Poor, poor P&S owner learns too late...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rich, May 13, 2009.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Rich, May 13, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rich

    Charles Guest

    Charles, May 13, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Rich

    Ray Fischer Guest


    _____________________
    /| /| | |
    ||__|| | Do not feed the |
    / O O\__ | trolls. Thank you. |
    / \ | --Mgt. |
    / \ \|_____________________|
    / _ \ \ ||
    / |\____\ \ ||
    / | | | |\____/ ||
    / \|_|_|/ | _||
    / / \ |____| ||
    / | | | --|
    | | | |____ --|
    * _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
    *-- _--\ _ \ | ||
    / _ \\ | / `
    * / \_ /- | | |
    * ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
     
    Ray Fischer, May 14, 2009
    #3
  4. Rich

    Bob Williams Guest

    Bob Williams, May 14, 2009
    #4
  5. You don't need to fiddle with extenders of questionable optical
    quality when you can buy high quality 2000mm and much bigger lenses.
     
    Chris Malcolm, May 14, 2009
    #5
  6. Rich

    AnthonyL Guest

    Wouldn't you need to be Rich to buy one of those?
     
    AnthonyL, May 14, 2009
    #6
  7. Rich

    J. Clarke Guest

    You'd not only have to Rich to buy one but you'd have to be Ahnold to carry
    it around all day.
     
    J. Clarke, May 14, 2009
    #7
  8. he needs an Olympus 590uz with a Tcon17
     
    Princess Tiaamii, May 14, 2009
    #8
  9. Rich

    SneakyP Guest

    Seeing that Rich is obsessed with P&S, I'd agree with both statements.




    --
    SneakyP
    To reply: newsgroup only, what's posted in ng stays in ng.

    Some choose to swim in the potty bowl of nan-ae rather than flush it
    down :0)
     
    SneakyP, May 15, 2009
    #9
  10. Rich

    Bob Williams Guest


    Surely, you jest!
    A 2000 mm lens (actually mirror optics)will cost you about $8,800 USD.
    See;
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t&Go.x=24&Go.y=11&Go=submit
    Also note that the carrying case is called a TRUNK and will set you back
    another $669.
    Bob Williams.
     
    Bob Williams, May 15, 2009
    #10
  11. Chris Malcolm, May 15, 2009
    #11
  12. Rich

    Martin Brown Guest

    Only if you buy one dedicated as a telephoto camera lens.

    OTOH you can buy a fairly decent almost diffraction limited optics Meade
    or Celestron SCT for considerably less including a tripod and motor
    drive. At this size you hang the camera off the lens/telescope and they
    are of limited use terrestrially because of haze and thermals. eg

    http://www.optcorp.com/product.aspx?pid=1-600-603-619-7853

    The other point to make here is that a whole bunch of after market guys
    make adapters to allow any P&S to be put behind the eyepiece of a
    telescope to photograph wild birds and the like. Digiscoping will get
    you plenty of good leads. BCF and SRB in the UK offer suitable adaptors.

    I presume this thread originated from a "Rich" troll.

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, May 15, 2009
    #12
  13. Rich

    Bob Williams Guest

    You're the one who mentioned how you could buy a 2000mm lens.....not me.
    And if you are using a F.F. DSLR (as I mentioned in my post) A 2000 mm
    (equivalent) and a 2000 mm (actual) ARE indeed, the same thing.
    Bob Williams
     
    Bob Williams, May 15, 2009
    #13
  14. Rich

    Bob Williams Guest

    That is certainly true.........BUT........
    I have a Meade compact Astronomical Telescope with the adapters to use
    with my Canon A-1 film camera.
    I hardly ever use it in that manner because of the hassle factor.
    Definitely not easy to use in the field.
    Bob
     
    Bob Williams, May 15, 2009
    #14
  15. Rich

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Already have one. 2450mm. Add some optics and that can be taken up
    to about 15,000mm f.l.
     
    Ray Fischer, May 16, 2009
    #15
  16. Rich

    Bob Williams Guest

    OMG!!
    What do you use such a system for? Astronomical photography?
    Is that a typo or is there really a 15,000 mm f 1 lens somewhere?
    It's got to be a mirror, right? How about a reference and some details.
    Bob
     
    Bob Williams, May 16, 2009
    #16
  17. f.l. = F L = focal length

    Wretched sans-serif fonts!

    David
     
    David J Taylor, May 16, 2009
    #17
  18. Rich

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Well, yes. It's a 10" Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope. 2450mm f10.
    Not f1. f.l. Focal length. And with eyepeice projection it does
    indeed go up to around 15,000mm, although once you get up into that
    range it's more common to refer to it as 300x magnification.
    It's a Meade 10" telescope.
     
    Ray Fischer, May 16, 2009
    #18
  19. Rich

    Bob Williams Guest


    AH!
    Not exactly a P/S :) but it must be fun to work with.
    I have a Meade 4" but use it mainly for viewing rather than photography.
    Bob
     
    Bob Williams, May 16, 2009
    #19
  20. Rich

    Doug Jewell Guest

    That's true. But with an SLR you have the choice - you can
    use one of those questionable extenders if you want cheap
    but questionable image quality. Or you can use a real 2000mm
    lens if you want to part with a lot of cash but get very
    good image quality.
    People keep talking about those cheap tele/wide adaptors
    with their small size & cost as one of the advantages of P&S
    over SLR, but forget that the adaptors can be used on SLR
    also - with exactly the same advantages/disadvantages.
    The key feature of SLR is that you have choice - you have
    the choice of an expensive, heavy, but good quality lens. Or
    you can choose cheap, light, and questionable quality, or a
    couple of other points in between (eg convertors that go
    between the lens and the body).
     
    Doug Jewell, May 16, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.