking any frames
if the moon is imaged in different parts of the field of
view. After all, we are talking registering an image
that is over 1800 pixels across, so distortion must be less
than 0.03%. I would need to track the moon so it remains
stationary (I do have a Losmandy G11 equatorial mount,
and I will try it sometime) in order to stack more images.
I long for better seeing I've experienced in other places
(but not as much as the dark skies at night, and the
mountains and wildlife during the day where I live ;-).

> Here is one of mine:
>
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2745849
>
> 17 stacked JPEG's on a night of better than average "seeing". The
> image was subject to a Laplacian sharpen post-stack, and maybe a bit of
> USM after it was resized to 1280x1024 (it makes a wonderful desktop).
>
> For precision focus, do not depend on AF: get the Canon Angle Finder C
> or equivalent and manually focus. It works _much_ better, despite the
> poor quality of the "C"'s image. However, this comment is based on
> Canon 10D experience; maybe the 1DMkII's AF is more trustworthy. (And
> your image appears to have suffered more from turbulence than focus.)
>
Sorry, but I do not like your moon photo. It is way too over
sharpened, making the sunlit crater walls extremely bright.
It is also less than half the size of the image I presented.
Considering it was done with a 500 mm + 2x TC on a 10D
(1.5 arc-sec/pixel), the full size image should be 80%
the size of my image (1.2 arc-sec/pixel), so it seems your
large image on your web page is reduced by 2x (3 arc-sec/pixel).
If my image was reduced by a factor of 2.5x it would look
sharper too. After all 3 arc-seconds per pixel is
less affected by atmospheric turbulence than
1.2 arc-seconds per pixel.

I do have the right angle finder C, but find the 1D mark II
auto-focuses better than I can, even with the angle finder.
I was using the angle finder to frame the moon so I didn't
have to bend over.
I also have a 10D, and I can assure you the 1D MII autofocus
is much better than the 10D in my experience.

For those missing the original post, the other image being discussed is at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/mo...

Roger
http://www.clarkvision.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:

> 17 stacked JPEG's on a night of better than average "seeing".

I've been prowling around various astronomy photos sites and seen
mention of this several times. I understand the idea, but not the
technique. What software do you use for stacking the images?


--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Eric Schreiber wrote:
> eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>>17 stacked JPEG's on a night of better than average "seeing".
>
>
> I've been prowling around various astronomy photos sites and seen
> mention of this several times. I understand the idea, but not the
> technique. What software do you use for stacking the images?
>
>

registax (free) http://registax.astronomy.net/

ImagesPlus (not free) http://www.mlunsold.com/

Roger

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

> registax (free) http://registax.astronomy.net/
> ImagesPlus (not free) http://www.mlunsold.com/

Thanks Roger. I've bookmarked the sites.


--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <41f62340$0$13478$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
"Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:

>Looks good, with all the glass in between moon and sensor.

Teleconverters seems to be very easy, engineering-wise, compared to
regular lenses. Contrary to popular opinion, most halfway-decent
teleconverters do not compromise the prime lens in any significant way;
they merely stretch the center of the focal plane over a larger area,
exposing the limitations of the prime.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote
in news:41F66D75.6050304@qwest.net:

> Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>>
>> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net>
>> wrote in message news:41F5F5B3.8080002@qwest.net...
>>
>>> Here is a recent attempt at photographing the moon with
>>> a telephoto lens, on a stationary tripod:
>>> http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/moon-J...
>>> x-700.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Looks good, with all the glass in between moon and sensor.
>> Just curious, how do you get optimal focus (any special tricks, or
>> multiple tries on manual)?
>>
>> Bart
>
> Bart,
> The 1D Mark II autofocuses at f/8 and stacked teleconverters
> only report one magnification, so with a 2x teleconverter
> on the lens, f/8 is reported to the camera, then adding
> the 1.4x between the 2x and camera, the camera still
> sees f/8 and still autofocuses well. So I used
> autofocus on the moon at f/11.2.
>
> Roger
>

....
you used AUTOFOCUS?!
are you a complete retard or something?
do you have no idea whatsoever how your lense works?!

