![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Flowering Curb
This particular lens I was testing didn't seem to be particularly sharp, but I liked the rich - almost dreamy - look.
This particular lens I was testing didn't seem to be particularly sharp, but I liked the rich - almost dreamy - look.
no subject
no subject
I meant to comment on your Moon photo the other day--I really liked it! Funny enough, I saw it while I was away on holiday and on that very day we stopped by the sea front where a guy with a decent size telescope was charging "€1 per planet." I peaked on all that was on offer, and despite seeing Saturn's rings and Jupiter's four Galilean moons I was most impressed by the Moon. Magnification was good enough to actually perceive it as a 3D object, with the edges of the craters clearly protruding from the surface. Now I only need to persuade Elon Musk to let me have a closer look...
no subject
I liked the moon pic, but it's still not quite where I want to be; I've seen sharper pics taken by hobbyists. OTOH, this was taken with a $22 lens, instead of a $1000 lens, so I suppose it's not too bad in that respect...
Back when I was using the Pentax Q*, I was able to get a shot of Jupiter... but it was just a big white blob with four small blobs in line with it. *sheepish look* https://www.dropbox.com/s/wub786fbb2rdeb3/Jupiter%202013-05-06.jpg?dl=0
*(The Pentax Q is one of the smallest interchangeable-lens cameras (ILC's) ever made, and used a very small sensor - much smaller than normal ILC's. This had two effects. Positive: it had a 5.5x crop factor, so a standard lens produced an image magnified 5.5x over the original image on a full-frame camera. Negative: because the sensor was so small, it couldn't gather nearly as much light, so pictures were noisier and fuzzier. https://www.dropbox.com/s/hyk9p7fmne7w2ya/2013-04-21%20Moon.jpg?dl=0 is a moon shot I took with it; and it's larger but fuzzier than the one I posted earlier.)
no subject