Are there any zoom lenses capable of competing with the Niko

I'm sure there's tons of public domain/creative commons free use footage of the moon close up.

>>3034285
Sure, and in the end that might very well be the choice I'll end up with, but I would still like to know exactly what kind of lenses you need to film something like this.

70-300

>>3034395

Not even close lmao.

You'll need something like 1000mm equivalent to get a frame-filling shot of the moon.

File: 00031757-y1000px.jpg (417KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 667x1000px

>>3034397
3000mm equiv

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX K-5
Camera Software	darktable 1.4
Photographer	Andrew Wade Eglington
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	3000 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2016:11:10 22:57:51
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/22.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Exposure Bias	-2 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	2000.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	667
Image Height	1000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3034397
>"something"
>"like"
>"filling"
>"bro"
>"not even"
OK Noam Chomsky chill out!

File: 00155324-y720px_02.jpg (72KB, 480x720px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 480x720px

>>3034397
exif is wrong in this one
is 1000mm/11 or 1500mm @35mm equiv

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX K-5
Camera Software	darktable 1.4
Photographer	Andrew Wade Eglington oh-hi.info
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	1200 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2017:03:06 14:20:28
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	320
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	800.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	480
Image Height	720
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

You would need a 24-2000mm f/2.8-6.5 lens.

It's really difficult to beat the value of that lens.

Maybe cropping 500mm lens on an aps-c or m43 sensor might yield similar quality of magnification at its longest end.

>>3034438

you can chomsky on my dick, bitch.

File: DSC02119-01.jpg (484KB, 2000x1542px) Image search: [Google]

484KB, 2000x1542px

A cheap 500mm reflex lens on a crop camera would work too.

I took this shoot without a tripod during daytime so with tripod at night it should look significantly better.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Snapseed 2.0
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:06 12:30:29
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	2.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1542
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3034465
kek

>>3034438
>>3034465

>[closeup shakycam of old jewish man nosehairs intensifies]

File: IMG_20161114_232614.jpg (77KB, 931x931px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 931x931px

>>3034441
This one is 640mm equivalent...

>>3034283

Just layer a stock photo of a moon over your desired background and move it with keyframes.

If you're after a cloudy sky, you can even adjust the transparency to make it appear as though clouds are moving in front of it. It's up to you which layer and transparency order you want.

You could have done all of this in about 5 minutes.

>>3034283
panasonic fz2000

File: DSC_6586_1736.jpg (253KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1000x1500px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D7100
Camera Software	ViewNX 2.10 W
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	1004
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:05 21:16:51
Exposure Time	1/13 sec
F-Number	f/3.3
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1500
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3034435
>>3034441
What lens/telescope?

>>3034470
>reflex lens
This.

>>3034283
>films the moon
>doesn't use manual exposure.

Typical bridge camera user.

>>3034470
>>3035420
He wants to zoom tho.

For that shot he would need like, 35 to 1000?

>>3035426
He is a bridge babby. He thinks zooms are better than primes and will refuse to believe otherwise.
Since this topic popped up numerous times I think it is just a little troll trying hard to bait people and will not look for logic or any sensible reason.
It is best to leave him be and don't reply to bridge camera threads.

>>3035416
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-K-1000mm-F11-Reflex-Lens.html
and a 2xTC with a bunch of element separation

No.3034283 Get a black magic pocket camera or some camera with a tiny sensor. Then attach a full frame lens like a 70-200mm or a 500mirror lens. The suggested setup will smoke any p900 and with the black magic will look a lot more cinematic.

>>3034283
>No.3034283 Get a black magic pocket camera or some camera with a tiny sensor. Then attach a full frame lens like a 70-200mm or a 500mirror lens. The suggested setup will smoke any p900 and with the black magic will look a lot more cinematic.

>>3035042
You disgust me.

>>3038135

Would get a much better results than anything OP could muster up with a superzoom. Also:

>being disgusted at proven industry techniques

OP here, I ended up using the P900. There is some heat shimmer and focus wasn't the best, but what do you think?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwHxRxI5e8E&feature=youtu.be

>>3038670

Looks fucking phenomenal to be honest.

>>3038670

awesome

File: screen.jpg (159KB, 1000x560px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1000x560px

>>3038670

>the trees leaning over to cradle the moon

Damn, son.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>3034283
get a sony g master 70-200 f2.8 with a 2x telephoto and a sony a7sii. it's the only option for astrophotography

>>3038696

>and the sony shill strikes too late

>>3038670

That is incredible. Good job!

>>3034283

>taking pictures of the moon

Literally why? Has it changed since the last 100,000 pictures taken of it?