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jon Pike wrote:

> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote
> in news:41F66D75.6050304@qwest.net:
>
>
>>Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>>
>>>"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net>
>>>wrote in message news:41F5F5B3.8080002@qwest.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Here is a recent attempt at photographing the moon with
>>>>a telephoto lens, on a stationary tripod:
>>>>http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/moon-J...
>>>>x-700.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Looks good, with all the glass in between moon and sensor.
>>>Just curious, how do you get optimal focus (any special tricks, or
>>>multiple tries on manual)?
>>>
>>>Bart
>>
>>Bart,
>>The 1D Mark II autofocuses at f/8 and stacked teleconverters
>>only report one magnification, so with a 2x teleconverter
>>on the lens, f/8 is reported to the camera, then adding
>>the 1.4x between the 2x and camera, the camera still
>>sees f/8 and still autofocuses well. So I used
>>autofocus on the moon at f/11.2.
>>
>>Roger
>>
>
>
> ...
> you used AUTOFOCUS?!
> are you a complete retard or something?
> do you have no idea whatsoever how your lense works?!
>

There is no need for a response like this. You are showing
who is the retard. You are also a well known troll
who attacks with little knowledge of your subject.
Others reading can google "Jon Pike" and see this for themselves.

Jon, you obviously have no clue as to the
superb capabilities of the 1D Mark II
camera, and its auto focus accuracy. The image speaks
for itself. The pixel scale on the image is at about
the 10% MTF level of a diffraction limited system. The
Richardson-Lucey restoration I did improved the MTF
to about 50%. It would be tough to do much better
with a 5-inch aperture lens. The focus had to be
essentially perfect to achieve that image.
For me, doing images this way is also a test of the
system, as one needs to use auto focus when imaging
animals in action, which I do a lot of. With animals
in action, there is no time for manual focus.
See my bear gallery:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear

Roger

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote in
news:1106671018.102189.179390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>
>>
> http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/moon-J...
> 700.html
>
> Wait for a calmer atmosphere (winter is, from my experience, the worst
> - spring and fall are better) and/or stack more frames. Here is one
> of mine:
>
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2745849
>
> 17 stacked JPEG's on a night of better than average "seeing". The
> image was subject to a Laplacian sharpen post-stack, and maybe a bit
> of USM after it was resized to 1280x1024 (it makes a wonderful
> desktop).
>
> For precision focus, do not depend on AF: get the Canon Angle Finder
> C or equivalent and manually focus. It works _much_ better, despite
> the poor quality of the "C"'s image. However, this comment is based
> on Canon 10D experience; maybe the 1DMkII's AF is more trustworthy.
> (And your image appears to have suffered more from turbulence than
> focus.)

there's no need for autofocus at all when you're shooting something like
the moon.
geeze. this is why it's a -bad- thing to go and learn photoSHOP instead of
photoGRAPHY.
there's a little loopy symbol on your lense, you know what it is?

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jon Pike wrote:

> there's no need for autofocus at all when you're shooting something like
> the moon.
> geeze. this is why it's a -bad- thing to go and learn photoSHOP instead of
> photoGRAPHY.
> there's a little loopy symbol on your lense, you know what it is?
>
There is no need for a response like this. You are showing
who is the retard. You are also a well known troll
who attacks with little knowledge of your subject.
Others reading can google "Jon Pike" and see this for themselves.

