They still have the Lockheed SR-71 (Blackbird) on display? That, the Air France Concorde and the Boeing B-29 (Enola Gay) were always my favorite planes to check out. Also helps that I really like the transformers movies and the blackbird is in one of them.
The SR-71 was covered. The Concorde is there but its much worse now because there is too many planes obstructing the view at just about every angle. It was much better when they first opened. Actually on the whole there are just too many planes that are crammed in that its not as nice as it use to be. If they expanded the museum that would be great but as it is now its way too congested.
The really odd thing is when you are there the planes look smaller than they actually are like they are not to scale especially when they are hanging from the roof.
This focal expander is worth it. I wasn't liking my new Voiglander 58mm Nocton lens before but now that its at the right focal length its giving out the goods. The image quality is good but the way the lens looks on the camera is ascetically so beautiful it caught the attention of someone who came up to me to find out what kind of camera I was using with a comment that it looks great. This is not good because I do not want to be noticed while taking pictures so it fails in this area for being the John Gotti of lenses. I may have to find away of camouflaging the camera so it looks cheap.
I might try. I never did astral photography before. I do have a lens that can do it. From what I understand not all lenses are capable because of a lens issue called coma.
Assuming you mean astrophotography, that's a whole different game. I had a nice telescope when I was a young man back in the 80s -- a Meade 8" Schmidt Cassegrain (200 mm aperture, f/10) on a heavy equatorial mount, with adapters for 35 mm. Shot most things with 400 or 1000 speed film, a virtual requirement at the time. Youre dealing with very dim subjects, especially at F10.
Since you have (had) to do 20, 30 minute, or even longer exposures, even with that beast of a mount, I would get vibration just from breathing, transmitted through the ground! And, since alignment to the earth's axis is critical, and largely impossible to get it perfect, you also needed a little dual axis control box, servos, and an illuminated retical on a smaller spotting scope mounted to the main to keep it pointed just right.
Not for the impatient, underfunded, or undedicated. After all that, light pollution just Fks up the shot anyway. Its more about the challenge. Nowadays, digital has changed that, but I understand it is still challenging.
I got one or two decent pictures of the Orion Nebula, and the Andromeda Galaxy. Several good pics of the moon, which doesnt require tracking.
Or, you can go un-tracked with a fixed mount and do the circles/arcs with a nighttime landscape, but... meh. Thats not astro, IMO.
I might try. I never did astral photography before. I do have a lens that can do it. From what I understand not all lenses are capable because of a lens issue called coma.
Assuming you mean astrophotography, that's a whole different game. I had a nice telescope when I was a young man back in the 80s -- a Meade 8" Schmidt Cassegrain (400 mm aperture, f/10) on a heavy equatorial mount, with adapters for 35 mm. Shot most things with 400 or 1000 speed film, a virtual requirement at the time. Youre dealing with very dim subjects, especially at F10.
Since you have (had) to do 20, 30 minute, or even longer exposures, even with that beast of a mount, I would get vibration just from breathing, transmitted through the ground! And, since alignment to the earth's axis is critical, and largely impossible to get it perfect, you also needed a little dual axis control box, servos, and an illuminated retical on a smaller spotting scope mounted to the main to keep it pointed just right.
Not for the impatient, underfunded, or undedicated. After all that, light pollution just Fks up the shot anyway. Its more about the challenge. Nowadays, digital has changed that, but I understand it is still challenging.
I got one or two decent pictures of the Orion Nebula, and the Andromeda Galaxy. Several good pics of the moon, which doesnt require tracking.
Or, you can go un-tracked with a fixed mount and do the circles/arcs with a nighttime landscape, but... meh. Thats not astro, IMO.
As I mentioned don’t know anything about it but I decided not to do it for the fear of risking damage to my sensor which is not a cheap to replace. Too long of an exposure can cause burn in and hot pixel damage so it wasn’t advised. I can always use one of the other cheap cameras that I own but it will not have the resolution to make anything I would like, it’s also not a kind photography I’m particularly into.
Only time I've done night sky photography was when I was backpacking in the dolly sods wilderness. No light pollution at all because middle of nowhere. I never realized how truly wondrous the sky was until I spent a weekend out there. It's amazing that such a priceless and natural thing is almost never visible in it's true form. But hey, that's the price of a light in the dark haha.
My setup was setting my focus ring to infinite, opening up aperture, choosing 30s shutter speed, and laying the camera faceup on a rock. 400 iso film if I recall correctly. I'm gonna try and scrounge up the photo and post it here.
Nothing special but here it is. Keep in mind that I had to make this a png and compress it like crazy to get the file size under 5 megs since the photo is so large.
Various other pics from same trip: Again, compressed like crazy
What are you using for conversions. I think we might have discussed this before, Im using a macro lens with a slide converter that gives film its justice.
I have a more modern EOS film SLR camera that is gathering dust and since all my lenses work on it I might try some film photography. The last time that camera was used was 2003. Im planing to use Fujifilm film and compare it to my Fujifilm film simulation just out of curiosity to see what the difference is.
the image is more spectacular than the photo. Penny found on cabinet in my bar. I take it off the cabinet and place on the bar to put in my penny jar later (so I remember it). having a conversation at the same time and having the penny between my thumb and index finger i put it on its edge and removed my hands interested in if it would fall heads or tails
Nikon Coolscan IV ED. It's a dedicated 35mm film scanner. Scans a 35mm slide as a almost 5000 by whatever size. Each scan as a Tiff is over a gig. When compressing the night sky shot down to under 5 Meg's, looks like it picked up a lot of rgb noise hahahhaaa. Actual scan doesn't have that.
Its nice cus you can leave the film in 6 slide strips and it auto scans through them. I then do the negative to positive flip and color balancing in gimp (free photoshop basically)
I have two more from the Air and Space. One was with the Tamron 45 and the other with the Nikon 20mm wide angle. I had a picture with out the guy with the face mask but I felt that the subject in the photo makes it a time stamp.
Hoping this is not considered spam but saw this and knowing some coffee lovers are into Photography
This intrigues me because this is a homage for the Leica 50mm f.95 Noctilux lens that is way over priced. I believe in the neighborhood of $12,000.
Although it is built like a faberge egg it's usually consumed by extremely rich that have to have it for the sake of having it because of its speed but its usefulness is in question because it's a one trick pony meant more for showing it off like jewelry than actually shooting it wide open. Leica does make exceptional cameras and lenses but what they charge for them doesn't match up. It is said in most circles that if their prices were more realistic based on what you get for your money the rich wouldn't be interested. It's not a sour grapes thing its more of a life style thing similar to lens hipsters.
Its nice to see that an over the top lens has its own coffee mug. I have a few Canon L lens coffee mugs and the attention to detail is pretty good.
