FishmanPut your goddamned hand in the goddamned Box of Pain.Registered Userregular
That's a solid piece of work. Unfortunately it's not visible in the Southern Hemisphere, so there's no opportunity for me to view it, but at the same time at least I'm not being tormented by the knowledge that I might be able to see it if only this damn Winter would stop raining.
The photos I took tonight will need to be cropped and cleaned up in Photoshop for maximum effect (it was hot, windy, and I'm in the greater LA metro area so light pollution is a thing despite my best efforts), but I think some of them turned out pretty solid, here's a preview (click through for full-res, plz, it looks a lot better than the preview link):
That's a solid piece of work. Unfortunately it's not visible in the Southern Hemisphere, so there's no opportunity for me to view it, but at the same time at least I'm not being tormented by the knowledge that I might be able to see it if only this damn Winter would stop raining.
My only regret is not heading out a couple of days earlier, when the comet was a little brighter. It was just barely visible to my unaided eye.
We've had foggy, cloudy evenings pretty much ever since the comet started being visible, which is disappointing but otoh then I don't have to feel bad about not dragging my arse up a hill every night.
Waterton's always been one of my favourite parks, just absolutely gorgeous.
0
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
Went to the Beach today. Happily Oregon beaches aren't like California or Florida beaches. I think the closest I ever got to anybody was about 30ft, and there was a good steady 10+mph breeze the entire time. Pretty much only had to mask up to and from the parking lot, and that was a precautionary measure more than anything else.
That's a solid piece of work. Unfortunately it's not visible in the Southern Hemisphere, so there's no opportunity for me to view it, but at the same time at least I'm not being tormented by the knowledge that I might be able to see it if only this damn Winter would stop raining.
NEOWISE has now travelled far enough that it's above the horizon for a very short window after Sunset and a local astrophotographer has shots and now I'm racked with insecurity.
I’ve never had any kind of formal photography learnin but lately I’ve had a renewed interest in the hobby.
Could someone point me in the direction of your favorite beginners guides/blogs for the basic concepts like composition for the different kinds of photography and general information that’s good to know for taking pictures?
I know it’s kind of a vague request. I’m just looking for general guides and not photography textbooks.
What kinds of lenses do you guys carry with you when you go out? I have a 50mm fixed lens, a 28mm fixed lens and the 18-55mm kit lens that came with my Canon Rebel SL2. I think I want some sort of zoom lens as well but I'm still very entry-level and I'm curious, if you were going for a photography walk and you could only carry 2 or 3 lenses, what would you pick?
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
edited August 2020
One option would be to take what you've got, go on a few walks, and see what you find you're missing out on for taking shots. Which shots have you missed because your equipment couldn't handle it? Are there some really wide angle shots and you couldn't back up enough? Were there some birds your 18-55 didn't have the reach for? Did you want to get a macro shot and couldn't get close enough? Figure out what's irritating you most and then plug that hole with the appropriate lens, whether that's a wide angle, telephoto lens, macro, or prime lens. Given what you have, I'd consider just taking one of the primes and the 18-55mm kit lens and calling it a day. This is IMO the most intelligent thing to do. Let's not guess on what you need, let's find out so you don't end up wasting your money. Gear only matters if not having it means you missed enough shots to make it worth fixing.
An alternative bit of advice I've heard given to new photographers that I strongly disagree with for my own photography is to only bring a single prime lens and "zoom with your feet". It's an option anyway, if doing so won't get you killed because you would have had to walk off a cliff to make the shot. Prime lenses do tend to be lighter, cheaper, have a wider aperture, and sharper than a zoom covering their range. They're just more of a hassle to deal with. They do take one option out of your hands--zooming. Which can be helpful when you're still figuring out the rest of the camera. In your case, if you want to try that route, you'd probably want to use your 28mm fixed lens (the advice is to usually take a 50mm full-frame equivalent lens and use it religiously until you understand the ins and outs of perspective). The 28mm is pretty close to 50mm full frame equivalent, so go nuts.