Jon, you obviously have no clue as to the
superb capabilities of the 1D Mark II
camera, and its auto focus accuracy. The image speaks
for itself. The pixel scale on the image is at about
the 10% MTF level of a diffraction limited system. The
Richardson-Lucey restoration I did improved the MTF
to about 50%. It would be tough to do much better
with a 5-inch aperture lens. The focus had to be
essentially perfect to achieve that image.
For me, doing images this way is also a test of the
system, as one needs to use auto focus when imaging
animals in action, which I do a lot of. With animals
in action, there is no time for manual focus.
See my bear gallery:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear

Roger

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jon Pike" <Anonomoose@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95EBDB00EBB6LessThanPerfectInc@24.71.223.159...
SNIP
> there's a little loopy symbol on your lense, you know what it is?

The focus-ring can rotated beyond the infinity marker, thus enabling
to compensate for thermal effects.

Bart

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:8ingv0t78r93sa4oi04tesvnq5d9defurr@4ax.com...
> In message <41f62340$0$13478$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
> "Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:
>
>>Looks good, with all the glass in between moon and sensor.
>
> Teleconverters seems to be very easy, engineering-wise, compared to
> regular lenses. Contrary to popular opinion, most halfway-decent
> teleconverters do not compromise the prime lens in any significant
> way;
> they merely stretch the center of the focal plane over a larger
> area,
> exposing the limitations of the prime.

That's correct, and the moon will be in the center of the image.
However, the converter/extender still requires a good lens in front of
it, otherwise it just magnifies rubbish.

Bart

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jon Pike" <Anonomoose@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95EBD76E3776LessThanPerfectInc@24.71.223.159...
SNIP
> you used AUTOFOCUS?!
> are you a complete retard or something?
> do you have no idea whatsoever how your lense works?!

I'd wager he does know how optics work, better than most. A simple
test will tell whether autofocus (on a high contrast subject) does a
better job than manual focus. The 1D family of bodies, combined with
long focal lengths will usually autofocus very well.

Bart

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Eric Schreiber" <eric at ericschreiber dot com> wrote in message
news:xn0dxq7ek8xa8j000@news-40.giganews.com...
> Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>
>> registax (free) http://registax.astronomy.net/
>> ImagesPlus (not free) http://www.mlunsold.com/
>
> Thanks Roger. I've bookmarked the sites.

You could add http://www.astrosurf.org/buil/us/iris/iris.htm , also
free, although less polished as the others.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <41f8fe16$0$21883$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
"Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:

><JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
>news:8ingv0t78r93sa4oi04tesvnq5d9defurr@4ax.com...
>> In message <41f62340$0$13478$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
>> "Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:

>>>Looks good, with all the glass in between moon and sensor.

>> Teleconverters seems to be very easy, engineering-wise, compared to
>> regular lenses. Contrary to popular opinion, most halfway-decent
>> teleconverters do not compromise the prime lens in any significant
>> way;
>> they merely stretch the center of the focal plane over a larger
>> area,
>> exposing the limitations of the prime.

>That's correct, and the moon will be in the center of the image.
>However, the converter/extender still requires a good lens in front of
>it, otherwise it just magnifies rubbish.

I'm not sure of the nature of your response; you wrote "however, " and
then stated a paraphrase of what I already wrote ("exposing the
limitations of the prime").
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:luviv0pj8pe82u061e6cpej5bcrsg5stgb@4ax.com...
> In message <41f8fe16$0$21883$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
> "Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:
SNIP
>>That's correct, and the moon will be in the center of the
>>image. However, the converter/extender still requires a
>>good lens in front of it, otherwise it just magnifies rubbish.
>
> I'm not sure of the nature of your response; you wrote
> "however, " and then stated a paraphrase of what I already
> wrote ("exposing the limitations of the prime").

That's correct, it is an independent confirmation of your opinion.

Bart

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote in
news:41F8FBD0.5050206@qwest.net:

> With animals
> in action, there is no time for manual focus.

