I like the ISO100 shot the best. I see the noise in the ISO1600 shot as well. That being said, it's fairly unlikely that anyone would actually shoot the moon at ISO1600 in normal practice, since it's a very bright object relatively speaking.
All three strike me as being a bit overexposed or of needing higher contrast, especially when looking at Crater Tycho in the lower right hand corner. More detail should be evident in the rays. To change the subject slightly... after looking at lens tests on the the 16-9 site, http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/ that Adam sent, it reminded me of one thing. That the comparative resolution tests done on DLSR's provided on dpreview and other sites are pretty much useless. What they are really measuring is the resolving ability of the lens and sensor combo. Not the camera itself. The lens and aperture used can make a big difference in resolving power. Tom C. >From: Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> >To: pdml@pdml.net >Subject: Re: Let Me Bore You a Second Time >Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:45:47 -0700 > >Again, this series was shot with the A600/5.6 with the 2XL converter >mounted. I attempted to process each file as close to identically as I >could, though I gave the ISO 1600 file less sharpening as it was showing >noise at that point. > >http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/pictures/moon/moons.html > >William Robb > >----- > >Nicely done, Bill. I like moon shots. > >Unlike others, I see unpleasant noise in the ISO 1600 shot, especially >at the "top" of the moon. ISO 1600 also seems softer to me. But >certainly it is not bad. It's just not as good as the first two. > >Joe > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net I like the ISO100 shot the best. I see the noise in the ISO1600 shot as well. That being said, it's fairly unlikely that anyone would actually shoot the moon at ISO1600 in normal practice, since it's a very bright object relatively speaking. These strike me as being a tiny bit overexposed, because To change the subject slightly... after looking at lens tests on the the 16-9 site, http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/ that Adam sent, it reminded me of one thing. That the comparative resolution tests done on DLSR's provided on dpreview and other sites are pretty much useless. What they are really measuring is the resolving ability of the lens and sensor combo. Not the camera itself. The lens and aperture used can make a big difference in resolving power. Tom C. >From: Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> >To: pdml@pdml.net >Subject: Re: Let Me Bore You a Second Time >Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:45:47 -0700 > >Again, this series was shot with the A600/5.6 with the 2XL converter >mounted. I attempted to process each file as close to identically as I >could, though I gave the ISO 1600 file less sharpening as it was showing >noise at that point. > >http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/pictures/moon/moons.html > >William Robb > >----- > >Nicely done, Bill. I like moon shots. > >Unlike others, I see unpleasant noise in the ISO 1600 shot, especially >at the "top" of the moon. ISO 1600 also seems softer to me. But >certainly it is not bad. It's just not as good as the first two. > >Joe > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
