Wolf Hat - As Requested
- Thread starter warren
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
That is an awesome hat! I would need a wolf pelt to make myself a hat. My fat head cannot be covered by a raccoon's hide.
According to the Wiki link Kinman did give chairs to 4 different Presidents, and there is a sketch from 1868 of what's now the Oval Office with one of his chairs being dipected. By law those chairs should still be in storage somewhere, I believe.
Warren, I still use an old 500mm Nikon f4 P lens and have a 1.4x tele for it to make it 700mm @f5.6. Use it for Eagles & other birds mostly.
Warren, I still use an old 500mm Nikon f4 P lens and have a 1.4x tele for it to make it 700mm @f5.6. Use it for Eagles & other birds mostly.
Johnny: Those older lenses are great glass! I crop down to DX when absolutely necessary. That way I'm shooting 900mm and still retain the f4 aperture. 2011 was when I finally made the move to digital. I waited until the digital quality got close to Kodachrome 64. It took me a couple of years to learn to handle digital in a competent manner. There's a different look for sure.
Birds are my forte but, I'll shoot anything, anywhere. May through mid-July will usually find me slogging through a particular marsh that I've haunted since the 50s when I was a youngster.
Birds are my forte but, I'll shoot anything, anywhere. May through mid-July will usually find me slogging through a particular marsh that I've haunted since the 50s when I was a youngster.
Warren: I should add that I have a lot of full moon & lunar eclipse photos taken with that lens as well.
I bought a D1 when it was still state of the art from a guy who didn't like digital only to learn that I really didn't care for it much myself. And I thought 3.2 megapixels would be state of the art forever; who knew? I still much prefer Fuji Velvia 50 & Provia 100 in a F5 body. I think I have a couple of bricks of each in the deep freeze. I have kept an F4, F3HP and have several Nikon consumer level bodies around also. But I haven't done much is a while. I have to send to CA for processing now and so just don't shoot much.
I bought a D1 when it was still state of the art from a guy who didn't like digital only to learn that I really didn't care for it much myself. And I thought 3.2 megapixels would be state of the art forever; who knew? I still much prefer Fuji Velvia 50 & Provia 100 in a F5 body. I think I have a couple of bricks of each in the deep freeze. I have kept an F4, F3HP and have several Nikon consumer level bodies around also. But I haven't done much is a while. I have to send to CA for processing now and so just don't shoot much.
I've never really done a lot of astral-photography. I enjoy watching others work through the problems and seeing the results. Do you do a lot of slow shutter shooting when doing the astral stuff.
If you have the interest in digital look into a used D3s, it's not EXPEED4, but it's good. The number of megapixels isn't nearly as important as the size of them and how the software in the camera handles the information. FX is the size of 35mm and the pixels collect a ton of information. There is a little different look to digital than film but the quality is every bit that Kodachrome64 was. Also, digital handles very high ISOs much better than film does when it is pushed.
The only down side to current digital cameras is the cost. I remember when a camera body only needed to be a light tight box that held film flat. I was shooting F3HPs when I finally made the change. It's so much more than that now. If you are even thinking of digital, the D750 is EXPEED4 and a lot cheaper than a D4s. And, you can find them factory refurbished now and then.
If you have the interest in digital look into a used D3s, it's not EXPEED4, but it's good. The number of megapixels isn't nearly as important as the size of them and how the software in the camera handles the information. FX is the size of 35mm and the pixels collect a ton of information. There is a little different look to digital than film but the quality is every bit that Kodachrome64 was. Also, digital handles very high ISOs much better than film does when it is pushed.
The only down side to current digital cameras is the cost. I remember when a camera body only needed to be a light tight box that held film flat. I was shooting F3HPs when I finally made the change. It's so much more than that now. If you are even thinking of digital, the D750 is EXPEED4 and a lot cheaper than a D4s. And, you can find them factory refurbished now and then.
No astral deep space photography with my set up. No planetary photographer either. Mars & Venus are at their closest point to earth for a couple of months starting in Dec each yr. they are pretty bright but all I got when I tried photographing them with 700 mm is two bright lights in the night sky. But it works good for photographing the full moon with great detail. If I print a 10x12 or so the moon will be about the size of a silver dollar in the print. Never done any time exposure of the stars, then stack them or panaroma of the night sky & stitch them together. Frankly, I hate doing that stuff in a digital darkroom.
- Status