i'm surprised at how compact it is. i knew mirror lens' were smaller but i didnt realise just how small they were until i saw the shot of the lens mounted to the camera.
[QUOTE=jekostas;388002]Well, if you're willing to put some serious effort in to your shooting setup you can make up for some of the lost zoom.
THIS IS FROM WHEN I USED A REAL TELESCOPE:D
And that was with my a100..lol...if only i had it now.lol...
Anyway, I'd be hard-pressed to see stripes across the face of that slightly voluminous dot Don, but it is nevertheless the best shot I've seen of Jupiter sans telescope eq. Granted,I haven't seen many, this is probably why?
As for what floats my boat, as indicated, more astro / telescopical equipment is probably needed to make a float :)
Guys ... this was a "run out, throw up the tripod ... set it for roughly a night shot and zap off four quick ones." I did not spend an hour in reshoot, because I wanted to prove something to myself ... that the resolution improvement of the α850 actually meant something. Obviously, it does ... because instead of getting a crackly looking image ... I have a definite sphere. Is it telescope quality? Heck no, but my expectation of getting something sharper and, hopefully, much closer are greatly improved.
I also wanted to see what would happen with the use of highly touted Kenko Teleplus 3x T/C on one of the sharpest lenses I have in my bag ,,, and as I kind of figured ... it took that keen optic I had on the front of it and reduced it to about useless. You saw the comparison. Same identical issue ... and TAMRON stepped up and did a reasonable job. I mean the subject is only 390-million miles away! Heck, it takes light 33.5-minutes to reflect back from it. I guess that's good "set up" time. So, if your friend calls your cell, from Jupiter, and says, "Hey,"I'm waving at ya. buddy! Take my picture!" ... you have about a half-hour to "get the shot." :cool:
No, I'm not putting these shots in National Geographic, but they are tests of capability ... and an idea of what happens when a lensman throws a 3x T/C on your lens, hoping for a "long shot" ... you truly reduce the quality of it. If your subject can withstand such a quality impact, terrific ... but, the stars and planets say ... "forget about it." If you can get a better shot of the planet Jupiter with an APS-C sensor and an ordinary 500mm lens ... post it. I'm interested.
Again, this was my experiment, which I shared. Take what you can away from the results ... or do your own. Hell, it's all in fun, anyway. Yeah ... Full Frame for detail ... or get a 'killer' optic that can really magnify, so the resolution that the α700 can provide it for you. I roughly figure that would too have been a 2000mm lens, to get the same resolution shot. Those are kind of heavy. The trade off is in pure weight ... and the subsequent hernia. :eek:
Do I miss not getting the telescope? I certainly do not miss that 29 lbs I have to lift and lug around. The thing about big ol' t-scopes ... you park 'em. ;)
I apologize if people did not understand the intent of this. It's not rocket-science. You guys have entirely different missions in store for your cameras. I only hope that seeing some of the realities can help cultivate to good decision on the equipment you use. I am personally funded, as most of us are. So, I do what I can and hopefully can answer those questions that occasionally come up, with my experiences, in the SONY world. Are there better photographers? Of course ... I'm not waving that flag. :D I just love playing with this stuff. I've done things other people still have not done. If you are not interested in the results ... that's cool. President Obama isn't interested in my opinion about politics, either. It all shakes out.
Get the shot!
Your gonna love the extra pixels..you can crop the hell out of a picture and still have a great shot left