On 5/7/2020 7:32 AM, Jim Nichols wrote:
After seeing the detail in your image with the 100-400, I went back and tried all of my post-processing tricks on
another image, and the details are just not there.
Yup
Here is the best I could do.
http://www.gallery.leica-users.org/v/OldNick/20200506-P5061444.JPG.html
Nice improvement, but still, no cigar. :-)
I agree with you. I may reconsider the 100-400.
In fairness, I should mention that there are an Oly 300/4 lens and a Panny 200/2.8 with 1.4x teleconverter (=280 mm) out
there. My guess is that the first is likely better than the 100-400, at its single FL and the Panny with extender as
good, but I have no way to know.
My general experience has been that FL wins, with subjects smaller that frame
filling.
I'm simply uninterested in such single FL lenses for general use. It's pretty
frustrating having 300 mm, when I need 200.
As far as shooting the moon goes, resolution is ultimately limited by atmospheric movement. I've shot it with a 1000/11
mirror lens, and I don't think I captured more detail than in this shot. I looked at combining exposures for more
detail. Stacking shots in layers and flipping between them, whole section of the surface MOVED between shots. It's
refraction through moving cells of air.
Zoomy Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
