No, but I'd like to know how the DA* 300 does with an eyepiece, pretty sure it would out perform a cheap telescope

I'd also recommend Stargazers, it is a friendly place but I'd try searching their forum for similar questions and research some of the replies before posting another newbie 'which telescope' question. The imaging gear they use (scopes, mounts, trackers, cameras, software) is extremely advanced, expensive and requires considerable setup/tuning to achieve the results they get.

As for which gear is suitable, binoculars are far better to start with (something like 10x50s), preferably tripod mounted. Suggested minimum sizes (object lens diameter) for 'scopes have usually been 3" refractors and 6" reflectors but the mount is almost as important. Good imaging requires not just motorised but 'tracking' mounts and precise setups. The current crop of computerised/guided scopes are much more friendly, some offer 'auto-setup' options to simply aligning them as well.

I have an old Tasco 4.5" (115mm) aperture Newtonian with 900mm focal length f/8 which gives reasonable views of the moon, Saturn & Jupiter. With a 20mm eyepiece it shows 45x magnification.

I also have a Tamron 500mm f/8 mirror lens and an old Jessops monocular convertor with a 10mm eyepiece (similar to this but mine's straight not angled:link). This gives 50x magnification with a 500mm lens with comparable image quality when viewing as my Tasco 'scope. The lens can also be used with an O-GPS1 Astrotracer (unlike a Newtonian).

Lastly, before buying a 6" 'scope, check out how big they (and their boxes) really are. I hardly use my 4.5" due to the aggro involved in digging it out and setting it up.

John.

Lens received yesterday in great condition, well packed and sent promptly.

LennyBloke is a pleasure to do business with.

John.

As far as the original image goes, there's a vertical branch running to the top just left of centre, I'd crop it just to the right of this branch and use it as a vertical shot (possibly cropping the bottom too). I don't think the left hand side of the image adds much and it detracts from the waterfall.

There are so many 'cliches' it's hard to know where to start. Maybe it's because of the web (or my memory), maybe because x10 ND filters are all the rage, but I've seen many more milky water shots recently than I can remember from the time before DSLRs arrived.

I've never been one for turning a vaguely cloudy sky into an ominous/foreboding, black, rolling thunderstorm strewn looking sky. Might look dramatic (or be proof of skilled printing/post processing) but I find it detracts from the rest of the image (here's a dramatic sky with some obligatory landscapey stuff underneath).

I've only shot one HDR iamge (using the in-camera feature of my K-5), it was to cover a larger dynamic range than the sensor could deal with and the result looks natural to me (as it should really). Although maybe I could have concentrated on the framing/exposure/contrast a bit more (shot in a rush). Most of the 'highlight' strewn HDR shots I've seen make me wince - looks more like an 'edge detection' filter has been applied.

But then again, I lost interest when the 'hip' thing to do in PS was adding lens flare to an otherwise 'un-flared' image.

John.

Nice film body (program & manual) for anybody with an A/F/FA lens, surprised nobody wants it (I already have one).

Also works in open-aperture metered manual with K & M lenses and Program only with DA/FA-J lenses.

John.

[quote:3496ace15f="cabstar]Is that one of my old bodies? I have had a lot of bodies lol[/quote]Yep. It was bought off ebay in 2010 from a bloke in Grimsby...

Cheers Gary,

Hope it goes well. Your insights have been interesting and useful, your work, very inspiring.

This ring any bells?



Pentax P50 by John Halliwell, on Flickr

John.

On my K-5 my FA28/2.8, on film my M40/2.8 (might be persuaded the FA43 would be better but can't justify it).

It's a Canberra TT.18 (target tug) originally built as a bomber: link

John.

The mechanical aspects of the card (or reader/writer) are far more likely to fail than the silicon. The aim of the silicon manufacturer is to keep the silicon as small as possible, not only for economy (less silicon costs less) but also any mechanical stresses are reduced by using a smaller chip (for the same deflection of the card housing a smaller chip deforms less - equals less mechanical stress on the chip).

I've only ever used Sandisk cards (CF or SD[HC]) in my cameras and haven't had one fail yet, my earliest ones (CF) from circa 2000 are still readable. I've had non-Sandisk cards for other uses fail within a week.

The most likely reasons for a card to be corrupted are faulty (or cheap) manufacture, incorrect read/write interfacing from the reader/writer or user error. No matter how well the 'write' software is implemented, there's still likely to be a 'one in ten thousand' (or hundred thou or million...) chance of a mis-write - which is as likely to happen on the first or millionth write of any one card.

John.