>>3328044That's irrelevant, i have a method of signalling them.
Actually hit me a line on this discord server and i'll teach you.
I figure it's a smarter idea than the disclosure i've been spreading on /x/. I mean, if people on /p/ try this method with their gear and it works then we will have a lot more evidence to work with collectively.
https://discord.gg/TsyZC9SIt's mostly an /x/ related discord server but we also have a seperate server for science and another for philosophy.
So yesterday i did a lot of camera comparisons and the d3300 seems to be our most likely candidate.
>>3328092This is a fair analogy
>>3327967Hmmm.... well i guess this will be fair enough as 300mm seems to be a range i wouldn't be using for UFO craft. Is there anything with a better sensor below $1000 that would pick up smaller/ less luminous stars at 300mm?
I assume this is because 300mm lenses are usually slower. Which aperture was the webm @300mm taken at?
I think i would be looking at a range of 50-100mm focal length. I usually worked with just a 50mm prime and i'm comfortable with primes. That being said, would it be worth getting a 35-100mm zoom (or any similar range)? Would that have better aperture than the 300mm?
Sorry if i'm complicating things now. I assume a 300mm prime is better than a 50-100mm
I guess the question here is besides the 50mm f1.4 (you said nikkor, do i need an adaptar for this?) is which lens would be most suitable for the task. Preferably an adjustable zoom that is fast in aperture.
I figure we won't be doing many photo stills as we will be recording moving phenomenon. Although this is an impressive night to day conversion lol. Makes one think about such concepts as time and light and reality. :)
It's impressive.
I'm wondering if there is a body that could outperform
>>3327915 in terms of full scene (light) capture
Then again, being able to record everything @ 50mm is definitely meeting the criteria here.