>>3038743

Did you even get past the first 3 words of his post?

>>3038744

The fuck would I read the whole thing for?

>>3038746

>no more moon shots in movies because the moon never changes

K

>>3038670

Looks like shit.

>>3038747

m9, my question remains regardless of the OP's weird scifi fantasy fiction video desires...

>>3038670

Holy shit... I think I will be buying a P900. This should be an official commercial for them.

>>3038670
the shimmer actually adds a lot to the atmosphere in that video

>>3038774

I was legitimately thinking the same thing. The P900 is pretty old and due for a refresh. I wonder if one will ever come.

>>3038670

This is a fucking coolpix? Holy shit

File: kek.jpg (461KB, 1000x1519px) Image search: [Google]

461KB, 1000x1519px

>>3038774
>>3038778
>>3038792

Kek, this is becoming a moral dilemma... time to fess up before someone buys that piece of shit.

1) Google the moon (thanks, NASA)
2) Google some trees
3) Google some fog
4) Witchcraft with PS and AE

>>3038776

I thought so too... that's why I added it.

This all took about 30 minutes. If I had taken an hour or so, it could have looked even better, and easily output to 4K.

>any setting you want
>any composition you want
>don't even get off your ass

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1000
Image Height	494
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:13 23:42:50
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1519

>>3038796

You cheeky fucker.

Well played.

File: 1436661960225.jpg (35KB, 385x375px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 385x375px

>>3038796
>>3038751
>>3035042
You seem to have forgotten to take your trip off. Don't worry, it's a simple mistake but I'm here to help remind you.

>>3038796
WELL EMEMED

>>3038845

I think perhaps you don't understand.

>>3034435
scrub your EXIF, Andrew Wage Eglington

>>3038896

Get a load of this mega newfag.

>>3038845

Why would I take my trip off?

OP asked for advice, so I gave mine. It wasn't received well, so I made an example video that was.

As for calling my own video shit, that was just stirring the pot. But I had to abort once people started talking about buying a camera based on a lie...

>>3038796
Best trip ever or best trip ever?
Well played, something did feel fishy about that video but the shimmering threw me off. Excellent work!

>>3039015

This post really makes it look like I'm samefagging, but thank you, Anon.

Def not the best trip, but I am a good shitposter.

>>3039024
The only trips I see nowadays aside from you is Sugar, a couple of newfags and the occasional borderline posting isi. It's not really hard being better than them.

>>3039007
>people started talking about buying a camera based on a lie
Sounds like Sony's marketing scheme.

>>3039045

Not only for their cameras, but the fake controversies around their films as well.

File: wallhaven-271161.jpg (174KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1920x1080px

>>3039045
>>3039049

Fuji Defense Force Spotted!

>>3039059
It always amuses me how easy it is to bait a sonyfag.

>>3039063

>i...it was just bait! I am not an overly sensitive Fujifag!

>>3039065
Nah mate, I use Olympus cameras.

>>3039059

Nikon here, m80.

>>3039059
I use Canon
1D X
Mark II

>>3039007
You're not posting any OC. Drop your trip.

Let's be honest, Sony is the only real option in today's market unless you want to go medium format.

>>3039138

He actually posted nothing but OC in this thread, retard. Fuck off.

>>3039138

>advice isn't oc
>example video isn't oc

K

I'm glad you're triggered by my presence.

File: e9d.jpg (16KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 600x600px

>>3039144

Did OP ever end up doing anything?

File: IMG_20161209_06236.jpg (8KB, 274x206px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 274x206px

>>3034283
Eh Who needs all that when you do take pictures like I did with just my cell phone camera.

File: IMG_20161017_221644.jpg (1MB, 4160x3120px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4160x3120px

>>3034283
Cellphone camera mounted over a 40mm Sirius Plossl.
I wish I could snap pictures of deep space objects with my cellphone camera but can't collect enough light.

File: DSC_0149.jpg (218KB, 4160x3120px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 4160x3120px

>>3034283
Haha dude Saturn looks no better than my phone camera held over the eyepiece I dunno how much a p900 is but it's more then $900 that's a rip off I mean you can buy a telescope and a cellphone mount and get the same out come.
By the way this picture is from a Celestron Powerseeker 80eq using a 40mm eyepiece which is why it looks small.

>>3040812

You need to read posts before answering them.

