Outer Banks Flora

Printable View

  • 11-18-2005, 06:43 AM
    Speed
    1 Attachment(s)
    Outer Banks Flora
    Taken on 5 Nov 05 at the Cape Lookout Lighthouse. I was playing with my 80-200mm f2.8.
  • 11-18-2005, 01:47 PM
    Lava Lamp
    Re: Outer Banks Flora
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Speed
    Taken on 5 Nov 05 at the Cape Lookout Lighthouse. I was playing with my 80-200mm f2.8.
    'bout time you made it over here. ;)

    I like it . It's hard to get a good picture of a Lighthouse. (I've tried.)
  • 11-18-2005, 02:27 PM
    Speed
    It's hard to get a good picture of a Lighthouse
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lava Lamp
    'bout time you made it over here. ;)

    I like it . It's hard to get a good picture of a Lighthouse. (I've tried.)
    "(I've tried.)"

    I've tried too. Many times! I've got hundreds of photo's of Cape Lookout, always looking to capture something different. I'd really like to go over for a weekend and shoot sunrises and sunsets. Hoping to do so in the not-too-distant future.

    Thanks for the comments buddy!
  • 11-18-2005, 02:32 PM
    Old Timer
    Re: Outer Banks Flora
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Speed
    Taken on 5 Nov 05 at the Cape Lookout Lighthouse. I was playing with my 80-200mm f2.8.

    Nice shot. Kind of hard to get the 80-200 f2.8 off the camera isn't it.
  • 11-18-2005, 02:35 PM
    Speed
    Kind of hard to get the 80-200 f2.8 off the camera isn't it
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Old Timer
    Nice shot. Kind of hard to get the 80-200 f2.8 off the camera isn't it.

    You know it! It spends about 99% of it's time on the F5. I am loving it!

    I've shot some slide film with it, (roses, and moon shots through the Celestron) and can't wait to get those developed.


    Thanks for the comments my friend!
  • 11-18-2005, 06:41 PM
    paulnj
    Re: Kind of hard to get the 80-200 f2.8 off the camera isn't it
    Hey Rob,

    when I look at this image I keep thinking hyperfocal ;) I like it as is, but with the lighthouse in sharp focus too .... it would ROCK.

    Please tell me how you mount a 80-200(77mm filter thread) to a telescope!!!!!!!
  • 11-20-2005, 09:41 PM
    PallAnser
    Re: Outer Banks Flora
    hi,i dont liked this much.For such compositions usualy both subjects should be in focus.so either you use tripod to get maximum DOF or use lens at wide open 2.8 to blur out back totaly.staying in between these terms renders to a odd shot.i know i talkign harsh but i wanted to suggest what i like most.well try again with more DOF.

    TRY TO GO AS CLOSE AS CLOSE TO SUBJECT AND IT WILL MAKE THA DISTANCE BETWEEN BACKGROUND AND SUBJECT TOO MUCH WHICH RENDERS TO A DEEP DOF EFFECT,( MACRO TYPE).USE LENS AT WIDE OPEN.
  • 11-21-2005, 06:59 AM
    Speed
    Please tell me how you mount a 80-200
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by paulnj
    Hey Rob,

    when I look at this image I keep thinking hyperfocal ;) I like it as is, but with the lighthouse in sharp focus too .... it would ROCK.

    Please tell me how you mount a 80-200(77mm filter thread) to a telescope!!!!!!!

    Ahhh, yes. Actually, I shot the moon with the 80-200mm, and then took some shots of moon through the Celestron. So I actually did both.

    But you are right - I did NOT mount my 80-200mm to my Celeston!

    Geez, I hate it when the brain goes faster than the fingers...
  • 11-21-2005, 07:24 AM
    Speed
    Hey PallAnser
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PallAnser
    hi,i dont liked this much.For such compositions usualy both subjects should be in focus.so either you use tripod to get maximum DOF or use lens at wide open 2.8 to blur out back totaly.staying in between these terms renders to a odd shot.i know i talkign harsh but i wanted to suggest what i like most.well try again with more DOF.

