What do you think about this photo?Do you have questions or curiosities about this image? Do you want to ask something to the author, give him suggestions for improvement, or congratulate for a photo that you really like?
You can do it by joining JuzaPhoto, it is easy and free!
There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 242000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.
| sent on March 09, 2016 (19:58) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
big catch .... gran cattura.... |
| sent on March 09, 2016 (20:20) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
:-) |
user68000 | sent on October 22, 2019 (22:07) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
here, I was just wondering if you would have had a better result in digiscoping for the eagle than before ;-)
“ 3750 mm equivalent „ explain to me how you calculated this value? I would like to understand how much enlarges my Celestron Ultima 80 interfaced with Panasonic GF-1 the eye goes from 20x to 60x, but not to have too much aberration I usually stop at 40x I read that it is very difficult to compare a digiscoping scope to an OB photography ecco, mi stavo giusto chiedendo se avresti avuto un risultato migliore in digiscoping per l'aquila di prima " 3750 mm equivalenti" mi spieghi come hai calcolato questo valore? vorrei capire quanto ingrandisce il mio Celestron Ultima 80 interfacciato con Panasonic GF-1 l'oculare va da 20x a 60x, ma per non avere troppa aberrazione mi fermo di solito a 40x ho letto che è molto complesso comparare un cannocchiale da digiscoping a un OB fotografico |
| sent on October 23, 2019 (0:33) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Obviously it's a rough calculation. Since the 35mm is considered to be the normal target 50mm, i.e. with a magnification equal to the standard vision, 50 magnifications of the scope more or less correspond to a focal point of 2500mm (50mmx50-2500mm). If you add a zoom in the camera zoom of 1.5x , (2500mmx1.5 to 3750mm), you get to 3750mm. Ovviamente è un calcolo approssimativo. Poichè nel 35mm si considera il 50mm obiettivo normale, ossia con ingrandimento pari alla visione standard, 50 ingrandimenti del cannocchiale corrispondono più o meno a una focale di 2500mm (50mmx50=2500mm). Aggiungendo un ingrandimento dello zoom della fotocamera di 1.5x, (2500mmx1.5=3750mm), si arriva appunto a 3750mm. |
user68000 | sent on October 23, 2019 (1:43) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
but 50x I understand that it is the magnification of the eye only in the formula should not enter also the front lens of the telescope? which in my case is this one https://www.celestron.it/product/ultima-80/ ma 50x mi pare di capire che è l'ingrandimento del solo oculare nella formula non dovrebbe entrare anche la lente frontale del cannocchiale? che nel mio caso è questo qui www.celestron.it/prodotto/ultima-80/ |
| sent on October 23, 2019 (7:22) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Certainly, each eyepiece gives a certain number of enlargements according to the telescope on which it is mounted. This 50x, it makes 50 on my 82 telescope, on 56 (or 60, I don't remember because I don't have it), it's 40. In fact, on the eyepiece itself is indicated ;-) Certamente, ciascun oculare dà un determinato numero di ingrandimenti in base al cannocchiale su cui è montato. Questo da 50x, ne fa 50 sul mio cannocchiale da 82, sul 56 (o 60, non ricordo perché non ce l'ho), ne fa 40. Infatti sull'oculare stesso è indicato |
user68000 | sent on October 23, 2019 (12:24) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
“ In fact, on the eyepiece itself is indicated „ OK, regarding the eyepiece :-D " Infatti sull'oculare stesso è indicato" OK, riguardo l'oculare |
|
Publish your advertisement on JuzaPhoto (info) |