Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 31, 2007, 8:59 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

these migrated back a couple of weeks ago. along with the cormorants and geese. still waiting on most of the gulls..
Tamron 300mm with the tam1.4/140f and the 2x/200f

420mm.... exif is included
Attached Images
 
robar is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 31, 2007, 8:59 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

600mm
Attached Images
 
robar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2007, 9:01 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

600mm
these were shoot on a tripod , 2sec delay, remote release, new gimbol head.
Attached Images
 
robar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2007, 2:23 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
rhermans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Antwerp - Belgium
Posts: 3,454
Default

Great shots Roy,

if having to take a favorite it would be nr2.

Ronny
rhermans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2007, 3:27 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 373
Default

Not bad... for a newb :blah:

Just kidding:-) So, if I get that right were you shooting close to 840mm?

DigitalAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2007, 5:43 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

equivalent to a full frame 35mm of what you see in the VF
420mm = 630
600mm = 900

that's just a dumb comparison if you understand it. i'm still shooting at 420mm and 600mm. all this equivalent BS!! has done nothing but mix people up. most still think they are getting magnification instead of feild of view. the image size is the same as it would be on a 35mm or and 8'' x 10'' view camera film size if shot with the same MM of lens.

roy
robar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2007, 9:29 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 373
Default

robar wrote:
Quote:
equivalent to a full frame 35mm of what you see in the VF
420mm = 630
600mm = 900

that's just a dumb comparison if you understand it. i'm still shooting at 420mm and 600mm. all this equivalent BS!! has done nothing but mix people up. most still think they are getting magnification instead of feild of view. the image size is the same as it would be on a 35mm or and 8'' x 10'' view camera film size if shot with the same MM of lens.

roy
I thought you had both 2x TC and 1.4 TC with the 300mm hence the 840mm. Apparently not.
DigitalAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2007, 8:11 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

i haven't tried that yet and probably won't as the CA is so bad..
actually i got to looking at these again and the 2x, 200f is not near as bad as the 1.4x, 140f. what a surprise.. i need to shoot a comparison of the 140f and the smc A1.4x-s
here's the first shot with the 140f with no PP

roy
Attached Images
 
robar 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 5:17 PM.