| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/25/2006 06:07:38 PM · #26 |
| Will be interesting to see your shots and what you think of the TC after shooting with it for a bit. I borrowed a friend's 1.4TC for my 70-200 and 280mm didn't really drop my jaw nor work too well for shooting birds. They are still too small. The crop factor isn't giving you additional reach/zoom, it's just restricting the width of your field of view to that of a 400-whatever mm lense (which I'm sure you knew anyway). Not raining on your parade, just interested in what you think of it in use. |
|
|
|
08/25/2006 06:14:30 PM · #27 |
| The thing I can't believe is not that you bought a 1.4x TC but that you bought another CF card and 2 gigs to boot! How long is this Oregon journey? 5 years? :P |
|
|
|
08/25/2006 06:20:48 PM · #28 |
| Damn man, I carry three 2 gig cards with me and will regularly fill 1 and half of another in an afternoon of going out to shoot. Shoot everything! Memory is cheap. ;) |
|
|
|
08/25/2006 06:27:46 PM · #29 |
Oh I know. I go through a card pretty quick also but if I remember correctly I think Robert said on outings he normally just shoots a few "exposures".
|
|
|
|
08/25/2006 10:59:18 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Oh I know. I go through a card pretty quick also but if I remember correctly I think Robert said on outings he normally just shoots a few "exposures". |
Yah, but I am attending my nephew's wedding, and I'm expected to do some shooting there also. I'm not the official photographer, but even so...
R.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2006 11:06:55 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Will be interesting to see your shots and what you think of the TC after shooting with it for a bit. I borrowed a friend's 1.4TC for my 70-200 and 280mm didn't really drop my jaw nor work too well for shooting birds. They are still too small. The crop factor isn't giving you additional reach/zoom, it's just restricting the width of your field of view to that of a 400-whatever mm lense (which I'm sure you knew anyway). Not raining on your parade, just interested in what you think of it in use. |
That's sort of fuzzy thinking. You can say the same about ANY lens cross-matched with ANY format. 90mm is a very wide angle lens on a 4x5 inch film camera, for example. Look at it this way; with the tele-extender, I cover on the full sensor what I'd otherwise have to crop to get by using less than the full sensor.
I acknowledge that 1.4 is not a HUGE difference in reach, but it's as much as I can use on the 70-200mm f/4L without running into autofocus issues. The 2x tele-extender is not recommended for this lens for that reason; it needs an f/2.8 lens to perform well focusing.
In any case, the birds I'm talking about are ON the water; geese, swans, the like, and I've never quite been able to reach them without significant cropping. This is a step in the right direction without breaking the bank. And if I ever manage to pop for a 300 or 400mm piece of L glass, it'll work on that too :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2006 11:18:24 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
The crop factor isn't giving you additional reach/zoom, it's just restricting the width of your field of view |
That's sort of fuzzy thinking. You can say the same about ANY lens cross-matched with ANY format. |
Not sure what is fuzzy about it, it's simple physics, but I don't want the dead horse icon thrown my way nor am I trying to argue it ;). Like I say, not downing you and I'm interested to see what you do with it. You take great shots, so I have no doubt you will put it to great use. I was shooting the little pieces of fluff twittering around this god forsaken state with the tc on, nothing so large as swans and that so I'm sure it will be great. |
|
|
|
08/25/2006 11:19:27 PM · #33 |
You don't need a TC, just build yourself A floating bird blind!
|
|
|
|
08/25/2006 11:26:58 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Not sure what is fuzzy about it, it's simple physics, but I don't want the dead horse icon thrown my way nor am I trying to argue it ;). |
I still don't understand; the goal is to be able to take a given image without cropping: to do so, you need a longer lens for more reach. The tele-extender makes the lens 1.4x as long; without it I have to crop more. Where's the physics come into it?
R.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2006 11:37:28 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Not sure what is fuzzy about it, it's simple physics, but I don't want the dead horse icon thrown my way nor am I trying to argue it ;). |
I still don't understand; the goal is to be able to take a given image without cropping: to do so, you need a longer lens for more reach. The tele-extender makes the lens 1.4x as long; without it I have to crop more. Where's the physics come into it?
R. |
I think he was just saying that the birds around him are still too small to see the birds with effectiveness, even at 400mm. The other stuff just seems to be semantics there, Robert.
