KLAX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2275 times:
Hi guys, I had ideal conditions this evening, and the moon pretty much was in the flight path of a few planes, so I managed this pic: http://www.pbase.com/image/14114944/original
I think its okay, but I was wondring if theres any way I can clean it up to make it look better.
Thanks,
-Clovis
Serge From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1989 posts, RR: 3 Reply 2, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2225 times:
Cool shot, are you going to upload? Only problem I really see is the digital noise and a little vignetting.
JBLUA320 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3163 posts, RR: 20 Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2144 times:
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9459 posts, RR: 72 Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2142 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
nice shot but I think you need more ZOOM. Too much "nothing" in the shot at that focal length.
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9459 posts, RR: 72 Reply 10, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2013 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
the thing is (and I hate to be the one who brings bad news) is that the quality of a consumer-level digital camera with a teleconverter would yield pretty poor quality results.
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9459 posts, RR: 72 Reply 12, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2010 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
how about a used film body? You don't have to layout for the full monty if you can't afford it.
I went from a Nikon Coolpix 775 to a Coolpix 5000 to my D100 in the space of 6 months. I have every gadget made for the 5000, Nikon 2x and 3x converters, wide angle etc etc
Getting a SLR was the best move ever. Not just the flexibilty but the ability to "get" every shot...consumer digi cams have lag, some worse than others, and you have to learn to time your shots, with no margin for error. A SLR allows you to focus on learning photography.
KLAX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1993 times:
Yeah, the lag is the biggest bitch. I dunno, but I dont think I could spit the money for a film SLR, the lenses, and scanner and everything. I really like film, and slide shooting/trading sounds like alot of fun, but I just dunno. I already dropped 600$ on this cam.
At the same time, I think the lag forces me to try and "get it right" the first time. I dont just snap away and see what came out best later.
Joge From Finland, joined Feb 2000, 1441 posts, RR: 47 Reply 14, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1981 times:
KLAX,
I told you to stick with film SLR.
For the begin, you don't have to buy the most expensive equipment. Probably A body with a 70-300mm lens would do the job just fine. You can also take a look at the second hand cameras and lenses. And what comes with the scanner, you can ask your local photography shop if they put pictures on CDs, how much it costs, the resolution and so on.
BTW, I just checked NewYorkCamera in Germany sells Nikon F55 +Tokina SD 3.5-5.6/28-210mm for 297 euros and just the body is 197 euros. You can get the Nikkor AF G 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 for 193,90 euros. The good thing is that you also can get the things you order as cash-in-delivery (i.e. you pay the stuff at the post office when they arrive), so you won't need credit cards.
Fallingeese From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2097 posts, RR: 20 Reply 16, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1955 times:
....I have both, so I'm impartial. I bought my C-730UZ, for my basic shots, just to save money on photofinishing, so far, it's paying off in wonders. I'm still a student so I can't go out blowing $3500, on a D100, asmuch as i would like to.
I'm using an F-65 with 28-80mm, and a 70-300mm lens, as well as my Olympus C730 38-380mm....then with a 1.9X teleconverter....oht he possibilities. In about a year or so I plan to move up to a DSLR.
Serge From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1989 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1932 times:
The way I think of a film SLR (as well as a DSLR I guess) is that you'll definately have no problem capturing most/all photos you want to take with it. Some people like Mark have supplemented a high zoom digital into the picture which can really help out as he already pointed out (in terms of money, pleasure, whatever...).
The only problem with film (at least for me) is the SCANNING! Its such a bitch to have 19+ rolls of recent film to scan, and also have some problems with the scanner (these vertical streaks on some that require cloning/dodging)- so then it takes forever just to process an average shot to HQ level, then on top of that to have it rejected for "badscan" (which is true i guess in some situtations, lol)
But shoot however it suits your needs- personally I'm content knowing in the future I can buy a top of the line scanner and scan most of my old photos with ease. No rush mon.
Anyway... bottom line is that I suggest getting some sort of SLR.
Alaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 17 Reply 18, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1933 times:
Nice shot!
Zoom is the issue here, needs more of it - but when your maxed out, then its rough!
KLAX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1857 times:
Mark what is the model of your converter, and if you dont mind, where did you buy it and for how much?
You have to show us what kind of results it gets!
Fallingeese From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2097 posts, RR: 20 Reply 20, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1820 times:
I bought it from my local kick ass camera store, Saneal Camera. I bought it for $150 canadian, along with a $10 step ring, and a $30 adapter ring. It is an Olympus C-210 IS/L H.Q. 1.9X converter.
Of course the fact that I got 50% off did help in my decision to buy it, i just went in there to spend a couple of bucks. Total was $200.00 canadian, but I only paid $100.00
KLAX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1790 times:
Wow. Sounds awesome. How is it working? Any issues with it?
I'm going to check out a few camera shops around here today see what they have. AND I'm gonna check out some film SLR set-ups
Fallingeese From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2097 posts, RR: 20 Reply 22, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1770 times:
There is a very minimal amount of vignetting, but it was to be expected. I love my setup, I still shoot with my SLR regularly, and digital just adds to it.
KLAX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1757 times:
Cool Mark. Well, they have that exact lense at a camera shop here for 100$. Not sure what that is Canadian, but it sounds close. Now I just need to find the adapter rings, they dont sell em'
They're selling a Canon EOS 300 with a Canon 80-300 lense for 400$.
ScottysAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 25, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1684 times:
Guys,
I do bet for KLAX did took a nice shot at the moon, huh? How I do should took shoot a pics at the moon into the sky? I do flown on MD-88 way from PHX-ATL flight and I do got took a picture at the moon from my seat on the windows. Which should I can do shoot a pictures on the moon for me, please? Thanks!!
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12426 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1989 posts, 
From Austria, joined Apr 2002, 456 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2097 posts, 
From Finland, joined Feb 2000, 1441 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
