|
|
Post by Drummond Island Rocks on Aug 19, 2016 8:03:55 GMT -5
I have been struggling to find a good camera replacement over the last few months. My latest purchase was a Nikon P900 bridge camera which currently has the worlds largest optical zoom at 83X. That is the equivalent of a 2000mm lens. I do not think this will end up being my main camera for macro shots of rocks but I will probably keep it for the main family camera. While out on a late night quad ride last weekend my 11 yr old took this photo without a tripod. He propped the camera on the rack of his 4-wheeler and used the timer release. Not too shabby for a point and shoot.  Thanks for looking Chuck |
|
|
|
Post by rockjunquie on Aug 19, 2016 11:00:42 GMT -5
Wow! That is very impressive. Without even a tripod- very cool.  |
|
|
|
Post by Jugglerguy on Aug 19, 2016 11:11:17 GMT -5
That's really cool.you should take a picture of the pudding stones in your driveway from the other side of the yard. It will probably look like one of James' microscope pictures.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2016 11:15:59 GMT -5
Super well done, and smart kid for using what he had, the rack and timer helped him a lot.
Fantastic!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Drummond Island Rocks on Aug 19, 2016 12:22:14 GMT -5
Super well done, and smart kid for using what he had, the rack and timer helped him a lot. Fantastic!! Thanks Scott. We had a full moon last night and I tried to take a few pics with the tripod but I think the light pollution in the city had a negative effect. The photo he took was in the Upper Peninsula taken at a lake with no light pollution at all. It is a fun lens to play with though. Chuck |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2016 12:56:28 GMT -5
I wouldn't expect such a short exposure time to effect moon images. The moon is lit by the sun. Back in the film days we used "the sunny f16 rule" to expose the moon. At f16 the exposure is the same as the ISO of the film. I have found digitally that it's more of a sunny f22 on the moon. Perhaps you were a bit overexposed? Or humidity was way up causing flare? Plus shooting a full moon sucks any ways. No shadows, image very flat lacking contrast. Look at the craters at 7pm on your son's moon. Gorgeous! Garage Rocker have u experience photographing the moon? |
|
|
|
Post by Drummond Island Rocks on Aug 19, 2016 13:14:10 GMT -5
I wouldn't expect such a short exposure time to effect moon images. The moon is lit by the sun. Back in the film days we used "the sunny f16 rule" to expose the moon. At f16 the exposure is the same as the ISO of the film. I have found digitally that it's more of a sunny f22 on the moon. Perhaps you were a bit overexposed? Or humidity was way up causing flare? Plus shooting a full moon sucks any ways. No shadows, image very flat lacking contrast. Look at the craters at 7pm on your son's moon. Gorgeous! Garage Rocker have u experience photographing the moon? I am no expert by any means. This camera is getting a lot of attention for the moon pictures and has a moon setting that is preset. This is the picture I took this morning around 7:00 A.M. in daylight.  Chuck |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2016 13:19:30 GMT -5
Blue sky photo-shopped out?
That is way cool!
|
|
|
|
Post by Drummond Island Rocks on Aug 19, 2016 13:40:02 GMT -5
Blue sky photo-shopped out? That is way cool! Blue sky photo-shopped out? That is way cool! no photo editing done on that one. I think maybe because the photo was at 6:55 A.M. that daylight was just breaking. I have seen some examples from the camera with blue background that must be done in true daylight. Chuck |
|
|
|
Post by Garage Rocker on Aug 19, 2016 15:43:31 GMT -5
I wouldn't expect such a short exposure time to effect moon images. The moon is lit by the sun. Back in the film days we used "the sunny f16 rule" to expose the moon. At f16 the exposure is the same as the ISO of the film. I have found digitally that it's more of a sunny f22 on the moon. Perhaps you were a bit overexposed? Or humidity was way up causing flare? Plus shooting a full moon sucks any ways. No shadows, image very flat lacking contrast. Look at the craters at 7pm on your son's moon. Gorgeous! Garage Rocker have u experience photographing the moon? That's a great moon photo he captured. I love photographing cities at night, but never really experimented with astrophotography. |
|
Fossilman
Cave Dweller 
Member since January 2009
Posts: 20,718 
|
Post by Fossilman on Aug 19, 2016 17:59:46 GMT -5
HOLY MOLLY!!!!!
|
|
glacialtilly
off to a rocking start
Member since March 2016
Posts: 13 
|
Post by glacialtilly on Aug 19, 2016 21:23:51 GMT -5
That's one beautiful rock!
|
|
|
|
Post by Drummond Island Rocks on Aug 19, 2016 21:27:32 GMT -5
Blue sky photo-shopped out? That is way cool! Think about how much it would have cost for the equipment to take a photo like that just ten years ago. Technology is moving at a rapid pace. Chuck |
|
inbtb
Cave Dweller
Member since May 2016
Posts: 351
|
Post by inbtb on Aug 20, 2016 7:05:53 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2016 10:12:03 GMT -5
Blue sky photo-shopped out? That is way cool! Think about how much it would have cost for the equipment to take a photo like that just ten years ago. Technology is moving at a rapid pace. Chuck Yes! And the computer in that camera is logarithmically better than NASA used to go to the moon in the 1960's. A $10 plastic kids binocular better than Galileo had. The camera in your phone better than my first digital camera that cost me $600 in 2000 and used a 3.5" floppy! By a very large margin.... |
|
|
|
Post by Drummond Island Rocks on Aug 20, 2016 13:38:15 GMT -5
Think about how much it would have cost for the equipment to take a photo like that just ten years ago. Technology is moving at a rapid pace. Chuck Yes! And the computer in that camera is logarithmically better than NASA used to go to the moon in the 1960's. A $10 plastic kids binocular better than Galileo had. The camera in your phone better than my first digital camera that cost me $600 in 2000 and used a 3.5" floppy! By a very large margin.... You may have entered the digital camera world before I did. I waited until the very first camera hit the whopping one mega pixel mark then plucked out $1100 to get one right away. I still have it and about a dozen other outdated models. Kodak DC120  Chuck |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2016 13:48:16 GMT -5
Wow! That is a museum of old Digi cams!
I don't have any of mine. The first was a Sony mavica 640x480 "television quality!" And a 3.5" floppy was memory. Used it for close to 3 years. By which time my next was 3mp.
Those cams were used to sell animals online all day long for years...
I couldn't find a usable pic of the mavica, sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by accidentalrockhound on Aug 21, 2016 2:27:12 GMT -5
I think shotgunner is just looking for rocks , next he will find a way to get them from there to his saw ? Are agates lighter on the moon?
|
|