Finally, if you feel like you're lacking in the telephoto area, you might consider adding a 70-300mm lens (edit: or 55-300mm). Note that as you get farther out, image stabilization (IS in Canon parlance) is necessary unless you do a lot of shooting (like with a rifle) and have steady hands or use a tripod religiously. I personally would not buy a telephoto I intend to hand-shoot without IS. The more recent 70-300mm Canon kit lens I seem to recall reading being pretty decent? Maybe check the reviews. As a newcomer you probably don't give a shit about the pixel peeping. I don't anyway. Just don't get a 70-300 unless it has IS.
For me, if I'm going on a photography walk and can only carry 2 or 3 lenses, I have chosen this holy trinity for my APS-C format camera--but it cost me ~$1500 so I do not recommend any of this until you find you're missing enough shots that it justifies spending bunches of money.
* 18-300mm super zoom (handles ordinary wide angle to about as extreme a telephoto as you can reasonably hand-hold). This one is my mainstay that I've put most of my photos on. Why bother changing lenses? Cost me $700 and I love it. Contrast, sharpness and bokeh are okay--the 35mm prime does all of them better--but the flexibility makes this lens a winner for me 9 times out of 10. These days when I'm walking around town wanting to get photographs I don't even bother with my other two lenses. This particular lens is only available natively to Nikon. Canon does have an 18-200, which is a pretty wide range and they do make good glass.
* 10-20mm wide angle (to go to extreme wide angle). For really wide angle landscapes and their ilk. I've found I use this less because it requires swapping lenses and when I'm out and about I don't like the risk of getting dust in the sensor (had it happen once already). And 18mm is pretty wide, if not ridiculously wide. I just don't need that much field of view most of the time.
* 35mm prime but I basically never end up using it. I also don't do portraits or indoor work so the F/1.8 aperture is of less interest to me. YMMV.
This combination was expensive for a newcomer, but honestly given how much I use the super zoom I'm quite happy with it. If you're doing a lot of indoor work, those zooms won't work out as nicely since at best they're F/3.5 and at full zoom can be out to F/6.3, which is not wonderful. The super-zoom's bokeh in particular is mediocre, but convenience rules for me. I can't speak to the third party (Tamron and Sigma) super zooms.
That was a lot of verbiage, but this is coming from someone who picked up the hobby not quite a year ago. This is what has worked for me, and you need to figure out what works for you.
tl;dr: take your lenses out and find out what you use and what you need, add a telephoto, go nifty fifty, or go hog wild and buy a super zoom
An alternative bit of advice I've heard given to new photographers that I strongly disagree with for my own photography is to only bring a single prime lens and "zoom with your feet". It's an option anyway, if doing so won't get you killed because you would have had to walk off a cliff to make the shot.
Yeah, I'm with you here -- I tried this once and found out that I couldn't take a photo of something because it was on the other side of a river. Or it was on the second level of a building. Or it was across a valley / up a mountain / etc.
(and even without that, "zoom with your feet" changes composition as well. It's an interesting exercise, sure, but it depends on what you want to do. If you want to learn more about composition with certain restrictions, it's great -- but honestly you can do the same thing with a phone camera, those have a fixed angle and are a heck of a lot more portable. If you want to make images of things, then zoom lenses give you a lot more options).
I currently have (I'm in Olympus-land so 2x crop factor, plus I've built up to this over a decade or so of saving up and slowly upgrading lenses) the 12-40/2.8 as everyday lens, then the 40-150/2.8 if I'm feeling like carrying around more weight / expect to want to take shots of wildlife. Before that I got along fine for a long long time with the 12-50/3.5-6.3, which was slower but smaller and lighter, and had pretty reasonable closeup. Then I realised that I don't actually take a lot of macro photos when wandering around outside, and the ones I did take didn't look the way I wanted, so stopped worrying about that as much.
I used to also have a 8mm fisheye that I'd stick in a pocket, and there's a couple of trips where I used it a heck of a lot which was fun but I also don't really miss it if I don't bring it along. (panorama mode / image stitching apps on phones go a long way for just fitting in more of the world, which is where I'd mostly use it).
To Ed's original question, I agree with Orca -- just stick with the 18-55 and find out where it's not working out. One thing that you might find useful is taking _all_ your photos and looking at how many of them you took at either end of the range -- if most of them are at the zoomiest end of things, you probably would like more telephoto. If a lot of them are wide open, maybe you want a faster lens, etc.
