Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2012 · Trying to capture detail from over 400 km away
  
 
Liquidstone
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · Trying to capture detail from over 400 km away


Doctorbird wrote:
The Mk II version of the 400 would have brought out a lot more of the ISS feather details.

Db


Lol.

Now, I'm really curious how the Mk II works with stacked 2x TCs at astro shots.



Nov 11, 2012 at 10:04 AM
PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · Trying to capture detail from over 400 km away


Liquidstone wrote:
Peter, having used both versions of the 400 2.8 IS, how would you compare the optics of the new vs the old? My old one is so unbelievably sharp that I see an increase in captured detail at moonshots up to a 4x TC. I'm curious if Canon was able to improve on the near optical perfection of the older one.


Romy, you'd be hard pressed to tell any IQ difference between the old and the new 400 f/2.8 IS, when bare. However, with 2xTC MkIII, I see somewhat better resolving power with 400 f/2.8 IS MkII, although the MkI is not that far behind.



Nov 11, 2012 at 10:30 AM
dhphoto
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · Trying to capture detail from over 400 km away


Amazing stuff, bravo!

I apologise if this is a stupid question, but why aren't there any stars?



Nov 11, 2012 at 11:51 AM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · Trying to capture detail from over 400 km away


Hi Romy,

Great photos! Did you use the same TC setup in April 2011? The 2011 image appears to have higher magnification - maybe the ISS was more directly overhead, which would provide both a greater apparent size, and reduce atmospheric effects, in comparison with a lower eleveation angle.

Jim



Nov 11, 2012 at 12:18 PM
Ralph Conway
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · Trying to capture detail from over 400 km away


Thxs :-)
The Moon pic is my fav.

Ralph



Nov 11, 2012 at 01:20 PM
Liquidstone
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · Trying to capture detail from over 400 km away


PetKal wrote:
Romy, you'd be hard pressed to tell any IQ difference between the old and the new 400 f/2.8 IS, when bare. However, with 2xTC MkIII, I see somewhat better resolving power with 400 f/2.8 IS MkII, although the MkI is not that far behind.


Looks like Canon did their job well on the II, Peter.

BTW, I've shot many copies of the 300 2.8 IS (older one), and IMHO the old 400 IS is noticeably sharper than its shorter sibling (particularly with 2x TC), despite what Canon MTF charts say. Is that your experience as well?



Nov 11, 2012 at 08:49 PM
Liquidstone
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · Trying to capture detail from over 400 km away


dhphoto wrote:
Amazing stuff, bravo!

I apologise if this is a stupid question, but why aren't there any stars?


There are stars in the background. However, the exposure required for the bright ISS is too dark for the stars to be visible in the photo.



Nov 11, 2012 at 08:51 PM
Liquidstone
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · Trying to capture detail from over 400 km away


Thanks Jim and Ralph!

jcolwell wrote:
Hi Romy,

Great photos! Did you use the same TC setup in April 2011? The 2011 image appears to have higher magnification - maybe the ISS was more directly overhead, which would provide both a greater apparent size, and reduce atmospheric effects, in comparison with a lower eleveation angle.

Jim



Yes, I used the same set of gear in both attempts.

The ISS in the April 2011 shot was indeed nearer/brighter. After doing many attempts since, it would seem to me now that particular shot might be the best that my gear can do if the other conditions (seeing and shot execultion) are optimal.



Nov 11, 2012 at 08:55 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #9 · Trying to capture detail from over 400 km away


Liquidstone wrote:
Looks like Canon did their job well on the II, Peter.

BTW, I've shot many copies of the 300 2.8 IS (older one), and IMHO the old 400 IS is noticeably sharper than its shorter sibling (particularly with 2x TC), despite what Canon MTF charts say. Is that your experience as well?

Yes, Romy, I am on my 3rd and the best copy so far of 300 f/2.8 IS MkI, but my 400 f/2.8 IS MkI had just a bit more "bite" to it. (I say "had", because a month or so ago I sold 400 MkI following the orders of my better half. )



Nov 11, 2012 at 09:49 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #10 · Trying to capture detail from over 400 km away


PetKal wrote:
...because a month or so ago I sold 400 MkI following the orders of my better half. )


Was that your 400/2.8L IS II ? ')



Nov 11, 2012 at 09:52 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #11 · Trying to capture detail from over 400 km away


jcolwell wrote:
Hi Romy,

Great photos! Did you use the same TC setup in April 2011? The 2011 image appears to have higher magnification - maybe the ISS was more directly overhead, which would provide both a greater apparent size, and reduce atmospheric effects, in comparison with a lower eleveation angle.

Jim

Liquidstone wrote:
Thanks Jim and Ralph!
Yes, I used the same set of gear in both attempts.

The ISS in the April 2011 shot was indeed nearer/brighter. After doing many attempts since, it would seem to me now that particular shot might be the best that my gear can do if the other conditions (seeing and shot execultion) are optimal.


You should get into low earth orbit. Save weight by leaving the TC's at home...



Nov 11, 2012 at 09:56 PM
PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #12 · Trying to capture detail from over 400 km away


jcolwell wrote:
Was that your 400/2.8L IS II ? ')


Not 400 MkII....sold the 400 MkI.



Nov 11, 2012 at 10:36 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #13 · Trying to capture detail from over 400 km away


PetKal wrote:
...because a month or so ago I sold 400 MkI following the orders of my better half. )

jcolwell wrote:
Was that your 400/2.8L IS II ? ')

PetKal wrote:
Not 400 MkII....sold the 400 MkI.


Sorry Peter. I meant was the Mk II "your better half"....



Nov 11, 2012 at 10:38 PM
PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #14 · Trying to capture detail from over 400 km away


jcolwell wrote:
Sorry Peter. I meant was the Mk II "your better half"....




Jim, you do not have to feel sorry for me because I am slow on uptake sometimes.



Nov 11, 2012 at 10:43 PM
Liquidstone
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · Trying to capture detail from over 400 km away


PetKal wrote:


Yes, Romy, I am on my 3rd and the best copy so far of 300 f/2.8 IS MkI, but my 400 f/2.8 IS MkI had just a bit more "bite" to it. (I say "had", because a month or so ago I sold 400 MkI following the orders of my better half. )


Thanks for the info, Peter.

My back and arms are tortured everytime I use the 400 2.8 IS, but it's just so sharp that I can put up with the suffering.



Nov 14, 2012 at 07:24 AM
ytwong
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · Trying to capture detail from over 400 km away


Liquidstone wrote:
I use this site. I input my coordinates and it gives me the schedule of passes for the next 10 days,

http://www.heavens-above.com/


Thanks for the info



Nov 15, 2012 at 04:06 AM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password