    TRY TO GO AS CLOSE AS CLOSE TO SUBJECT AND IT WILL MAKE THA DISTANCE BETWEEN BACKGROUND AND SUBJECT TOO MUCH WHICH RENDERS TO A DEEP DOF EFFECT,( MACRO TYPE).USE LENS AT WIDE OPEN.

    "For such compositions usualy both subjects should be in focus."

    I agree with you entirely. But in this case, I was playing around with my new 80-200mm f2.8, and I wasn't concerned about getting everything in focus. I guess I could have gone the other extreme and used f2.8 to really blur the lighthouse. I may try that next time I'm over there. And I may try using my 28-70mm to get a hyperfocal shot as well.

    Thanks for the comments.
  • 11-21-2005, 07:10 PM
    paulnj
    Re: Please tell me how you mount a 80-200
    though the big objective lens is a hiderance.... it can be done :)
  • 11-30-2005, 02:34 PM
    Speed
    ....it can be done :)
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by paulnj
    though the big objective lens is a hiderance.... it can be done :)

    Of course it can. You can take astrophoto's two ways. One is prime focus. The camera replaces the eyepiece. The other way is eyepiece projection, where you use an eyepiece in front of the camera for a larger image (with a corresponding loss of light). With an appropriate adapter, one could use the telephoto lens on the camera (sort of like with P&S digitals).

    All it takes is money and know how.

    ;-)
  • 11-30-2005, 02:48 PM
    paulnj
    Re: ....it can be done :)
    I know for a fact that people put DSLR's with a 50mm on a swarovski scope with a 20x or 20-60 zoom eyepiece. If one was using a telescope with a 2" eyepiece a 77mm objective should be adaptable ;)

    I can send you in the right direction if interested ;)
  • 11-30-2005, 07:05 PM
    walterick
    Re: ....it can be done :)
    Hey Speedo this brings up a question:

    If I want to take a nearly full-frame image of the moon with distant foreground elements in front of it would I be better off using a telescope with camera adapter or renting a 600mm lens and doubling it? You know me I don't use DSLR's so there would be no cropping factor from that.

    TIA
  • 12-01-2005, 06:39 AM
    Speed
    Re: ....it can be done :)
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by paulnj
    I know for a fact that people put DSLR's with a 50mm on a swarovski scope with a 20x or 20-60 zoom eyepiece. If one was using a telescope with a 2" eyepiece a 77mm objective should be adaptable ;)

    I can send you in the right direction if interested ;)

    Thanks, but I think I'll stick with eyepiece projection. An eyepiece is a LOT lighter than the 80-200mm!!!

    :-O

    ;-)
  • 12-01-2005, 07:01 AM
    Speed
    1 Attachment(s)
    Hey Speedo this brings up a question:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by walterick
    Hey Speedo this brings up a question:

    If I want to take a nearly full-frame image of the moon with distant foreground elements in front of it would I be better off using a telescope with camera adapter or renting a 600mm lens and doubling it? You know me I don't use DSLR's so there would be no cropping factor from that.

    TIA

    Hey Rickster,

    It takes about 2000mm of focal length to get a full frame (35mm film) image of the moon. If you're interested in foreground elements like shooting through tree branches, then a telescope is probably the best bet. (My Celestron has 2032mm of focal length, and you've seen how frame filling those shots are.)

    If you want more of a landscape type foreground - trees, mountains, cabin, etc - then go with the 600mm and a teleconverter. The moon will be a dominant feature in the photo, and the field of view will be wide enough to capture your foreground objects. Depending on how much foreground you want, you may want to try both the 1.4 and the 2.0 teleconverters.

    You've got questions...I've got answers.

    ;-)

    BTW, I'm posting a cresent moon shot. It's not one of my better ones, but it's what I've got on the computer. A full moon barely fits onto the frame. Hope this helps buddy. I'll be looking forward to seeing those shots my friend!