This thread isn't about animals, is it?
Just go ahead and admit that you don't know how to properly use your
lenses.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in news:41f8fe16$1$21883
$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl:

>
> "Jon Pike" <Anonomoose@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns95EBD76E3776LessThanPerfectInc@24.71.223.159...
> SNIP
>> you used AUTOFOCUS?!
>> are you a complete retard or something?
>> do you have no idea whatsoever how your lense works?!
>
> I'd wager he does know how optics work, better than most. A simple
> test will tell whether autofocus (on a high contrast subject) does a
> better job than manual focus. The 1D family of bodies, combined with
> long focal lengths will usually autofocus very well.

sure it will. but you shouldn't be stupid enough to need to. how long does
it take you to focus at infinity manually? If it's anything longer than 1
second, you're doing something seriously wrong.


--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jon Pike wrote:
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote in
> news:41F8FBD0.5050206@qwest.net:
>
>
>>With animals
>>in action, there is no time for manual focus.
>
>
> This thread isn't about animals, is it?
> Just go ahead and admit that you don't know how to properly use your
> lenses.
>

Jon, you ignorant troll, read what all of what I said.
I said for me it was a test of the system:

"For me, doing images this way is also a test of the
system, as one needs to use auto focus when imaging
animals in action, which I do a lot of."

So in the context thst I made the statement, the test and
methodology was perfectly valid. You are so quick
to severely criticize others if they misread
someone's statement, you should not take a statement
out of context to attack. It just shows others your
ignorance and extreme bias.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jon Pike wrote:

> "Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in news:41f8fe16$1$21883
> $e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl:
>
>
>>"Jon Pike" <Anonomoose@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:Xns95EBD76E3776LessThanPerfectInc@24.71.223.159...
>>SNIP
>>
>>>you used AUTOFOCUS?!
>>>are you a complete retard or something?
>>>do you have no idea whatsoever how your lense works?!
>>
>>I'd wager he does know how optics work, better than most. A simple
>>test will tell whether autofocus (on a high contrast subject) does a
>>better job than manual focus. The 1D family of bodies, combined with
>>long focal lengths will usually autofocus very well.
>
>
> sure it will. but you shouldn't be stupid enough to need to. how long does
> it take you to focus at infinity manually? If it's anything longer than 1
> second, you're doing something seriously wrong.
>
>

The Canon 1D series are spec'd with the highest
autofocus accuracy, much better than the prosumer models.
The system can focus much better than most humans can,
and the results speak for themselves, as my moon image is
diffraction limited for the aperture of the lens.

In the astronomy digital_astro yahoo group, you would see
people struggling to manually focus their DSLRs. People are
writing software to get real time interface with DSLRs to get
small image readout fast so people can focus on a magnified
image on a laptop. People are selling machined focus devices so
people can mechanically set the camera at the correct focus.
It is not just me who is having a tough time manually focusing.
I'm fortunate to have a top end lens that can auto-focus on
objects like the moon and stars.

Roger

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jon Pike" <Anonomoose@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95ED72D71DD5ELessThanPerfectInc@24.71.223.159...
> "Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in news:41f8fe16$1$21883
> $e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl:
>
>>
>> "Jon Pike" <Anonomoose@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns95EBD76E3776LessThanPerfectInc@24.71.223.159...
>> SNIP
>>> you used AUTOFOCUS?!
>>> are you a complete retard or something?
>>> do you have no idea whatsoever how your lense works?!
>>
>> I'd wager he does know how optics work, better than most. A simple
>> test will tell whether autofocus (on a high contrast subject) does
>> a
>> better job than manual focus. The 1D family of bodies, combined
>> with
>> long focal lengths will usually autofocus very well.
>
> sure it will. but you shouldn't be stupid enough to need to.

There's nothing stupid about getting the best results. A good
autofocus will do better than the human eye (on regular focus
screens).

> how long does it take you to focus at infinity manually?

Much longer than autofocus, but we're not duiscussing speed, are we?

> If it's anything longer than 1 second, you're doing something
> seriously wrong.

Why? Ever hear about the term "seeing"? Ever done serious astro
photography?

Bart

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Agree with that ... what is "with" this idiot who calls himself "Jon Pike?"

