(meteorobs) Fisheye lens misunderstanding and photography update
clp at alumni.caltech.edu
Mon Dec 7 13:10:09 EST 2009
Aliasing is more obvious with high quality fast lenses because they produce
a small spot size. A slow lens, or one with poor optics will spread the
point source meteor image over several pixels and essentially act as an
I've seen Tom's images, and the effect is definitely aliasing, not any kind
of lens artifact.
Chris L Peterson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo S" <l.stachowicz at btinternet.com>
To: "Global Meteor Observing Forum" <meteorobs at meteorobs.org>
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: (meteorobs) Fisheye lens misunderstanding and photography
> Hi Thomas,
> In general, lenses for still photography are much better corrected for
> aberrations than lenses made for video cameras, since moving pictures
> hide many of the flaws that are easily seen in stills. That means
> extreme wide angles are very hard and expensive to make to a standard
> that will be good enough for still photography.
> The upshot is that you won't find anywhere near as many super-wide
> lenses for still photography, and when you do find them, they are
> usually super expensive.
> Here is a good example, the Nikkor 8mm/2.8 :
> If you can find one, it'll cost you many thousands of dollars!
> Don't forget, if you are using Canon EOS, you can get adapters to mount
> most other makes of lens, including Nikkors, although in general I think
> Canon's lens line up is better for fast-wide lenses.
> I'm afraid if you want to cover the whole sky, you will need multiple
> still cameras. I'd recommend using Canon 20Ds since they are fairly
> cheap and easy to come by now, and the sensor offers excellent
> performance, even compared to the current generation of DSLRs.
> Could you post an example of one of the meteors you shot that has a
> "spiral look"? It sounds more like a lens artifact (coma perhaps?) than
> aliasing, which would be due to the sensor.
More information about the Meteorobs