What kinds of lenses do you guys carry with you when you go out? I have a 50mm fixed lens, a 28mm fixed lens and the 18-55mm kit lens that came with my Canon Rebel SL2. I think I want some sort of zoom lens as well but I'm still very entry-level and I'm curious, if you were going for a photography walk and you could only carry 2 or 3 lenses, what would you pick?
I have an 18-35mm for general street photography and landscapes, a 50mm for portraiture, and maaaaybe my 85mm if I think I might want to grab some unobtrusive candids or just need a bit of extra zoom. i have a low-end 70-300mm but i don't generally do a lot of zoom work, and the aperture options aren't great so it doesn't see a lot of use.
If money were no object, I'd probably upgrade to a nice 24-70mm for all general purpose close-ish stuff and a 70-200mm for any zoom work I might want to do, and probably still carry my 50mm just because it's small and super versatile
Houk the Namebringer on
0
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
What kinds of lenses do you guys carry with you when you go out? I have a 50mm fixed lens, a 28mm fixed lens and the 18-55mm kit lens that came with my Canon Rebel SL2. I think I want some sort of zoom lens as well but I'm still very entry-level and I'm curious, if you were going for a photography walk and you could only carry 2 or 3 lenses, what would you pick?
I have an 18-35mm for general street photography and landscapes, a 50mm for portraiture, and maaaaybe my 85mm if I think I might want to grab some unobtrusive candids or just need a bit of extra zoom. i have a low-end 70-300mm but i don't generally do a lot of zoom work, and the aperture options aren't great so it doesn't see a lot of use.
If money were no object, I'd probably upgrade to a nice 24-70mm for all general purpose close-ish stuff and a 70-200mm for any zoom work I might want to do, and probably still carry my 50mm just because it's small and super versatile
Just so we are clear, that’s for a full frame camera right? Ed’s is an APS-C, so divide by 1.5 or 1.6 to get the crop sensor equivalent. Assuming my assumption is correct. Otherwise never mind.
edit: I ask since 24-70mm is common in the full frame world, but 16-18mm is the more typical wide-but-not-ultra-wide minimum I see in the crop sensor world. And 24mm full frame is roughly equivalent to 16mm crop sensor.
I don't have very many lenses and I'm also new to photography, but I always keep a 22mm f/2.0 attached to my Canon M50. I find that it's super versatile, capable of taking wide landscapes, producing well-blurred backgrounds for portraits and macro photography, and the fairly wide aperture makes it good for night photography (incl. basic astrophotography).
The lens that gets the next most use is my 55-200mm zoom lens.
I think the next lens I want to get is the 32mm f/1.4 from Canon, or maybe the 30mm f/1.4 from Sigma. Sigma generally makes good budget lenses, right? Their 30mm is like $190 cheaper than the 32mm from Canon.
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
edited August 2020
Hell of a view!
edit: this is how frequently I use each focal length. If you want help running this math on your own photos I can provide a python script and then it's just a matter of getting the dependencies installed and you can find out yourself what you're using the most:
Those high marks down at the end are the minimum focal lengths for my 18-300mm (big one) and 10-20mm (smaller one to the left of it). So I stay pretty wide, then otherwise tend to zoom WAY the hell in if available. I could probably get by with a 16-85mm if I had to, though I would feel the pinch for the zoom for the really long reach stuff.
Orca on
+1
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
I don't have very many lenses and I'm also new to photography, but I always keep a 22mm f/2.0 attached to my Canon M50. I find that it's super versatile, capable of taking wide landscapes, producing well-blurred backgrounds for portraits and macro photography, and the fairly wide aperture makes it good for night photography (incl. basic astrophotography).
The lens that gets the next most use is my 55-200mm zoom lens.
I think the next lens I want to get is the 32mm f/1.4 from Canon, or maybe the 30mm f/1.4 from Sigma. Sigma generally makes good budget lenses, right? Their 30mm is like $190 cheaper than the 32mm from Canon.
From my reading, Sigma tends to make good budget lenses, but their quality control is not as good as the first party lenses. You may get excellent glass, or you may get a stinker. In some cases people will just return the glass until they get a good one. It also varies by the lens. They do make some consistently excellent lenses (the Art series I think?) but those tend to be expensive. Somebody else want to pipe up? I only know about the third party lenses due to reading in passing.
