>>3327911>f/6.3Sorry, forgot to read before posting.
Ok it seems f/6.3 on the D3400 is a no go zone for the goals i have in mind.
I'm assuming this is at max aperture as you mentioned in
>>3327910 maxing out the hardware.
Side question:
Does video have an equivalent of RAW and the same capabilities of increasing the exposures as in lightroom, but for the video file?
Is there a body within $700 that would outperform the d3300 at f6.3?
>>3327911Sorry to ask so much of you, do you think you could find the highest aperture that the d3400 can record the whole scene at night with?
Because then we can figure out the range of lenses we can work with.
I figure on one hand i'm very grateful to have such an oppurtunity and am happy with whatever means i'm given.
On the other, i figure if we're going for a certain goal that can progress scientific comprehension of our ''universe'' (or entities living within such universe)
then
we should better do it right :)
I wouldn't want to find myself with the problem of not being able to record phenomenon that i can see with my eyes.
Zoom is therefore an optional luxury, but i think such a luxury in a field of science is certainly worth looking at.
Now, the 300mm @ 6.3 definitely underperforms in this scenario.
I am wondering if there are, at this price bracket, either better lenses that will suit the task, or, failing that, a better body that would perform at f/6.3
The d3300 seems to be a phenomenal camera at its' price bracket so if there's no better body then i'm hoping there is a good (fast) zoom option (or fixed tele if zoom isn't possible)
I'm guessing fixed tele will alway beat the far end of the zoom anyway.
Seems i need to do some education on nikon lenses for a while
