In english.... Welcome to "LetsZoomIt", the channel with quite mixed content :) SuperZoom, Macro, Microscope, iPhone photo, Astro photography, Planets, Moon & Sun and more... Feel free to share! Thanks :D
På svenska.... Välkommen till "LetsZoomIt", kanalen med ganska blandat innehåll :) SuperZoom, Makro, Mikroskop, iPhone-foto, Astro-fotografering, Planeter, Månen & Solen och mer... Dela gärna! Tack :D
@@bradpitt4547 I don’t know how to say in English but in the settings you can set vibration reduction to different stages like for example “active” But if you have your camera on a tripod I think it’s recommended to have “VR” set to “off”
Please explain! What I did was turning in focus as good as I could (smallest possible star), and now its not a Nasa telescope I used, but only camera (used with the digital zoom too). and with all the stuff in our atmosphere this night it could not get better then this. When I focused "beyond infinitive" it got blurred and looked just like flickering flames. (unfocused)
How many of you agree that this video is not "single zoom out" but stitching of more than 3 videos? I think there may be more than 3 videos "stitched" one after another. Bcz I feel like zoom out is done atleast from 3 different positions in a straight line. So it may not be a single stretch zoom out. Also the girl position changed in screen after a "tilt" or "shake" of camera.
See full video at my videos. Only one video, but as I show in text in video, first cropped (to get more "zoom") then its the digital zoom from camera then last part is the 125x optical zoom of the camera. No lies! And the original video is filmed in 16:9 so of course a lot on the both sides are cut out (see original video) 👍
I get this monster 2 months ago & thats real OPTICAL zoom 125X. Problem in this max zoom + digital zoom is a focus... The stability is double : mechanical optic + digital... so that's fine for me...
I do not have this camera. But how u can film @12000mm when the cam only can zoom optical up to 3000mm and with digital zoom (not really zoomed) up to 6000mm ?
The camera actually have 4X digital zoom (2x means 3000x2=6000mm and 4x means 3000x4=12000mm, and sometimes just for fun I crop the "4k" video to 1920x1080 wich means I get another 2x of the 12000mm so then I can say the zoom becomes 24000mm. So If just watch at a small screen it does not look bad at all
For those who think we are underwater (water shield) because of its appearance should also know we can also focus on planets near to us. Do that and realise that its not the same effect you get when zooming in on light billions of years in the past. The microwave of space is beyond anyones imagination. God is good but mans mind will execpt lies, the firmament could just be (water in)our atmospheric shield
I agree, imagin this camera with a bigger, better sensor and be able to film in real 8K (then we could crop it to 1080 pixel and get even "more zoom") 😜
Please help me.I have Nikon D7500 and would like to made some food makro pictures (Bugs ants,mushroms etc) What is the best solituon what lens should i use and are under 300€ ? Thank you
Goes to show you that the Bible is written truth and satan was a liar from the begining...All these so called early astronomers of the enlightenment were satan worshippers and heavily into occult teachings. They used theories to explain outerspace and are now proven true thanks to the trickery of images painted and CGI by NASA. We have been indoctrinated into believing water which always finds its level is actually stuck to a circular ball by gravity(which has never been proven to exist)..
Hi, I had a lot of stuff behind and to get the trawberry in focus I choosed to use the white background but just like you say... evrything behind was very blurry because the depht of field was only some milimeters.
Theese images are all taken just with the lens itself set at Macro setting. ( I think I zoomed a little, maybe around 100mm to be able to get an ok distance then in this video you see I crop the images to make it look like "zoom in"
Issue with P1000 it's not ideal at 3000mm range quality bit poor that's due sensor in camera is tiny u get lot of vignetting on pics. Nikon P1000 ideal for shooting the moon more is for landscape
Nothing do with nasa this camera very expensive and zoom range is no good for shooting quality photos. It came out in 2018 no updates in 2020 Nikon P950 came out with 83X Zoom that's actually more manageable than than 125 X optical zoom on Nikon P1000
@@rthoc71 look it up, this is an incredibly popular camera. The contract states that Nikon will help out with optics and information, providing the cameras and all that… for free. AND discontinuing the camera. It has everything to do with nasa. You can look this up with just a quick search lol
I think you’ve got this backwards. Your unfocused version is actually focused and vice versa. Just looking at this without having any knowledge of the subject, it’s easily distinguishable which is focused and which one isn’t. It’s not even about the focus. It’s that you’re zoomed in much further when you can see multiple circles inside one another.
You're wrong. There is a common misconception of how astronomical telescopes work.... For seeing the detail of planets you do want a reasonably high magnification. However stars are so far away that no telescope on earth or even in space can resolve details of a star. A galaxy yes, stars no. For that reason most telescopes designed to image stars do not even have very high magnification. No point. The Hubble telescope for example has magnification of only about x350. What Hubble does have is a big mirror so it can capture a lot of light. This allows it to "see" stars that are so far away they are too faint to see. The Hubble can capture billions of times more light than the human eye. Because of the above the best images of stars we can expect should be just tiny stationary points of ligh. Even the in focus shots in this video are being made bigger than they should be by limitations in the lenses and atmospheric disturbances.