Message edited by author 2006-08-25 23:37:50.
|
|
|
|
08/26/2006 09:24:18 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Not sure what is fuzzy about it, it's simple physics, but I don't want the dead horse icon thrown my way nor am I trying to argue it ;). |
I still don't understand; the goal is to be able to take a given image without cropping: to do so, you need a longer lens for more reach. The tele-extender makes the lens 1.4x as long; without it I have to crop more. Where's the physics come into it?
R. |
My reply was to this statement, Robert:
"My 320mm equivalent is now 448mm :-) I got REACH at last! "
The physics comes into it here. Your 200mm lense with a 1.4TC on it is a 280mm lense. No more, no less, that is it - 280mm. Your crop factor crops what you see, so you will see the same amount of the world as if looking through your theoretical 448mm lense but nothing that you see will be the same size it would through a 448mm lense. Call it semantics I guess, but it is a common misperception (note that I did not accuse you of making it) and is just the wrong way of understanding the situation.
Bottom line: crop factor does not equal additional zoom/reach
|
|
|
|
08/26/2006 09:46:30 AM · #37 |
But the bird or whatever is projected onto a greater proportion of the sensor than it would be without the crop factor. So you may not be getting extra photons, but they were way beyond the resolution of the sensor anyway. you are on the other hand getting a higher resolution image of the subject in terms of pixels on the sensor. That's 'reach' in anyone's book.
The question for a camera with a fixed resolution sensor is how much of the subject fills the frame. so for a 35mm and aps sensor of the SAME resolution the crop factor gives additional resolution to the SUBJECT and thus effective magnification is increased.
Of course most dslrs with full frame sensors also have a greater resolution so the point is moot.
Message edited by author 2006-08-26 09:47:08. |
|
|
|
08/26/2006 11:09:13 AM · #38 |
Read more here if you like: click here
If you don't want to read the whole thing, search for the phrase 'it is in no way magnified'
This really isn't so hard to understand...
Here is a bird taken at 280mm on a fullframe camera. The white area is the extra stuff you see that you would not see on a 1.6 crop sensor because it is, yes, cropped out.
Here is a bird taken at 280mm on a 1.6 crop:
Open these in two browser windows (do not just look at the thumbnails) Does the bird look closer to you? Is it bigger? Have you gained reach? Are you able to view things further away on the 1.6 crop than the full frame?
No to all of the above. You get the same size image, it just fills the fram on a crop sensor camera because there is less frame to fill. The subject has not changed size, you are not able to zoom in to something 1.6x further away, etc.
Message edited by author 2006-08-26 11:16:49. |
|
|
|
08/26/2006 11:17:27 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Not sure what is fuzzy about it, it's simple physics, but I don't want the dead horse icon thrown my way nor am I trying to argue it ;). |
I still don't understand; the goal is to be able to take a given image without cropping: to do so, you need a longer lens for more reach. The tele-extender makes the lens 1.4x as long; without it I have to crop more. Where's the physics come into it?
R. |
My reply was to this statement, Robert:
"My 320mm equivalent is now 448mm :-) I got REACH at last! "
The physics comes into it here. Your 200mm lense with a 1.4TC on it is a 280mm lense. No more, no less, that is it - 280mm. Your crop factor crops what you see, so you will see the same amount of the world as if looking through your theoretical 448mm lense but nothing that you see will be the same size it would through a 448mm lense. Call it semantics I guess, but it is a common misperception (note that I did not accuse you of making it) and is just the wrong way of understanding the situation.
Bottom line: crop factor does not equal additional zoom/reach |
Oh, yes, of course. It should say 448mm EQUIVALENT, but I thought that was implied clearly enough in the previous part of the statement. I've told plenty of people the same thing :-) Sorry for the confusion. 200mm on 1.6 = 320mm equivalent, with the tele-extender, 448mm equivalent...
Robt.
Message edited by author 2006-08-26 11:18:39.
|
|
|
|
08/26/2006 11:18:42 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Oh, yes, of course. It should say 448mm EQUIVALENT, but I thought that was implied clearly enough in the previous part of the statement. I've told plenty of people the same thing :-) Sorry for the confusion.
Robt. |
Yeah I figured you knew it heheh. Where's that frigging dead horse icon already. |
|
|
|
08/26/2006 11:24:03 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Read more here if you like: click here
If you don't want to read the whole thing, search for the phrase 'it is in no way magnified'
This really isn't so hard to understand...
Here is a bird taken at 280mm on a fullframe camera. The white area is the extra stuff you see that you would not see on a 1.6 crop sensor because it is, yes, cropped out.
