While cranes may gather close to the observation platform, they are usually several hundred yards away. A few stationary viewing scopes are available but bringing your own spotting scope or binoculars is recommended. If you are photographing cranes, your most powerful zoom lens will be handy, as trying to get too close to these birds will easily spook them.
Casper 10x Zoom Camera F 1 8f 4
DOWNLOAD: https://tinurli.com/2vF4u9
The Sony 12-24 is an ambitious offering by Sony and a rather unique lens. There are very few zoom lenses nearly as wide. Such ultrawide shooting is not for everyone but some people, including me, absolutely love it.
For their a-mount lineup, Sony never did a lens wider than 16mm. Within the Nikon brand, the widest zoom is 14mm. So the only true competing lenses are the Canon 11-24/4 and the Sigma 12-24/4. The Sony 12-24 truly stands out compared to those lenses though because of size and weight. The Canon 11-24/4 currently retails for $2699 and weighs a hefty 1180 grams. The Sigma 12-24/4 is currently selling for $1599 and weighs 1150 grams.
As of this writing, the Sony 12-24 is on sale for $1599 and weighs a mere 565 grams. So it is practically half the weight of the competition, while being much cheaper than the Canon lens and priced the same as the third party Sigma lens. Combined with a Sony mirrorless camera, it makes for a light weight ultrawide system that no other brand can currently match. The question is whether the lens can perform.
Like most lenses this wide, the 12-24 has a rather bulbous front element meaning it cannot use traditional filters. It includes a built-in hood and snap on lens cap. It includes a Focus hold button and AF/MF switch. The focus and zoom rings are rubberized making them easy to hold. The lens has a high quality plastic feel to it. As a result, the lens does not feel heavy but still feels well built.
(About my scoring: 9-10 is a superb lens which could have a place in the bag of almost every photographer. 6-8: recommended with caveats. 3-5: A compromised lens that may still be suitable for some shooters and situations. 1-2: Just stick to your phone camera)
On mobile phones, both industry [13] and academia [31, 41] have started to explore utilizing the user-facing camera for gesture-based control of traditional interfaces. Examples for tangible interaction in context with AR on mobile phones are [33, 34]. [1, 18] use a combination of tangible interaction, joy pad, and key based interaction. [19, 20] evaluate the usage of movement of the phone in combination with a traditional button interface. [23] gives an example for body part tracking (e.g. hands) to interact with an AR environment in a setting using external cameras and large screens. [11] features one of the first approaches to utilize finger tracking in AR using a camera and projector mounted on the ceiling. A comparable setup is used by [26] where interaction with an augmented desk environment was done by automatic finger tracking. [12] uses markers attached to the index finger to realize interaction in an AR board game. [28] presents a detailed study on the usability and usefulness of finger tracking for AR environments using head mounted displays.
Holding the finger too close to the camera makes it impossible to select small objects (left). Moving your hand away from the camera decreases the size of the finger in the image but can result in an uncomfortable position because you have to stretch out your arm (right)
In case of the object selection task (cf. Fig. 11, top right), touch screen interaction again performed fastest and there were no differences for the different levels of difficulty of the tasks. However, there was one mistake among all easy tests and in five of the hard tests the wrong object was selected thus confirming our assumption that interaction via touch screen will be critical in terms of accuracy for small or close objects. Finger interaction worked more accurate with only two mistakes in the hard test. However, this came at the price of a large increase of selection time. Looking into the data we realized that this was mostly due to subjects holding the finger relatively close to the camera resulting in a large marker that made it difficult to select an individual object that was partly overlapped by others. Once the users moved their hand further away from the camera, selection worked well as indicated by the low amounts of errors. For the device approach, there was a relatively large number of errors for the hard test, but looking into the data we realized that this was only due to a mistake that we made in the setup of the experiment: in all six cases, the reticule was already placed over an object when the test started and the subjects did not move the device away from it fast enough to avoid accidental selection. If we eliminate these users from the test set, the time illustrated for the device approach in the hard test illustrated in Fig. 11, top right increases from 10,618 msec to 14,741 msec which is still in about the same range as the time used for the tests with easy and medium levels of difficulty. Since all tests in which the initialization problem did not happen have been solved correctly, we can conclude that being forced to point the device to a particular position over a longer period of time did not result in accuracy problems as we suspected.