One other thing about looking at what sorts of photos you take is that it's very possible to get along with a gap in the range your lenses cover, as long as you don't take photos that would go in that gap.
A while ago while I was still using film cameras and backpacking around, I used an OM4Ti with a 24/2 lens and 65-200/4, and that was all, and it did just fine; I could take photos of dim interiors / general street scenes / landscapes with the 24/2, and then for specific subjects, starting at 65mm was workable, and those made for a very compact pair of lenses to carry around / switch between.
What kinds of lenses do you guys carry with you when you go out? I have a 50mm fixed lens, a 28mm fixed lens and the 18-55mm kit lens that came with my Canon Rebel SL2. I think I want some sort of zoom lens as well but I'm still very entry-level and I'm curious, if you were going for a photography walk and you could only carry 2 or 3 lenses, what would you pick?
I have an 18-35mm for general street photography and landscapes, a 50mm for portraiture, and maaaaybe my 85mm if I think I might want to grab some unobtrusive candids or just need a bit of extra zoom. i have a low-end 70-300mm but i don't generally do a lot of zoom work, and the aperture options aren't great so it doesn't see a lot of use.
If money were no object, I'd probably upgrade to a nice 24-70mm for all general purpose close-ish stuff and a 70-200mm for any zoom work I might want to do, and probably still carry my 50mm just because it's small and super versatile
Just so we are clear, that’s for a full frame camera right? Ed’s is an APS-C, so divide by 1.5 or 1.6 to get the crop sensor equivalent. Assuming my assumption is correct. Otherwise never mind.
edit: I ask since 24-70mm is common in the full frame world, but 16-18mm is the more typical wide-but-not-ultra-wide minimum I see in the crop sensor world. And 24mm full frame is roughly equivalent to 16mm crop sensor.
well I do currently shoot on a crop sensor (every time i look at moving up someone releases another shiny new high-end model and i decide to wait a little longer for prices to drop across the board, rinse and repeat), hence the 18-35mm as my go-to walking around lens. if I were to spend the money on a proper 24-70mm, then yeah i'd probably move up to a full frame at the same time. though i actually like shooting around 24-35mm (i tend to crop in pretty close in general) even on my crop sensor, so if it were me i'd be happy with a 24-70 even then.
0
Options
LuvTheMonkeyHigh Sierra SerenadeRegistered Userregular
A couple of photos that I took of the pyrocumulus cloud over the Lake Fire last night. I got there just after the sun had dropped below the horizon line (and there were some mountains behind me) so they didn't turn out perfect, but I still think they turned out fairly well and I'm particularly proud of the detail in the cloud in the first one. The brake lights in the second were accidental, someone pulled up as I took the shot and I think it softened the image overall, but was kinda a neat effect. I was about 15 miles from the fire.
+16
Options
WeaverWho are you?What do you want?Registered Userregular
Y'all know I'm an ancient socialist, who does not at all buy into mainstream ideas of "patriotism".
However, this picture is pretty sweet.
+5
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
Going north to visit a friend next month, and he lives in class 2 area of the Bortle scale. Very little light pollution. Gonna snag some sweet astrophotography.
Dixon on
+7
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
edited September 2020
Fire evacuation photos from my house in Western Oregon. A big fire about 6 miles away and some flareups closer. Taken at about 1:45pm.
Its som The Road shit let me tell you. Smoke thick as fog and ash raining silently down.
Posts
Nice
This will be here until I receive an apology or Weedlordvegeta get any consequences for being a bully
My only regret is not heading out a couple of days earlier, when the comet was a little brighter. It was just barely visible to my unaided eye.
This will be here until I receive an apology or Weedlordvegeta get any consequences for being a bully
Big ol' H-Scroll breaking Pano shot
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
NEOWISE has now travelled far enough that it's above the horizon for a very short window after Sunset and a local astrophotographer has shots and now I'm racked with insecurity.
Could someone point me in the direction of your favorite beginners guides/blogs for the basic concepts like composition for the different kinds of photography and general information that’s good to know for taking pictures?
I know it’s kind of a vague request. I’m just looking for general guides and not photography textbooks.
