***SW&D Photography Thread*** - Page 17
2.8 should be fine, even with poor lighting you can take the iso up, the lower pixel count actually performs better in terms of noise than the nex7 at higher iso. If you don't need wider angle Sony has some good primes with image stabilization below f2.0 ...
If you feel like spending a lot, Zeiss 24mm f1.8 or Zeiss Touit Planar T* 1.8/32mm are a good option. There are also other third party options like the SLR Magic HyperPrime 23mm F1.7 which have supposedly unique characteristics though I'm not too familiar with them
Think I'm just gonna go with Sony's 35mm 1.8. Thanks again for all your input guys.
(lol eventually ...)
* * *
The Best Space Images Ever Were Taken by Apollo Astronauts With Hasselblad Cameras
BY ADAM MANN0 7.20.136:30 AM
The most iconic photos from the manned exploration of space come from the monumental Apollo project. But if you're not a camera buff or a space-history enthusiast, you may not know that nearly every single famous photo from that program was taken using Hasselblad cameras.
Known among photographers for their larger-than-normal film format and amazing optical qualities, the Swedish-based Hasselblad has also had a more than 50-year partnership with NASA. Astronaut Wally Schira carried the first Hasselblad used by NASA, a 500C camera -- which he had purchased at a Houston photo supply shop -- during his turn around the Earth in a Mercury rocket in in 1962.
Subsequent Mercury and Gemini astronauts also used Hasselblads, and each space shuttle flight took an average of 1,000 and 2,000 pictures with the cameras. Both NASA and the astronauts liked the Hasselblads for many reasons.
“The cameras were relatively simple to use, and film was preloaded into magazines that could easily be interchanged in mid-roll when lighting situations changed,” wrote Gary H. Kitmacher for NASA’s history office.
NASA asked Hasselblad for a modified version of their 500EL models to use during the Apollo moon missions. Known as the Hasselblad Electric Data Camera (EDC), these machines came with specially designed lenses and a glass plate that placed reference crosses on each image to make it possible to figure out the distance and heights of objects in the photos. The EDC's photo plate was also coated with a small conductive layer of silver, preventing the buildup of static electricity that could result in a spark. Finally, the outer camera was painted silver to help maintain the temperature, and all lubricants had to be replaced to allow the machines to work in the vacuum of space.
Starting with Apollo 8, astronauts carried a Hasselblad EDC with them on their lunar journeys. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin each had one during their brief but historic romp on the moon on July 20, 1969. Subsequent men also took Hasselblads, 12 of which are now sitting on the moon’s surface, left behind to save weight on the return trip. Only the film magazines returned to Earth.
Pictures from Apollo allowed people all over the world to participate in the trip. Looking through the Apollo Hasselblad film reels is like perusing someone’s weird vacation slides. Except in this case, the vacation happens to be one taken on the moon. As an additional and somewhat related bonus, the state of film technology in 1969 provides definitive proof that the moon landings could not have been faked.
In honor of the 44th anniversary of Apollo 11’s historic landing, here we present a gallery of some of the best shots that astronauts took from the moon and space with Hasselblad cameras.
Armstrong on the Moon
Neil Armstrong stands on the moon next to the Apollo 11 lunar lander, showing the American flag nearby. Most of the Apollo 11 images were taken by Armstrong and so feature Buzz Aldrin. This is one of the few with Armstrong actually in it.
big photos (Click to show)
Leica 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit (made in Canada)
ISO200, 1/1000 , i think f/8
100% crop (Click to show)
I had once adapted a 200mm Arsat soviet beast onto a panasonic G3 (crop factor so effectively 400mm) but the m4/3 sensor is really not so great.
kinda related rft^
iirc I've read that when the moon looks really big it's actually the brain magnifying it slightly (I'd guess it has to do with contrasts and maybe that you usually see it when "small"), and that's why the moon always looks smaller on photos since well, the camera just captures the scene as it is