>>3040820
It should cost around 700usd, but regardless, integrated zoom and a fucking telescope are two very different things.
One should not buy the p900 just for taking pictures of planets, but it's something it can do, and it's the only camera that can do a non crappy job at it, by itself

File: _20170112_130041.jpg (161KB, 1074x1060px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1074x1060px

I told y'all in another thread that the P900 is a mad perv camera

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2017:01:12 13:00:41
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

File: 08-24-12.57.38.png (3MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2048x1536px

My photo, Sony DSC -H400

>OPEE

What did you end up doing?

>>3043806
Wanking himself to sleep like the sad lonely loser he is.

>>3041473
>can do a non crappy job at it
You stretched that waaay over it's bounds there, mate.

>>3041489
It's pervy, yet no one would masturbate or be sexually satisfied to/by that footage. So why's it pervy again?

File: DSC_0029.jpg (231KB, 4160x3120px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 4160x3120px

>>3041473
I don't get it are you kids like mad because a $1,000+ camera can't zoomas good as a Nikon p900 is that the only thing it's got going for it is it can zoom into stuff far away I care more about how good it takes pictures I mean my used Nexus 6 cellphone does decent pictures and it's a phone.
Might buy one of these cameras if I can find it used for under $300.

File: moon shot.jpg (128KB, 2048x1101px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 2048x1101px

Took this with a cheap as fuck 1k mm lens from ebay

>>3041473
>One should not buy the p900 just for taking pictures of planets, but it's something it can do

No it can't.
4 pixel "Saturn" doesn't count.

>>3046002

Sharpen it some more.

File: DSC_0018.jpg (2MB, 3120x4160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3120x4160px

>>3046002
>1k on a lens
>Cheap
I'd hate to see how it looked before it was edited I mean sure you can take a snap shot of a object but you have to process it later.
Some of us want a good single picture that doesn't need to be software enhanced. If I wasn't ban for rule 1 on my other internet I'd show you how a unprocessed picture of Jupiter looks then show you it processed but then again their are tons on YouTube if you search Neximage5
This is a normal picture of the Moon with a cellphone camera mounted over the eyepiece.

>>3048901

He said he bought a 1000mm lens, not that he spent $1000 on a lens.

With a 1000mm lens you'd get a rather clean shot. At most all you would need is a minor cropping.

File: IMG_7469.jpg (100KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1000x1000px

>>3034397
>>3034435
Took this one with a 55-250mm.

1000/3000mm equivalent lenses aren't a necessity.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS REBEL T5
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2000
Image Height	2000
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:15 22:49:49
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	250.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3038796
Got here late, but there were two mistakes that made it obvious the vid was fake before I got to this post:
1: Size of the moon relative to branches, no way it would be that big, unless those are some tiny branches.
2: Moon was moving right to left, unless you're on the Southern Hemisphere, the moon will always go left to right.

>>3049002

>Size of the moon relative to branches, no way it would be that big, unless those are some tiny branches

Depends how far away the tree was, retard. Learn how telephoto lenses work.

>Moon was moving right to left, unless you're on the Southern Hemisphere, the moon will always go left to right

Depends which side of the tree you're on as well as the viewing angle... damn, you are dumb.

>>3049002

>look at moon from front yard
>moving right over house

>look at moon from back yard
>moving left over house

Moon doesn't look any different... you're looking at the same side. It doesn't mirror.

Perspective, faggot. The moon is at infinity focus as far as you're concerned, and remains unchanged. All perspective changes come down to your immediate surroundings, and your movements in them.

You can see the rings on Saturn with a flip phone camera. There was a book published 10 years ago. The guy was showing how he mounted his cell phone to a telescope.

>>3049239
honestly Ive gotten great pictures of the moon by lining up my iphone camera to a telescope lol its hard as fuck though

>>3049239

>you can see the rings of saturn with a telescope

FTFY

>>3039032
Any trip that isn't Isi or Sugar is a good trip

>>3049235
You are wrong. The movement is 90% earth rotation which is the same no matter where you looking at it.

>>3038670
Damn, I've always thought that those xboxhuge moon photos are shooped. But this is real? in my entire life I've only seen moon 1/5 that size. Maybe it's because I live on the fucking equator.

File: giantmoon-3.jpg (51KB, 620x413px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 620x413px

>>3049985
It's not hard to understand.

300 mm lens

Adapter to Q body, some kind of teleconverter

4.5 or 5.6x crop

Boom 2000mm cheap/ easy

>>3049981

I said perspective changes, retard... IE composition. If the moon is high enough overhead, you can walk circles around an object and keep the moon in frame by changing angles.

I already went over planetary motion in the same comment, but apparently that required too much reading comprehension for you.

>>3049985
The trick is to use a very long lens to make the moon look big, then stand very far from your subject to make it look small.