SteamID: edgruberman GOG Galaxy: EdGruberman
An alternative bit of advice I've heard given to new photographers that I strongly disagree with for my own photography is to only bring a single prime lens and "zoom with your feet". It's an option anyway, if doing so won't get you killed because you would have had to walk off a cliff to make the shot. Prime lenses do tend to be lighter, cheaper, have a wider aperture, and sharper than a zoom covering their range. They're just more of a hassle to deal with. They do take one option out of your hands--zooming. Which can be helpful when you're still figuring out the rest of the camera. In your case, if you want to try that route, you'd probably want to use your 28mm fixed lens (the advice is to usually take a 50mm full-frame equivalent lens and use it religiously until you understand the ins and outs of perspective). The 28mm is pretty close to 50mm full frame equivalent, so go nuts.
Finally, if you feel like you're lacking in the telephoto area, you might consider adding a 70-300mm lens (edit: or 55-300mm). Note that as you get farther out, image stabilization (IS in Canon parlance) is necessary unless you do a lot of shooting (like with a rifle) and have steady hands or use a tripod religiously. I personally would not buy a telephoto I intend to hand-shoot without IS. The more recent 70-300mm Canon kit lens I seem to recall reading being pretty decent? Maybe check the reviews. As a newcomer you probably don't give a shit about the pixel peeping. I don't anyway. Just don't get a 70-300 unless it has IS.
For me, if I'm going on a photography walk and can only carry 2 or 3 lenses, I have chosen this holy trinity for my APS-C format camera--but it cost me ~$1500 so I do not recommend any of this until you find you're missing enough shots that it justifies spending bunches of money.
* 18-300mm super zoom (handles ordinary wide angle to about as extreme a telephoto as you can reasonably hand-hold). This one is my mainstay that I've put most of my photos on. Why bother changing lenses? Cost me $700 and I love it. Contrast, sharpness and bokeh are okay--the 35mm prime does all of them better--but the flexibility makes this lens a winner for me 9 times out of 10. These days when I'm walking around town wanting to get photographs I don't even bother with my other two lenses. This particular lens is only available natively to Nikon. Canon does have an 18-200, which is a pretty wide range and they do make good glass.
* 10-20mm wide angle (to go to extreme wide angle). For really wide angle landscapes and their ilk. I've found I use this less because it requires swapping lenses and when I'm out and about I don't like the risk of getting dust in the sensor (had it happen once already). And 18mm is pretty wide, if not ridiculously wide. I just don't need that much field of view most of the time.
* 35mm prime but I basically never end up using it. I also don't do portraits or indoor work so the F/1.8 aperture is of less interest to me. YMMV.
This combination was expensive for a newcomer, but honestly given how much I use the super zoom I'm quite happy with it. If you're doing a lot of indoor work, those zooms won't work out as nicely since at best they're F/3.5 and at full zoom can be out to F/6.3, which is not wonderful. The super-zoom's bokeh in particular is mediocre, but convenience rules for me. I can't speak to the third party (Tamron and Sigma) super zooms.
That was a lot of verbiage, but this is coming from someone who picked up the hobby not quite a year ago. This is what has worked for me, and you need to figure out what works for you.
tl;dr: take your lenses out and find out what you use and what you need, add a telephoto, go nifty fifty, or go hog wild and buy a super zoom
No matter what, get out and shoot!
Yeah, I'm with you here -- I tried this once and found out that I couldn't take a photo of something because it was on the other side of a river. Or it was on the second level of a building. Or it was across a valley / up a mountain / etc.
(and even without that, "zoom with your feet" changes composition as well. It's an interesting exercise, sure, but it depends on what you want to do. If you want to learn more about composition with certain restrictions, it's great -- but honestly you can do the same thing with a phone camera, those have a fixed angle and are a heck of a lot more portable. If you want to make images of things, then zoom lenses give you a lot more options).
I currently have (I'm in Olympus-land so 2x crop factor, plus I've built up to this over a decade or so of saving up and slowly upgrading lenses) the 12-40/2.8 as everyday lens, then the 40-150/2.8 if I'm feeling like carrying around more weight / expect to want to take shots of wildlife. Before that I got along fine for a long long time with the 12-50/3.5-6.3, which was slower but smaller and lighter, and had pretty reasonable closeup. Then I realised that I don't actually take a lot of macro photos when wandering around outside, and the ones I did take didn't look the way I wanted, so stopped worrying about that as much.
