Not an insect, more likely a plant seed sticking to your front lens,

CB

I guess it's the nose cone after sending up a satellite or something similar.
Trash falling from the sky.
Like in old times, when people left their trash in the mountains...

Badminton shuttlecock.



I think so.

cb294 wrote:Not an insect, more likely a plant seed sticking to your front lens,

CB

Anything sticking to the front lens will be wildly out of focus, and just appear as a very fuzzy dark patch (and only if is big enough). Small things sticking to the front lens cannot be seen! It is only in cartoons that a fly walking on an astronomers telscope lens seems to be walking on the moon.

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:

cb294 wrote:Not an insect, more likely a plant seed sticking to your front lens,

CB

Anything sticking to the front lens will be wildly out of focus, and just appear as a very fuzzy dark patch (and only if is big enough). Small things sticking to the front lens cannot be seen! It is only in cartoons that a fly walking on an astronomers telscope lens seems to be walking on the moon.

Than what do you think it is Ejnar? I've been trying to convince people that with an aperture set at 6.3 you don't see much at all that isn't in the focused range...

Lolli wrote:I guess it's the nose cone after sending up a satellite or something similar.
Trash falling from the sky.
Like in old times, when people left their trash in the mountains...

I was thinking that at first, but not a lot of rockets launch in Montana. Moreover, I would think that the engineers would try to prevent "trash" from landing in national parks.

climbinmandan wrote:I was thinking that at first, but not a lot of rockets launch in Montana. Moreover, I would think that the engineers would try to prevent "trash" from landing in national parks.

Uh, yeah. Ditto that.

climbinmandan wrote:

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:Anything sticking to the front lens will be wildly out of focus, and just appear as a very fuzzy dark patch (and only if is big enough). Small things sticking to the front lens cannot be seen! It is only in cartoons that a fly walking on an astronomers telscope lens seems to be walking on the moon.

Than what do you think it is Ejnar? I've been trying to convince people that with an aperture set at 6.3 you don't see much at all that isn't in the focused range...

I agree with Ejnar's post.

Dan, to convince people, just use the same camera, lens, and settings, and put a piece of crud on the lens and take a photo focused at the same distance (infinity). There is your experiment.

You're kind-of helping my point there. Check out the difference in focus between those two.

rebelgrizz wrote:It is a bug...it has legs and antennae...you probably have a better camera than I do.

The camera thing is my point. I know exactly what my settings were, and they weren't conducive to any amount of focus at the sort of range that would have made a bug look that large... Heck, it was overcast, if I would have had my aperture tight enough to focus that well on a short distance object the bug would have been motion-blurred because my shudder speed would've been way slow.

climbinmandan wrote:

rebelgrizz wrote:It is a bug...it has legs and antennae...you probably have a better camera than I do.

The camera thing is my point. I know exactly what my settings were, and they weren't conducive to any amount of focus at the sort of range that would have made a bug look that large... Heck, it was overcast, if I would have had my aperture tight enough to focus that well on a short distance object the bug would have been motion-blurred because my shudder speed would've been way slow.

The side-view mirror of your car is not terribly out of focus, and it's a lot closer to you than that moth.