This was shot with a 1200mm lens
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS-10-yLzkg

File: Burj_Khalifa.jpg (51KB, 480x840px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 480x840px

>>3050120
And this is the tower he stood on to give you an impression of scale.

>>3038670
This is fucking brilliant

>>3050256

>>3038796

>>3034283

A lot of the P900's 2000mm is digital zoom right?

I'd suspect 500mm is good enough to get a decent cropped shot on FF.

>>3050741

Nah, it's all optical. It does have digital zoom, but you don't need it for the full 2000mm equivalent.

>>3050741
The P900 has an 4.3-357mm lens and a 5.6X crop factor.

500mm would require 4X crop.
With leaves you with 1/16th the original number of pixels (4 squared)

With a 36MP sensor you'll be left with a 2.25MP image, which is just about enough to fill a full HD screen.

>>3050256

Why, thank you.

>>3050958
The P900 lens has less resolving power at that FL so the FF (or even an aps-c) with 500mm lens is the better option.

>>3051298
>>3050958

Oh cool I'll just throw on one of those 500mm lenses that everyone has laying around.

File: 1200px-Minolta-500mm-Reflex-01.jpg (90KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1200x900px

>>3051406

I have been quite tempted to buy one lately, Not that expensive.

File: IMG_5392.jpg (197KB, 800x601px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 800x601px

>>3051407

I have had several mirror lenses throughout the years, including this monstrous 1000mm Meade telescope that I picked up for $10 at a thrift store (seen here dwarfing my d800 and 35 1.8) They're not all they're cracked up to be, as they can fall out of collimation with time. And even if a mirror lens were perfectly collimated, it still wouldn't resolve as well as even a lousy refracting lens. That's just an inherent flaw to the design. So you can't just say that you can throw a 500mm mirror lens on a full frame camera, crop it down to 1/4 resolution and you'll get better performance than the p900. It just isn't true.

File: _DSC9234-1.jpg (207KB, 1000x664px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1000x664px

>>3051424

Here is the best moon shot that i was able to get out of this lens. This was, I believe, on a D300.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2013:11:06 19:01:19

>>3051424
Putting a shitty beat up lens on your camera is your personal problem, not a generic rule.

>>3051424

While the Meade is an interesting lens, it is a far cry from the 500mm Minolta.

>>3051438

it is though. catadioptric designs are well-documented as having lower overall resolution than refractive optical systems, especially for low-contrast objects.

>>3051443

What makes you say that? It's not like Meade is some fly-by-night operator. They're an extremely well-respected middle-to-top tier telescope manufacturer, and they have optical systems that go for tens of thousands of dollars.

Here's what my lens/telescope/whatever goes for on ebay. It's not some piece of shit Tasco.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/222239267153?lpid=82&chn=ps&ul_noapp=true

I certainly hope that, for your sake, you're right and the Minolta is just an absolute monster, but that also wouldn't mirror (hahaha get it) my own experience, both as an owner and an observer. I've seen a fuckton more soft, fuzzy-as-fuck mirror lens shots posted on this board than crystal-clear sharp masterpieces. I'd also like to see someone actually come through on the above math that a 500mm mirror lens mounted on FF can outresolve the P900, though I suspect I'll be waiting a very long time for the evidence.

>>3051536
You are just bad at finding good used ones. Zenit catadioptrics and the Tamron 55BB are excellent pieces. Also, Samyang/Rokinon is selling cheap new ones with clear optics so there are plenty of places to get good ones.

>>3051569

Cool man, prove it. Whole lot of talk in this thread and very little proof.

File: 6962825931_33f138145c.jpg (54KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x375px

>>3051407
>>3051424

It would be interesting to see a direct comparison of low budget super telephoto options.

Bridge camera vs. mirror lens vs. cheap lenses like this Samyang 500mm f/8

>>3034283
OK, let's do some math.

Maximum theoretical resolution is 1.22 x λ x N
For blue light (420nm) and f/6.5 that's 3228nm

With a crop factor of 5.6, the sensor is about 6.43 x 4.29 mm
Therefore the maximum theoretical resolution is about 1992 x 1329, or 2.65MP

So even if it has PERFECT optics, it would only just be able to resolve a full HD image.
- t. diffraction.

I've taken pics of the moon with lots of optics... nothing beats a good refractor telescope.

>>3051664

pretty sure your math is wrong my dude.

>>3051678

It would be better to prove that with your own math.

I'm trying to learn more shit about cameras and know next to nothing. For an f/2.8, 4.5, 5.6, and 8, which would allow the most light in?

Isn't it 2.8 because the lower the aperture, the more light that can go in?

