Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Panasonic / Leica

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 10, 2011, 3:31 PM   #11
csa
Senior Member
 
csa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Montana
Posts: 1,539
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by saly View Post
That is AWESOME, Carol!!! I have a Celestron C8 which I take out to my back yard occasionally but we really have too much light pollution. It doesn't look like you have that problem.....You must see some amazing things in the sky! I'm so envious
Saly, I'm extremely fortunate! My skies average 21.5 on the SQM meter. One of my highlights was to see Pluto.
__________________
Carol

~Pentax K10D~
~FZ40~
csa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2011, 3:36 PM   #12
csa
Senior Member
 
csa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Montana
Posts: 1,539
Default

"
Originally Posted by Tullio
It looks wider because the camera squeezes the top and bottom portions of the image but IMO I really don't think it is any wider. If you look at the tall pine tree on the left you'll noticed that on the first shot you can see almost the entire tree but on the second shot you moved the camera slightly to the right so you can see less of the tree on the left and more of the tree on the right edge. If the image was really wider, you'd be able to see more of both trees."

I'm aware of that, but it's such an easy way to get a view that "appears" to be a wide angle shot. I'm just having fun playing around with the settings, after seeing Saly's shots.
__________________
Carol

~Pentax K10D~
~FZ40~
csa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2011, 3:59 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
saly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: near Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 4,764
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by csa View Post
Saly, I'm extremely fortunate! My skies average 21.5 on the SQM meter. One of my highlights was to see Pluto.
Wow, and I get all excited when I see Saturn.... What kind of a telescope do you own?
__________________



Panasonic FZ150, FZ35 and GF1; Nikonos V when underwater

~~Art is in the eye of the camera holder~~
saly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2011, 4:38 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

There shouldn't be a whole lot of changes in how you compose. All the camera is doing is chopping the top and bottom off. In fact, doing in PP is better because you can chose whether you want to leave more sky and less land or vice-verse or even chop both equally. But, that's my opinion. I think the real benefit of using 16:9 would be if you actually got an extended field of view, which is not the case here.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2011, 6:07 PM   #15
csa
Senior Member
 
csa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Montana
Posts: 1,539
Default

"What kind of a telescope do you own? "

Hi Saly, I have a 16" dobson!
__________________
Carol

~Pentax K10D~
~FZ40~
csa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2011, 6:12 PM   #16
csa
Senior Member
 
csa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Montana
Posts: 1,539
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tullio View Post
There shouldn't be a whole lot of changes in how you compose. All the camera is doing is chopping the top and bottom off. In fact, doing in PP is better because you can chose whether you want to leave more sky and less land or vice-verse or even chop both equally. But, that's my opinion. I think the real benefit of using 16:9 would be if you actually got an extended field of view, which is not the case here.
I'm just experimenting with the different settings. I really am not looking for a "real benefit"; rather just enjoying seeing different things with the camera. I just thought it was fun to post the different settings, no more; no less.
__________________
Carol

~Pentax K10D~
~FZ40~
csa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2011, 7:06 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Yeah, I'm the same way...shooting 16:9 would be cool if the resolution remained the same. I don't think I understand why they have to drop the res to 9 MP if all they are doing is cropping the top and bottom part of the image. Maybe someone can explain that!
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2011, 4:20 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Square one's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,172
Default

Not taking sides here, but the 4:3 actually has more image information than the 16:9.

We all went out and bought 16:9 TV's only to watch less image on the screen.......
__________________
FZ45
Square one is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:10 AM.