[quote=ggttc][quote=Gene51]Please post results from both your cameras and both lenses, particularly with pictures taken between 1/60 and 1/250. Just curious. It's just that 1/2000 sec exposure can make any tripod look like a star.
I don'think reading reviews from amateurs or less experienced photographers who have no basis for comparison. The first 10 reviews basically said - I bought this, it didn't break, what a deal. I am so happy I did this. Very little about what cameras and lenses, and what kind of results they got. A review from a trusted source is far more indicative of what you can expect.
Then there is the Moose Peterson video where he says, "if you have a very expensive lens [and camera] and you have a very cheap tripod, you're nuts" I am not saying this applies to you, but maybe Peterson would. $4700 in one case, I think would qualify as expensive camera and lens.
I hope you have good camera insurance. Just sayin'[/quote
I shoot mainly BIF and wildlife...so the lowest I shoot is 500-640. I will try it out tonight at 160 or so on a moonshot.
LOL...I do have camera insurance...and an Optec sling that is around my neck when I take the camera from the cabinet to the camera bag.
And I rarely use tripods...I did try it out on wildlife last week and it suits my purposes.
But an interesting thought...I'll try it at a lower SS.[/quote]
Great shot of the corona!
However, a shutter speed of 1/500 and a distance of 4,294,967,295 meters, or 2.6M miles, you are not likely to see much loos of sharpness due to movement, and 1/500 is shorter than what you would see vibration from shutter shock. I would say that 1/160 would show it.
BTW, I think your camera may be front focusing by about 91,000,000 miles at infinity.