We have here another boring image of a lass on the sand at the beach.

Want to explain this "boring" thing. A while back a viewer on this forum complained that my images as posted were boring because they were of wimmin folk in a running stream, or at the beach or in the hills. He wanted me to post a different kind ( without saying what ). Several folks suggested he just don't look. Same suggestions as were presented to the abusive psychopath in Florida.

As I explore my "stuff" I keep finding images I think would be fun to post.

Enjoy the boredom !

I decided to post these images because of recent discussions about whether or not people should use 2x extenders. I know these are birds, but putting them in the bird subsection will prevent the converter discussion.
The photos are taken with a Nikon 400f2.8s lens. The built in 1.4 converter is being used and coupled with a 2x converter. The wren also has a 5mm extension tube for closer focus.
So, the question is are these photos sharp enough, or should people not use the converters and attempt to gain the extra reach by cropping. I believe that any loss of image quality from using the converter is more than offset by the additional reach and the ability to come closer to filling the frame, but I thought it would be interesting to see where any discussion would go. Those of you who believe that no one should use teleconverters, go ahead and have your say. The photos will be posted in the first reply.

Well, I "purchased" a refurbished lens from Amazon to expand beyond my squirrel stuff.

Canon 18 -135 f/3.5- 5.6, Image Stabilization, USM. I realize it's not the best; however, this is within the budget at this stage. I have 30 days to try it, as it's a free return.

So I took it out for a spin to the nearby place where I did the signs. It's a nice place with beautiful trees, which I like photographing. While it was great to have a lens I could use to get these shots, I missed my other lens when I saw a bird and, yes, a squirrel! I confess when I played enough, I did switch back to my other, and yes, I got several pleasing squirrel shots.

I included the Robin, which was taken with the new lens because I liked that he had something in his mouth. Nice surprise when I discovered it when I edited it.

So here's what I did. I don't have much experience with this type of photography, so I gave it a try! Please feel free to comment.

Anyone ever deal with a company called Mercari?

It's supposed to be a consumer-to-consumer site. They claim that their policy is that they don't process your payment until three days after you receive a product, and that you can return it within the three-day period.

I've seen a few websites say they are legit.

Sounds Great.

They have a BBB rating of A

Sounds Great.

Their customer rating on the BBB site is 1.06 stars out of five (over 1000 reviews). WHAT? Given that some people misclick, I wouldn't have thought that was possible.

I see a listing for a Nikon Z 7 ii today for Under $400 -- with the 24-70 claiming that it has about 300 clicks. What????

My first, second and third reactions are this has got to be a scam. But if I'm not charged until I receive the item, I'm not sure I'm seeing what it is.

Anyway -- comfortable in the belief that if it looks too good to be true, it almost certainly is. I'm not going to bite.

But does anyone know what the play on the part of the seller is here.

If I want to improve a Nikon D500 image (20.5 mb), can it be made comparable to that of a D850 (45.4 mb)?

If so, how? Is that equally so for JPEG and RAW formats?

What are the trade offs?

Many thanks! I feel the way I did in analyzing family finances to pay for three undergraduate degrees at state schools in NC. The goals were for all of us to be debt free when they graduated. The kids were 1, 4, and 8. I could define various goals, factors, and assumptions. But I was never confident in my ability to set up the equations accurately. FYI the Andrew Tobias Managing Your Money program had a fill-in-the-blank section that handled it well. The upshot was that I needed to make more money and I figured the potential of my day job exceeded that of any side enterprises.

Agreed, zero concern using my only cameras....once a legit solar filter of 16.5 stop or more is installed, it's perfectly fine to point a multi-thousand dollar camera at the sun all day long....and I even survived with my eyesight after using the viewfinder to look thru and focus the camera....(This is my 5th end of the world that I've survived!...lol)...if it's safe enough for my sensor, it's safe enough for my eyes

I used a K&F ND100000, worked perfectly as advertised!

The settings the OP used were way overexposing, in my experienced opinion.... And no need to wait until an eclipse to practice... I got my filter a month before the eclipse and simply used it on the first sunny day, at 1:40 pm, to duplicate the sun's altitude, to practice...

I used 1/800th, f11, ISO 100 as a starting point, and used my single point auto focus on the edge of the sun, looking thru the viewfinder, once the camera locked focus, I simply turned the auto focus off (switched to MF)... And snapped several photos and second or two apart.... removed camera from tripod, went inside, looked at the photos on the back of the camera, and was surprised to see everything I expected to see: sharp edges on the disk, sunspots in great detail (for a 300mm lens on a cropped sensor), and even the texture of the suns surface... Replaced the camera on the tripod, changed the shutter speed up and down from 1/800th, went back inside, slower ss overexposed, faster ss the disc looked too dark....so I was lucky with my initial guess

Preceding the eclipse day, I took photos on any day that the SOHO website showed a decent amount of sunspots... There was zero doubt in my mind that I could capture all photos of the eclipse pre and post totality... And I did, every one in perfect focus, with the couple of sunspots that were there the day of the eclipse, with a D3500 and a non-VR 70-300mm kit lens on a tripod

After reading much about the totally different exposure setting for the totality, I simply guessed and had to make small adjustments, settling on F/6.3 300.0mm 1/80s ISO-100 for totality.... And F/6.3 300mm 1/1600s ISO -100 for Diamond Ring and Bailey's Beads.... All of totality was handheld using a 70-300 VR lens on a D5600, using single point auto focus, focusing on the outer ring... Camera grabbed auto focus every time.

Another note I would suggest, I to NEVER, EVER simply rotate the lens to "infinity" and expect it to be in focus.... Some lens are, many are not... Use your autofocus, pre focus, then switch lens or camera to Manual Focus and don't touch the focus ring

It seems that our universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, and that imposes several restrictions on us. If we were able to travel a certain distance from earth, we would never be able to return because of the rapid expansion. Also, distant light will never reach us because it is moving away from us too fast.

When the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy collide in millions of years, not one of the billions of stars will collide with another. A spaceship traveling at the speed of light could travel indefinitely in a straight line and not crash into anything. These are two results of the universe being incomprehensively large.

Unrelated, but interesting:
When you shuffle a deck of cards, you will get a result that has never been gotten before.
There are more trees on earth than stars in the universe.

This guy is interesting - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FxTgaHnbXE