tradesmith45

The Tommy appears to be where the lens is focused & is perhaps 1/3 the distance but is still way OOF. I don't have many critter shots further than about 175m. Here's one the EXIF says the lens is ...

Sparky, Jerry's comments about how AF points work are spot on but your statement above means you may indeed have equipment problems so testing is needed. Of your 10 images, 4 are close to being ...

Yes, I see worms too but they would note be so pronounced if the images were sharp.  I've never seen results like these from the XT2/100-400.

Hi Sparky, Isn't Africa Safari wonderful!! I was there in '17. Yes, you've done some things wrong but a good sharpening tool can recover very good results from these. In my experience, critically ...

Thanks for this.  Looks better than I would have thought.  What was the exposure for the light painted slick rock? I rented a 17mm f1.2 & got surprisingly bloated bright stars in center frame. ...

I choose aurora FL with a thought of the foreground I'm going to have and the resulting image I envision. While capturing the vast structure of an interesting aurora can yield a strong image, a ...

For me, size of the foreground & the number of images required to cover it in a pano determines what FL I'm most likely to use. I worry I'm more likely to make a mistake if using a large number of ...

This is interesting Chris.  There are many variables involved & its unlikely that star size is much of a function of FL assuming all the images have the same angular FOV.  The 135 has the largest ...

Now that's more like what I'd expect to see! Glad that helped. ISO 3200 can work for short exposure times w/ good PP. Its amazing how well SLS handles the perspective distortion. I suspect it uses ...

Hey Jack,  I've done some similar reprocessing over the years.  Its a good thing to do to see our past mistakes & what our new "tricks" bring to the party. I'm a bit surprised the re-processed ...

While I've been clear that filtering has a subtle effect, some of the responses show I perhaps should provide a bit more context. For astro imaging, we often say success is: (1) 1/3rd sky condition

I uses SLS for stacking too & his companion SSS for stacking tracked images. Used the later for all the stacks posted in the DPR astro thread about my shoot-out. I also use Nebulosity v4 for ...

Yes, the spatial filtering or slight smoothing is applied to RAW data in the camera and can not be prevented in exposures over 5 sec in the XT3 & 2 & probably all X-trans. It mainly impacts the ...

I'm unable to explain why all 3 of these cameras seem to have an over-abundance of red & blue bright pixels in some parts of undemosiaced images.  Though they demonstrate other issues, the color ...

To be clear Jim, what I'm saying is NOT that the XT100 is better because it's Bayer but rather because its unfiltered. We don't know how an unfiltered X-trans would perform for long exposures ...

In our original post, we looked briefly at the XT10 & found its dark frame histogram was truncated indicating it is also filtered. Before buying my 1st Fuji, I collected dark frames from several ...

Perhaps, the more diffuse green imaging is a product of the larger number of green pixels in the X-trans CFA??  Some stars larger than 1-pix can be imaged by only green pixels. If your interested, ...

Yes.

Thanks Mark for your usual deep examination. Its helpful for better understanding how the specifics affect real imaging. Recall from our previous examination of darks & from my experience working ...

Thanks Eric for the Iridient conversion. Eric, my language about the filtering on X-trans files has been sloppy. Regardless of the RAW converter used, all 3 cameras show the same number of stars ...