Personally, I wouldnt do either of the things matt has suggested, you dont need to put up the sharpen value within camera (if anything take it down…..your camera wont process the image as much and will give you more free reign in your choosen gfx package)

and I wouldnt bother shooting in raw, max res jpeg is just as good for us non-pro’s (and for some pro’s so I hear) and of course doesnt eat up anywhere near as much space.

as a digital beginner I just ‘shoot first ask questions later’ after I’ve got the camera settings I want……….

if its not got whirly bits on it I use shutter priority, stopped down twice, as i hear thats where a lense works best (and i can see the difference between fully open and stopped down a bit). if it does have whirly bits I use shutter priority and depending on how lucky i feel, somewhere between 100 and 250th

just go to the local airport or wherever and snap to your hearts content, i needed it to get the hang of my 500mm non stabilised lense……

sir yes sir!

the picture shows the aircraft obviously in a configuration where the ‘airbrakes’ have been deployed, just look at the wings………the aileron deflection is horrendous AND in the wrong direction for a starboard banked turn AND the flaperons are counteracting the deflection of the aileron, it is also very noticeable that the rudders are deflected at large angles, assymetrically.

what you see there is a NECCESSARY gap for the hinge to actually work nothing more, nothing less. this is not an issue when the aircraft is in a ‘normal’ flight configuration.

i dont deny that over-g, but my point still stands, its an aerodynamically unefficient solution…….oh, and why not have two turrets, one above and one below as in the b29, your only shooting at one target at a time, and as technology improves you could employ both at the same time.

Flight has reported that the turret creates a boundary layer around the nose of somthing of the order of 80 INCHES not only will all the air data sensors found there be useless, it’ll do nothing for speed, range, endurance and fuel consumption, a top mounted turret would have actually been MORE aerodynamically efficient.

over-g IF what you reckon is true and that the thing is useless over such a distance at such a height it limits its operational usefullness to tactical/theatre wide applications…….now, can they point it DOWN????

nice pics kev…..seems your exposure metering in the centre only…..your 146 pics are bright in the middle but darker to either side??