Here is a bird taken at 280mm on a 1.6 crop:
Open these in two browser windows (do not just look at the thumbnails) Does the bird look closer to you? Is it bigger? Have you gained reach? Are you able to view things further away on the 1.6 crop than the full frame?
No to all of the above. You get the same size image, it just fills the fram on a crop sensor camera because there is less frame to fill. The subject has not changed size, you are not able to zoom in to something 1.6x further away, etc. |
To clarify even further, the key thing here is, on the given sensor, how many pixels does the bird/red dot cover? By using the tele-extender, on my sensor, I have to crop less to fill the frame with the bird/red dot, so it is a higher-resolution image.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/26/2006 11:32:17 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Read more here if you like: click here
If you don't want to read the whole thing, search for the phrase 'it is in no way magnified'
This really isn't so hard to understand...
Here is a bird taken at 280mm on a fullframe camera. The white area is the extra stuff you see that you would not see on a 1.6 crop sensor because it is, yes, cropped out.
Here is a bird taken at 280mm on a 1.6 crop:
Open these in two browser windows (do not just look at the thumbnails) Does the bird look closer to you? Is it bigger? Have you gained reach? Are you able to view things further away on the 1.6 crop than the full frame?
No to all of the above. You get the same size image, it just fills the fram on a crop sensor camera because there is less frame to fill. The subject has not changed size, you are not able to zoom in to something 1.6x further away, etc. |
I get what you are saying, but the fact is the sensor size is a factor when considering focal length. You're arguement is 200mm is 200mm regardless of the sensor size. This is true, but the imapct is different.
Instead of looking at the telephoto end, consider the wide angle. 20mm is 20mm regardless of the sensor size, but 20mm on a full frame sensor is different ball game than 20mm on a 1.6 sensor, from a practical point of view.
The math is correct but the practical applications are way different.
Message edited by author 2006-08-26 11:32:47.
|
|
|
|
08/26/2006 12:06:26 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Instead of looking at the telephoto end, consider the wide angle. 20mm is 20mm regardless of the sensor size, but 20mm on a full frame sensor is different ball game than 20mm on a 1.6 sensor, from a practical point of view.
The math is correct but the practical applications are way different. |
This is absolutely the point, yes. While it's valid to say that "a 200mm lens is a 200mm lens regardless of the platform it is mounted on", because the lens itself does not change, so physically it's all the same thing, we don't live in this abstract world.
In our practical world, we are better off defining lenses as "wide angle", "normal", "moderate telephoto", "long telephoto", and so forth. And this is exactly what we do when we use crop factors and "equivalents". The 35mm film camera is the "accepted standard", and we define our coverage based on that standard. So to mount a 200mm lens on a 1.6 crop camera gives angular coverage at the sensor that is equivalent to a 320mm lens on a FF camera, and this is what we mean when we refer to "320mm equivalent".
There's no optical magic that a long lens performs that somehow makes it any different from a shorter one; the so called "telephoto compression" is not dependent on on the actual focal length of the lens used. To prove it to yourself, go out with your widest lens and your longest lens and a tripod. Mount the longest lens and frame up a scene that allows you to show the "compression" of near and far objects in the scene. Take a picture, then replace the telephoto with the wide angle, changing nothing about the camera/tripod setup. Shoot that wide view, and go home.
Now open up the telephoto shot in your image editor, then open the WA shot. CROP the WA shot so it shows exactly the same area as the telephoto shot, and then magnify the WA shot so the image dimensions on your screen are the same as the telephoto shot. Toggle back and forth between the two and you will see that they are identical in every respect, EXCEPT that the telephoto shot is sharper and crisper, because you have lost resolution by cropping the WA shot so radically.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2006-08-26 12:06:59.
|
|
|
|
08/26/2006 12:11:21 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Instead of looking at the telephoto end, consider the wide angle. 20mm is 20mm regardless of the sensor size, but 20mm on a full frame sensor is different ball game than 20mm on a 1.6 sensor, from a practical point of view.
The math is correct but the practical applications are way different. |
This is absolutely the point, yes. While it's valid to say that "a 200mm lens is a 200mm lens regardless of the platform it is mounted on", because the lens itself does not change, so physically it's all the same thing, we don't live in this abstract world.
In our practical world, we are better off defining lenses as "wide angle", "normal", "moderate telephoto", "long telephoto", and so forth. And this is exactly what we do when we use crop factors and "equivalents". The 35mm film camera is the "accepted standard", and we define our coverage based on that standard. So to mount a 200mm lens on a 1.6 crop camera gives angular coverage at the sensor that is equivalent to a 320mm lens on a FF camera, and this is what we mean when we refer to "320mm equivalent".
