RichA wrote:
On May 1, 7:34 pm, "Rita Berkowitz" wrote:
RichA wrote:
Why would anyone willingly go FF for telephoto work? Yes, it would be
nice to be able to fill the frame of an FX camera with the image, but
it's unrealistic, depending on your subject, unless you want to invest
in massive telelphotos or give up speed to keep the weight down.
Why not? I think it breaks every terrestrial and celestial boundary of
stupidity using APS-C or APS-H when FF is giving you a much better image.
It's easier than you think to fill the frame with FX; I do it all the time.
You wouldn't happen to be from the backwoods of Tennessee where all the
inbreeds crop everything from their digital images to their testicles.
Here's a filled frame FX shot handheld at 1,000mm. Yes, no cropping
whatsoever and the large print made from it look much better than the
reduced for web image.

http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com/whisper.htm

I'd be curious to see images from a 300mm f2.8+2x converter and the
D300 at 600 ISO compared to it.
And there is the weight issue as well. But if you can do it with the
D3, do it.



Don't you have cheap coolie labour available where you live?
I actually guess that Rita shot that at a zoo, but that might be a
little unfair of me.