To create the AR environment for this second experiment, we used the Qualcomm Augmented Reality (QCAR) SDK. This SDK provides a robust and fast framework for natural feature tracking. Because of the natural feature tracking, we could use a game board that was created in the style of the common board game Ludo (cf. Fig. 13) and no artificial markers were needed. Our implementation was done on an HTC Desire HD smartphone running Android 2.2.3 and featuring a 4.3-inch screen with a resolution of 480800 pixels and an 8-megapixel camera.
Our team tests each mattress by lying on it, changing positions, and evaluating its support. We also use technology such as body mapping to measure pressure relief as well as thermal cameras that determine heat retention. All of these metrics are important to consider when shopping for a memory foam mattress.
Images of fluorescently tagged fusion proteins were captured at room temperature in live C. elegans animals. Mid-L4 stage hermaphrodite C. elegans animals were anaesthetized using 10 mM levamisole (Sigma-Aldrich) in M9 buffer and mounted on 5% agarose pads for imaging. C. elegans animals were imaged on either an inverted Zeiss Axio Observer Z1 microscope equipped with a Hamamatsu EM-CCD digital camera, a Yokogawa CSU-X1 spinning-disk unit, controlled by Metamorph (version 7.8.12.0), and using either a Plan-Apochromat 100 1.4 NA objective or a 63 1.4 NA objective or on an inverted Zeiss Axio Observer Z1 microscope equipped with a Yokogawa CSU-W1 spinning-disk unit, a Prime 95B Scientific CMOS camera, controlled by 3i Slidebook (v6), and using either a C-Apochromat 40 0.9 NA or 63 1.2 NA objective. FRAP experiments were performed on the above microscope using a Vector diffraction-limited laser scanner (3i). In all cases, image settings (for example, exposure time and laser power) were identical for all genotypes across the experiment.
What makes a lens good for night sky photography? Primarily, a wide field of view and a fast maximum aperture. In full-frame terms, a focal length from 10mm to 24mm is often great. You can use a longer lens, such as 35mm or even 50mm in some cases, but most of the time, an ultra-wide angle or wide-angle lens is your best bet. As for aperture, the faster, the better. F1.4, F1.8, F2 and F2.8 are all good. For a prime lens, F1.4 and F1.8 are realistic and affordable. If you're using a wide-angle zoom lens, the best you can do is typically F2.8.
Sony E-mount users have so many amazing options for night sky photography lenses. There are so many great lenses that don't make the cut for inclusion in this list but are still worthy of considering, including the Laowa 15mm F2 FE Zero-D ($750) and Sigma 14mm F1.8 DG HSM Art ($1,600). However, I've tried to keep each section capped at a maximum of five lenses, which doesn't eliminate many great choices on most camera systems, but it's a limiting factor for E mount.
Compared to the 14mm F1.8 GM, the 16-35mm F2.8 GM delivers more versatility. It is a zoom lens, for starters, plus it accepts screw-on filters. If you're looking for an all-around amazing landscape lens, the 16-35mm is a better choice than the 14mm prime, although the 14mm lens is better for night sky photography. For the added versatility and reach of the zoom lens, you need to pay an additional $600, which is no small amount.
For even more versatility, it's tough to top the venerable 24-70mm F2.8 standard zoom lens. Sony just released its latest version, the FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM II, within the last couple of months. It's smaller and lighter than the original while offering better image quality and improved autofocus performance. However, it's $2,300. If you want to save a bit, the original 24-70mm F2.8 GM lens is still in production and is currently available for $2,000. From a landscape photography perspective, the original version remains a great choice given its stellar image quality. However, if you're a fan of the latest and greatest and want the best Sony offers, the "II" version is the way to go.
If you have an APS-C camera, like the Sony A6400, A6600 or ZV-E10, Sony recently released a fast wide-angle APS-C lens that could work well for night sky photography, the Sony 11mm F1.8. It's a $550 lens, which is a reasonable price.
At $2,400, this lens is well into "expensive" territory. However, for the very high price point, you get a fantastic, fast zoom lens that will work well for night sky photography and become a staple in any landscape photographer's kit. Further, as of now, it's the best native RF option Canon has. Here's hoping they come out with a fast wide-angle prime lens soon, such as an RF version of its 24mm F1.4L II USM lens. 2ff7e9595c
Коментарі