Verbal diarrhea ... ? ... possibly.






"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote in
message news:41FC39CC.8080000@qwest.net...
> Jon Pike wrote:
> > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net>
wrote in
> > news:41F8FBD0.5050206@qwest.net:
> >
> >
> >>With animals
> >>in action, there is no time for manual focus.
> >
> >
> > This thread isn't about animals, is it?
> > Just go ahead and admit that you don't know how to properly use your
> > lenses.
> >
>
> Jon, you ignorant troll, read what all of what I said.
> I said for me it was a test of the system:
>
> "For me, doing images this way is also a test of the
> system, as one needs to use auto focus when imaging
> animals in action, which I do a lot of."
>
> So in the context thst I made the statement, the test and
> methodology was perfectly valid. You are so quick
> to severely criticize others if they misread
> someone's statement, you should not take a statement
> out of context to attack. It just shows others your
> ignorance and extreme bias.
>
>
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:01:57 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:

<snip Q about focusing on moon>

>
>Bart,
>The 1D Mark II autofocuses at f/8 and stacked teleconverters
>only report one magnification, so with a 2x teleconverter
>on the lens, f/8 is reported to the camera, then adding
>the 1.4x between the 2x and camera, the camera still
>sees f/8 and still autofocuses well. So I used
>autofocus on the moon at f/11.2.
>
>Roger

(At the risk of sounding like the pet-keeping bridge-guardian that pops up
on occasion):

Roger, my (beginner's) naive thought would be that the moon is "as close
[far?] as makes no difference" to infinity that you'd just set the lens to
infinity and be done with it.

However, the fact that you're having this discussion with the OP implies
that this is not the case. Could you elaborate (or point me towards any
info) on why things aren't as simple as they might at first seem?

Regards,
Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
--
There are 10 types of people in the world;
those that understand binary and those that don't.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Graham Holden <look@bottom.of.post> wrote:
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:

>>The 1D Mark II autofocuses at f/8 and stacked teleconverters
>>only report one magnification, so with a 2x teleconverter
>>on the lens, f/8 is reported to the camera, then adding
>>the 1.4x between the 2x and camera, the camera still
>>sees f/8 and still autofocuses well. So I used
>>autofocus on the moon at f/11.2.
>>
>(At the risk of sounding like the pet-keeping bridge-guardian that pops up
>on occasion):
>
>Roger, my (beginner's) naive thought would be that the moon is "as close
>[far?] as makes no difference" to infinity that you'd just set the lens to
>infinity and be done with it.

Autofocus lenses don't usually have a stop at infinity.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ray Fischer wrote:

> Graham Holden <look@bottom.of.post> wrote:
>
>>"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>The 1D Mark II autofocuses at f/8 and stacked teleconverters
>>>only report one magnification, so with a 2x teleconverter
>>>on the lens, f/8 is reported to the camera, then adding
>>>the 1.4x between the 2x and camera, the camera still
>>>sees f/8 and still autofocuses well. So I used
>>>autofocus on the moon at f/11.2.
>>>
>>
>>(At the risk of sounding like the pet-keeping bridge-guardian that pops up
>>on occasion):
>>
>>Roger, my (beginner's) naive thought would be that the moon is "as close
>>[far?] as makes no difference" to infinity that you'd just set the lens to
>>infinity and be done with it.
>
>
> Autofocus lenses don't usually have a stop at infinity.
>
Yes, that is the case with the 500mm lens I was using.
Many modern autofocus SLRs and DSLRs have really lousy
focusing screens for manual work, and that is the case
for the Canon DSLRs.

Roger

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:
> Teleconverters seems to be very easy, engineering-wise, compared to
> regular lenses. Contrary to popular opinion, most halfway-decent
> teleconverters do not compromise the prime lens in any significant
way

Can you name a 2x that is better (maybe slightly) than the Canon, or of
absolutely the same quality? I am not doubting you, but just want to
know which one to get.