8x Zoom Camera Lens Telescope With Case For Dsi Ds-i M
Sunday, December 20th, 2009 at
1:17 pm
Some items you might buy on Ebay auctions:
8x Zoom Height Adjustable Phone Camera Lens Telescope
 |
US $15.72 End Date: Sunday Dec-20-2009 16:40:10 PST Buy It Now for only: US $15.72 Buy it now | Add to watch list |
8X Zoom Camera Lens Telescope with Case For DSi DS-i m
 |
US $12.99 End Date: Sunday Dec-20-2009 16:55:21 PST Buy It Now for only: US $12.99 Buy it now | Add to watch list |
 |
US $.01
Nikon D3000 10MP Digital SLR Camera with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR Nikkor Zoom Lens + 8GB Deluxe Accessory Kit
by Nikon
268% Sales Rank in Camera & Photo: 344 (was 1,268)
(1)
Buy new: $546.95 $539.95
(Ranking is updated hourly. Visit the Movers & Shakers in Camera & Photo list for authoritative information on this product’s current rank.)
Outdoor fun for ur # kids — It's not just the #swings but many more like #binoculars #telescope etc.. offer #price
Right, Carlos, but it’s a step in the right direction.
Ba-Zingo! Found it!
Well, that explains the Hubble Telescope and the Mars Lander that buried itself from 1,000 feet up.
There are several issues to be taken into account when using older lenses on a new digital SLR. First is that you will lose the autofocus and/or auto aperture features of your camera, also you will have to take into account the size difference between the CMOS sensor in your camera and a 35 mm frame. The sensor being smaller will mean that you will have to make some calculations as to what the actual zoom on a given lens will be. For example if you have a 55mm lens for a 35mm camera, it will actually function as a ~ 82.5mm lens (you would use the actual mm rating and multiply it by 1.5).
Your sensor is half the size of a full frame sensor, so your multiplication factor is 2x (that should be in your cameras manual)
Rob Nock is right, "For a camera with a 2x crop factor it would be 34/2 or 17mm to 80/2 or 40mm so the lens would be 17-40mm.)
I use Lens Pens myself. Great for field use and portable.
Maschine Case 1188LC ref 9795 Bagger 1999
It has a lot to do with its design.
There are three factors;
* The size and number of lens elements
* The design of the lens
* The quality of the lens barrel and internal parts (mechanical or electronic) .. some even have microprocessors in them
And yes, professional photographers do find the high quality lenses worth the extra money … the lenses last longer than the cheaper ones. I have Nikkor lenses that still perform up to spec that are nearly 40 years old.
From Ken Rockwell: "These are tests of lenses I've used or at least have an interest in personally. I know it seems like I've shot every lens in existence, but to be honest I haven't.
I don't bother with the discount lenses so I don't mention them. If you care, my opinion is that the best independent lenses come from Tokina, then Tamron, and the poorest mechanically are from Sigma. When I'm limited on cash I prefer to buy used camera-brand lenses, not new discount ones. By all means, if you want to, buy from a place that will let you return something and try out a discount lens if you insist."
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech.htm
In the Holy Book of Quraan GOD has already told us that we are not alone, but at the same time we will never discover the truth about GOD and Universe. The best answer to all of this is that not to wonder and ask questions about God and Universe because our brain was not designed that way. We humans only age up to 100 years but stars and Galaxys are billions of years old. I totally agree with you Sofaahil.
iawtwish. i just love when she's on camera. her o____o face is LEGENDARY
A wide angle lens replaces (temporarily) your standard lens, while a wide angle lens converter screws onto the front of your existing lens (it requires that you get the right one based on the filter thread at the front of your lens).
If it were that simple we'd all be using wide angle converters and there would be no market for wide angle lenses, however there is, so why? Well, the reason is very simple, every wide angle converter I've seen causes horrendous chromatic aberration. That's to say that the colours of light are not focused properly and so especially at the extremes of the image and at edges within the photo you can see the colours separating. You can use this to artistic effect, but with little control, it's more often just plain annoying and makes your photos valueless!