I used to also have a 8mm fisheye that I'd stick in a pocket, and there's a couple of trips where I used it a heck of a lot which was fun but I also don't really miss it if I don't bring it along. (panorama mode / image stitching apps on phones go a long way for just fitting in more of the world, which is where I'd mostly use it).
To Ed's original question, I agree with Orca -- just stick with the 18-55 and find out where it's not working out. One thing that you might find useful is taking _all_ your photos and looking at how many of them you took at either end of the range -- if most of them are at the zoomiest end of things, you probably would like more telephoto. If a lot of them are wide open, maybe you want a faster lens, etc.
I have an 18-35mm for general street photography and landscapes, a 50mm for portraiture, and maaaaybe my 85mm if I think I might want to grab some unobtrusive candids or just need a bit of extra zoom. i have a low-end 70-300mm but i don't generally do a lot of zoom work, and the aperture options aren't great so it doesn't see a lot of use.
If money were no object, I'd probably upgrade to a nice 24-70mm for all general purpose close-ish stuff and a 70-200mm for any zoom work I might want to do, and probably still carry my 50mm just because it's small and super versatile
Just so we are clear, that’s for a full frame camera right? Ed’s is an APS-C, so divide by 1.5 or 1.6 to get the crop sensor equivalent. Assuming my assumption is correct. Otherwise never mind.
edit: I ask since 24-70mm is common in the full frame world, but 16-18mm is the more typical wide-but-not-ultra-wide minimum I see in the crop sensor world. And 24mm full frame is roughly equivalent to 16mm crop sensor.
The lens that gets the next most use is my 55-200mm zoom lens.
I think the next lens I want to get is the 32mm f/1.4 from Canon, or maybe the 30mm f/1.4 from Sigma. Sigma generally makes good budget lenses, right? Their 30mm is like $190 cheaper than the 32mm from Canon.
My view from my temporary home office
edit: this is how frequently I use each focal length. If you want help running this math on your own photos I can provide a python script and then it's just a matter of getting the dependencies installed and you can find out yourself what you're using the most:
Those high marks down at the end are the minimum focal lengths for my 18-300mm (big one) and 10-20mm (smaller one to the left of it). So I stay pretty wide, then otherwise tend to zoom WAY the hell in if available. I could probably get by with a 16-85mm if I had to, though I would feel the pinch for the zoom for the really long reach stuff.
From my reading, Sigma tends to make good budget lenses, but their quality control is not as good as the first party lenses. You may get excellent glass, or you may get a stinker. In some cases people will just return the glass until they get a good one. It also varies by the lens. They do make some consistently excellent lenses (the Art series I think?) but those tend to be expensive. Somebody else want to pipe up? I only know about the third party lenses due to reading in passing.
A while ago while I was still using film cameras and backpacking around, I used an OM4Ti with a 24/2 lens and 65-200/4, and that was all, and it did just fine; I could take photos of dim interiors / general street scenes / landscapes with the 24/2, and then for specific subjects, starting at 65mm was workable, and those made for a very compact pair of lenses to carry around / switch between.
well I do currently shoot on a crop sensor (every time i look at moving up someone releases another shiny new high-end model and i decide to wait a little longer for prices to drop across the board, rinse and repeat), hence the 18-35mm as my go-to walking around lens. if I were to spend the money on a proper 24-70mm, then yeah i'd probably move up to a full frame at the same time. though i actually like shooting around 24-35mm (i tend to crop in pretty close in general) even on my crop sensor, so if it were me i'd be happy with a 24-70 even then.
I need you to sneak into Stone's facilities nearby and see if any of their Mission Warehouse Sour still exists
And then steal it. You can keep half.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
However, this picture is pretty sweet.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
Grabbed a shot of the moon
Can't seem to get it any clearer, I think just with the quality of the lens.
It's eerie watching the shadow creep a long the surface. It's pretty quick.
I had had a few good shots of the little one, but max upload is 2mb it seems.
EDIT:
Here is a 2nd pic, at an earlier phase. This is without a 2x refractor on the lens.
Going north to visit a friend next month, and he lives in class 2 area of the Bortle scale. Very little light pollution. Gonna snag some sweet astrophotography.
Its som The Road shit let me tell you. Smoke thick as fog and ash raining silently down.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981