Must admit my reaction was :, too.

Did you mean the 500 FTZs, George? I've seen a few go for about that recently.

Very likely. I've only had mediocre TCs, and matched them with equally mediocre glass, too, when I've been trying to achieve very long focal lengths.

But I've invariably found that even taking into account the greater enlargement required, I get better results with the bare lens, without the TC.

There does appear to be a bit of shake there, too, not surprisingly, if that's 800mm.

I've only used up to 400mm lenses for the moon, and got a few half decent ones, so I'd give it a go with a tripod and without the TC.


Even with your one, though, within its limitations, I think it can still look quite good. If you'll forgive me:

[IMG]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Technical/MikePMoon.jpg[/IMG]

An interesting comparison.

The thing is, you fixed it then, by saying "no rules, the judge can specify any he or she pleases".

That was a complete and fitting answer, which solved all the problems.

We have a much more open-ended situation here, since as I've said, if the real problem is abuse of the forum, then it's either accidental, in which case a quiet word with the perp is all that will be necessary, or it's deliberate.

If it's deliberate, then we have a situation where someone simply isn't playing nice, and this will damage the community. Admittedly not overnight, but it will sour the air each time it happens.

My feeling is that picking a rule that prevents one particular thing, will not prevent all the other things that can be done to sour the air, and people so inclined are endlessly creative when it comes to that sort of mischief.

Dealing with those people will put a stop to all those things. Preventing edits will just drive it underground until the next time.

It's the imposing aspect that does it for me.

The rest isn't so relevant, although as Dan says, the fringing is unpleasant, and a metal staircase doesn't have to be blue to have impact.

Dan, how could you tell that the sky was fake? I hadn't noticed that.

There is, but with respect, I think you're missing Prieni's point, John.

You seem to be arguing that because a freedom is rarely exercised, it isn't much of a punishment to take it away.

I would not be happy with that as a basis for the removal of freedoms.

Prieni used the example of free speech, not because free speech is the issue, but because it's an example of a freedom which people rarely exercise in public, but which (you would presumably agree) would be a bad freedom to remove on those grounds.

I'm sorry to keep coming back to my point, but I think all this talk of whether we really need this feature, or that feature, is dealing with the wrong problem.

If there are people about that are doing what has been described, they should be taken to task about it, simple as that.

If they are not taken to task, the chances are that they will do other things that disrupt the harmony here, and the PUT will then be in the invidious position of having to think up yet more rules.

Well, in the sense that it removes a freedom, based on someone else's crime. I think it's better to remove the freedoms of the criminal, than of the victim.

With respect, protection is often the justification for the removal of freedoms. Often it doesn't achieve the protection, and only results in a less free environment.

Well quite a few people objected to the change when the forum switched over. The majority, in fact, of those that commented at all.

Not only that, but the way it was before, the 'edited by' message only appeared at all, if a post was edited after someone else had replied.

This was far better, IMO, since edits before any reply are of no consequence. Now, a safeguard has been removed, in that no one can tell (other than by inspecting the dates which takes a lot more effort) whether the post has been edited since the reply.

The point, as I see it, is this:

If there are people who manipulate the sense of threads by cunningly editing their posts after others have replied, then that is a bad thing for the community here.

The question then arises:

How best to deal with people that do that.

You can stop that particular offence, and that one only, by stopping everyone from editing after some minutes.

This punishes all the people that aren't abusing the forum as well, and leaves the bad people to cause other kinds of trouble.

Or, a little more difficult to implement, I admit, you can take action against what must be a tiny minority.

This leaves all those not causing trouble with their freedoms, and gets rid of the bad people.

I know which solution I prefer. What I don't yet understand, is why this logic isn't compelling in all quarters.

Well I'm not unaware of it...

It's fab.

As it downloaded, I experienced a very brief instant of vertigo, looking up at it, as one is.

Now that's impact

_________
Edit:

Although I don't like the blue border round the building at the top. What's causing that?

Well I can't really speak for Martin, but I understood him to mean 'sanction those that edit in such a way as to manipulate the sense of threads'.

As in, impose sanctions on rather than 'sanction' in the sense of 'officially permitting' something.

So, 'go beyond the boundaries' of decent forum behaviour, certainly.