Even the best wide angle lens is going to display some chromatic aberration, but far far far less than a wide angle converter will.
Camera car Rally Sprint Evancon 2009 (Ballerini – Poggi) renault Clio Fa7 – 6°Assoluti 3°Classe
Video
Pubblicato da: Rallysta
Parole chiave: ballerini, camera car, rally, evancon
The first two answers are total rubbish.
There are many factors to take into consideration.
Firstly do you mean 10x digital zoom or 10x optical zoom.
With optical zoom it means the magnification that the lens will give without being digitally enhanced.
Digital zoom uses software to enhance the magnification.
In effect digital zooms degrade image quality badly and is not usually worth using.
The whole digital industry knows that people are very gullible and tend to push "big numbers" at people in order to sell their products.
10x zoom or 10x digital zoom has no meaning whatsoever. It is misleading to say that.
You need to know what focal length lens is in the camera in the first place.
So if your camera has a 25mm to 100 mm optical zoom lens then the magnification is 4x (divide the higher number by the lower number).
If, as you are asking, the Kodak has a 10x zoom lens then it is the lower number you multiply by 10 to get the magnification.
As I said though the magnifications means nothing unless you know the focal length of the lens and most makes of cameras are very different.
To use the lens at it's maximum magnification you will need a tripod or get the shutter speed up very high.
To explain the amount of blur, if when holding the camera at the shortest magnification the end of the lens is moving, say 2mm, because you are shaking, then at 10x magnification the end of the lens will be moving 20mm which means you will get a blurred image because of camera/lens shake.
One way to help is to buy a camera with an image stabilised lens.
don't use digital zoom. At all. ever.
i didnt have a memory card in my camera the other night, so i'll have 2find my cord 2put phots on FB… might take awhile.. lol
Technically the 17-55 is "L" quality, but they won't give it that designation since it doesn't fit their film cameras.
Tokina makes a nice 12-24, but it's only an f/4. Of course it trades a better wide angle for less zoom.
who the fuc r u. lil wayne is best rapper alive. bicth wigga
Discount Price: $370.94
Original Price: $439
Savings upto 16% + Free Shipping
Purchase Celestron NexStar 130 SLT Telescope at just $370.94 with free shipping from Amazon.com. The Celestron NexStar telescope produces bright and high-quality images with the wide field of view. It offers easy no-tool setup, two good eyepieces, “Go-To” technology, new SkyAlign easy alignment technology and Star Pointer red dot LED finder. This lightweight and portable telescope also offers f5 focal ratio, 650mm focal length, adjustable height steel tripod, 130mm aperture and advanced entry-level scope. The 33.1 pounds telescope carries 2-year limited warranty. Special Offer: Get Express Checkout with Amazon PayPhrase.
però occhio al settaggio della cam altrimenti ti disperi come bastet XD
The usual reason is for astrophotography. One telescope is used to make the image; the other telescope to guide the imaging telescope to keep the stars in place in the picture: dots rather than lines.
It is also done if two very different telescopes are used for different purposes at the same time. For example, I observe variable stars with my Celestron CPC 1100 11" Schmidt-Cassegrain. Some stars have comparison stars located outside the 1 degree field of view of the 11". I'm thinking of piggybacking a small wide-field refractor on my 11" so as to see those stars.
Ev0luti0nary has added a photo to the pool:
This is just a random shot taken with my new 35mm lens, nothing special. Edited with photoshop
RT Astrocast.TV talks with Kevin Parsons of Northrup Grumman on the progress of the James Webb Space Telescope -
A macro lens is like any other (zoom or fixed focal length) with one extra capability. It will let you focus close enough to a sharp, 1:1 image. An example might be a closeup of a flower, butterfly, or architectural detail.