File: gibous.jpg (1MB, 1856x2625px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1856x2625px

>>3051424
>monstrous 1000mm Meade telescope
kek no. It's just Meades' version of a mirror lens. The only serious Maksutov design they ever manufactured had a design flaw that meant it never reached thermal equilibrium.
>And even if a mirror lens were perfectly collimated, it still wouldn't resolve as well as even a lousy refracting lens.
Not true, resolution is one of the strengths of catadioptric systems. Granted a high end refracting 'scope will out perform it slightly but in the case of the Meade you have, it would be 3 feet long and cost at least 4 times the price.

>>3051427
meh

>>3051536
>especially for low-contrast objects
Again refractors do have the edge slightly. This is more down to poorly designed baffles and internal anti reflective coatings rather than the central obstuction.
>It's not like Meade is some fly-by-night operator
>It's not some piece of shit Tasco.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meade_Instruments#Financial_problems
>Meade's Irvine, California manufacturing plant was closed, with manufacturing moved to a new plant in Mexico
>In September 2013, Sunny Optics Inc, a unit of the Chinese firm Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co Ltd, completed the acquisition of the entire share capital of Meade.
Celestron beat them to it, the generic C90 type is cool (with some black flocking inside).

The P900 is an interesting camera but it's shortcomings are aplenty. For Astrophotography it's probably the worst choice evar. For the Moon (the second brightest celestial object) it's still far from ideal.

Pic related is shot with an "inferior" catadioptric system. 2000mm f1:14. No stacking, minimal PS editing (apsc so the far right has been added as I couldn't get the whole Moon in frame).

>>3051679

Well, for one he got the formula wrong.

Lens resolution is either r = 1.22 (wavelength/lens diameter in meters) or r = (0.61 x wavelength)/aperture

>>3051685

looks soft as fuck my dude, not at all better than the p900 and not even better than the guy by whom you were so unimpressed

>>3051687
Dawes' limit.

>>3034288
Telescope with dslr attached. Px1000 would the next best bet

>>3051690
>by whom
Well, la-de-da lad.

Photographin' the Moon 'aint like dustin' crops boy.

>>3051690

It's soft if you're treating it like a camera lens taking a photo across a room. This is the moon, though... it requires lots of focal length, and you're looking through miles of atmosphere. Look at how much magnification and detail there is there. Resize that image to 50% and sharpen it a bit... you'd be doing that with a lens anyway.

No bridge camera or DSLR / lens combo will compete with a big reflector. My 11" Celestron is 2800mm f/10. My super sharp Nikkor 600 f/4 isn't going to do shit to it, even with a teleconverter and on a crop body. I know because I've compared them. ;)

IMO though, if all you want is a good pic of the moon, a quality refractor and DSLR will do the trick nicely. But I'd rather have a big reflector any day; way more compact, and gathers tons of light, especially with a reducer.

>>3051713

Yeah, objective size is the ultimate decider in astrophotography, both in terms of light gathering and resolution. I get that. I had a 120mm refractor when I was a kid and I used to spend hours just walking it across the surface of the moon with a 25mm eyepiece, but my dream was always to hand grind one of those 30" dobs with my dad.

HOWEVERRRR.. that's got nothing to do with the core argument of the last 20 posts or so, which is that you can do better than a p900 with a cheap, not-at-all long (astronomically speaking) mirror lens and just cropping a photo from a full frame camera. No one has actually managed to prove that yet.

>>3051716

I dunno... 2000mm that's been engineered properly is a lot to compete with, even if it's a bridge camera.

Any reflector lens under 500mm is going to be too weak, and being cheap, likely be out resolved by the sensor anyway so cropping wouldn't help. Anything over 500mm that's still cheap is going to be shit quality.

I'd bet on a cheap but good quality refractor telescope... because eyepieces. Picture 500mm prime plus a good quality Plossl. Slap a crop body on it and use the sharpest part of the optics.

>>3051687
>Lens resolution is either r = 1.22 (wavelength/lens diameter in meters) or r = (0.61 x wavelength)/aperture

I used the formula from here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk#Cameras

specifically:
>x = 1.22 λ f / d
And since f/d is the f-number (N):
>x = 1.22 λ N

Where 'x' is the DISTANCE, not the ANGLE like in your formula.

File: DSC01957.jpg (1MB, 2624x1662px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2624x1662px

Just took this with a 500mm mirror lens I got from pawnshop for $100

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.8 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:04:09 19:49:13
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-6.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3054236
Take 30 frames at least and stack in registax than fuck around with the wavelet sliders to sharpen the surface features.