There's no optical magic that a long lens performs that somehow makes it any different from a shorter one; the so called "telephoto compression" is not dependent on on the actual focal length of the lens used. To prove it to yourself, go out with your widest lens and your longest lens and a tripod. Mount the longest lens and frame up a scene that allows you to show the "compression" of near and far objects in the scene. Take a picture, then replace the telephoto with the wide angle, changing nothing about the camera/tripod setup. Shoot that wide view, and go home.
Now open up the telephoto shot in your image editor, then open the WA shot. CROP the WA shot so it shows exactly the same area as the telephoto shot, and then magnify the WA shot so the image dimensions on your screen are the same as the telephoto shot. Toggle back and forth between the two and you will see that they are identical in every respect, EXCEPT that the telephoto shot is sharper and crisper, because you have lost resolution by cropping the WA shot so radically.
Robt. |
I agree with Bear. Focal length does not mean much if you don't specify the sensor (of film) size. My camera had a 7.9mm lens at the wide end. On a full frame camera this would be extremely wide, but on my camera it is only slightly wide. |
|
|
|
08/26/2006 12:12:55 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Instead of looking at the telephoto end, consider the wide angle. 20mm is 20mm regardless of the sensor size, but 20mm on a full frame sensor is different ball game than 20mm on a 1.6 sensor, from a practical point of view.
The math is correct but the practical applications are way different. |
This is absolutely the point, yes. While it's valid to say that "a 200mm lens is a 200mm lens regardless of the platform it is mounted on", because the lens itself does not change, so physically it's all the same thing, we don't live in this abstract world.
In our practical world, we are better off defining lenses as "wide angle", "normal", "moderate telephoto", "long telephoto", and so forth. And this is exactly what we do when we use crop factors and "equivalents". The 35mm film camera is the "accepted standard", and we define our coverage based on that standard. So to mount a 200mm lens on a 1.6 crop camera gives angular coverage at the sensor that is equivalent to a 320mm lens on a FF camera, and this is what we mean when we refer to "320mm equivalent".
There's no optical magic that a long lens performs that somehow makes it any different from a shorter one; the so called "telephoto compression" is not dependent on on the actual focal length of the lens used. To prove it to yourself, go out with your widest lens and your longest lens and a tripod. Mount the longest lens and frame up a scene that allows you to show the "compression" of near and far objects in the scene. Take a picture, then replace the telephoto with the wide angle, changing nothing about the camera/tripod setup. Shoot that wide view, and go home.
Now open up the telephoto shot in your image editor, then open the WA shot. CROP the WA shot so it shows exactly the same area as the telephoto shot, and then magnify the WA shot so the image dimensions on your screen are the same as the telephoto shot. Toggle back and forth between the two and you will see that they are identical in every respect, EXCEPT that the telephoto shot is sharper and crisper, because you have lost resolution by cropping the WA shot so radically.
Robt. |
We are on the same page Bear. The funny thing is we used to have the same conversation about 35mm format vs. medium format back in the film days.
A 50mm lens on a Nikon F4 is way different than a 50mm lens on a Hassleblad.
The more things change the more they stay the same!
Good luck on your trip!
|
|
|
|
08/26/2006 12:23:23 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
We are on the same page Bear. The funny thing is we used to have the same conversation about 35mm format vs. medium format back in the film days. |
You betcha; I was just elaborating on the principle with a concrete example.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/26/2006 12:32:54 PM · #47 |
Speaking of concrete examples, lets see some pictures already! :-)
|
|
|
|
08/26/2006 12:36:22 PM · #48 |
|
|
|
08/26/2006 12:40:07 PM · #49 |
I have to think about the song from The Golden Earring every time I see this thread.. (do you guys know them over there? I have no clue how world-wide-famous they are....)
The devil.. the devil made me dooo it - Ooohooohoohooooo
:D
it's a great song!
ontopic again, sorry Robt ;-)
|
|
|
|
08/26/2006 12:42:23 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by biteme:
I have to think about the song from The Golden Earring every time I see this thread.. (do you guys know them over there? I have no clue how world-wide-famous they are....)
The devil.. the devil made me dooo it - Ooohooohoohooooo
:D
it's a great song!
ontopic again, sorry Robt ;-) |
only song I know by them is radar love. If that is the same band but I may be stupid:)
Message edited by author 2006-08-26 12:42:47. |
|