Don't confuse this with a zoom lens, that brings faraway objects closer.
Here are some examples from Flickr labeled "macro and Pentax".
As for your last question, a "regular zoom" usually covers a middle to short telephoto range. An example would be a 70-200mm.
There are wide angle to telephoto zooms that start at 18mm or so on the wide end and end at 135mm to 200mm on the telephoto end.
Here's a list of current Pentax digital lenses.
Zooms:
Macros:
I hope this is helpful.
Hey goatO9O Are you black?
hope your tank is atleast 30+ gallons.
before you feed them let them both get to the top once they see you so that the ryukin doesnt hog all the food
My telescope, CCD camera, and other 'pier gear' is now turned off.
Article by at 2010-03-11 14:28:22
Categorized in Canon camera bags,
RT In case you missed it — a short write-up of the PBS KIDS SXSW panel "Pass it Back: Kid Apps on Grown Up Devices"…
The 50mm is going to be a better indoor lens because of it's larger maximum aperture of f/1.8. This is going to allow faster shutter speeds indoors, which is going to help you get action pictures that aren't blurred.
The 18-55 is a decent lens, but if you can only get one, for your purposes the 50mm will be a better choice.
Annie This season he seems to have grown up alot….0 Red cards and very little yellows
.. Checkout for cool deals on camera onthis site…
je suis rennais, moreira etait bon ici, mais maintenant il hesite entre grenoble, boulogne et guingamp … et a rennes il a rien fait ^^
heard a ringtone 0:19 – 0:59 of this video on tube 2tone(.)com
A single-dish radio telescope is usually an antenna shaped as a parabola that collects the radio waves from a celestial object and focuses them onto a receiver. The signal received is then electronically processed so that it can be stored and analysed by a computer. The telescope has to have two important characteristics to be really effective and allow one to detect faint and distant celestial objects: it should have a large collecting area (large telescopes can collect more electromagnetic waves and therefore detect fainter objects) and the resolution (how close things can be together and still be distinguished as separate) should be as good as possible. The high resolution is a very important point for radio astronomy. A big telescope can better separate objects that are close together. However, size in meters is not the whole story: the diameter of the telescope should also be many times (as many as possible!) greater than the wavelength of the radiation it detects. In other words, the longer the wavelength of the radiation that we radio astronomers want to receive, the larger the telescope has to be in order to have the same resolution. An optical telescope with a diameter of 10 cm already gives the best resolution obtainable from the ground due to the effect of the atmosphere: such a telescope gives a resolution of about 1 arcsec which means it will be able to separate two people 1 meter apart at the distance from Groningen to Amsterdam (about 200 km). On the other hand, a parabola of 30 metre (quite typical for a single-dish radio telescope) will separate the two people only if they are 60 metre apart. So to get the same resolution as obtained from the optical telescope we need a parabola of more than 1 km: something that is impossible to build with the current technology! This has been a big limitation for single-dish radio telescopes and they are at most the size of 100 m (with the exception of the 300 m antenna in Arecibo, that, however, being built in a valley cannot move and can track objects only over a small part of the sky). For a long time, at the beginning of radio astronomy, this was the main limitation: it was not possible to obtain information about celestial objects comparable to what the optical telescopes were getting. In particular, it was very difficult to identify which object in the sky seen by optical telescopes was actually emitting radio emission, because the resolution of the radio telescopes was so poor.
Latest Lens: Bronica S2 S2a Lens 80mm F 2.4 £19.99
To do this, you would have to already have to have a powerful scope in space that was 14 billion light years away to send one now, this world will have been swallowed by the sun, then there would be no reason to see the big bang
I see train stations in slomo and timelapse. Too much pretending I was a camera when I was a kid.
Telescopes should technically be in a tank by themselves, or other Telescopes, so that they are not at a disadvantage of getting food. You can try to seperate the Ryukin with a divider and feed the Telescope first.
often wonder why that is the case!