Equivalency of focal length has its limits

Incubus wrote:
[…]
On the other hand, their 24Mp APS camera costs a lot less than a 45Mp FF
camera. In addition, their 24Mp APS with 300mm lens costs an awful lot less
than a FF camera with 400 - 500mm lens. I would say the "reach" argument is
valid on that basis.

It will also be smaller & weigh less.


-hh

Incubus wrote:
-hh wrote:
Incubus wrote:
[…]
On the other hand, their 24Mp APS camera costs a lot less than a 45Mp FF
camera. In addition, their 24Mp APS with 300mm lens costs an awful lot less
than a FF camera with 400 - 500mm lens. I would say the "reach" argument is
valid on that basis.

It will also be smaller & weigh less.

That is true, although not an advantage for everyone; I can use a slower
shutter speed with my heavier camera and old, heavy manual focus Nikkor
telephoto lens than I ever could with equivalent DX gear because the size and
weight helps to keep it more stable.

My POV is mostly that once one starts using the longer/faster telephoto lenses,
there's never a problem with them "not being heavy enough" for stability. For example,
a generic 70-200mm f/2.8 IS is ~3lbs and a prosumer dSLR body is ~2lbs (total 5lbs).

And this is before one exploits the crop DX gear's ability to shoot the same basic field
of view with a shorter telephoto lens versus a FF with a longer lens. For example,
replace the 200mm with a 300mm in the above...a 300mm f2.8 IS is ~5lbs just on its
own (plus its a prime without any zoom), so you're easily lugging a 7lb system before
tripod, etc.


Of course, if you have a VR lens, that might well be moot.

Yes, that too; VR/IS is another trading-off factors of cost, weight, performance, etc.


-hh

In article , Incubus
wrote:


My POV is mostly that once one starts using the longer/faster telephoto
lenses,
there's never a problem with them "not being heavy enough" for stability.
For example,
a generic 70-200mm f/2.8 IS is ~3lbs and a prosumer dSLR body is ~2lbs
(total 5lbs).

Try the older AF Nikkor 70 - 300G - the bog standard version without VR. It's
very light and plastic and I had an awful job holding the camera and lens
steady when I briefly owned one. I used it with a D300. Granted, one would
prefer a tripod with an equivalent focal length of 450mm but it was difficult
to control at focal lengths that I could shoot handheld with a heavier lens.

that lens is not particularly good, especially when compared to a nikon
70-200mm f/2.8 vr, even if the vr is off.

In article , Incubus
wrote:

Try the older AF Nikkor 70 - 300G - the bog standard version without VR.
It's
very light and plastic and I had an awful job holding the camera and lens
steady when I briefly owned one. I used it with a D300. Granted, one
would
prefer a tripod with an equivalent focal length of 450mm but it was
difficult
to control at focal lengths that I could shoot handheld with a heavier
lens.

that lens is not particularly good, especially when compared to a nikon
70-200mm f/2.8 vr, even if the vr is off.

I think I used it once to take a photo of the Moon before selling it on. It
came with the D300, which was the only reason I had it.

I am told that the VR version is better

it is, but even that is not in the same class as a 70-200/2.8 vr, the
f/4 version, or even the old 80-200 non-vr.

but there are a number of cheaper
lenses with a similar focal length that would probably be just as good for my
purposes.

that depends on your purposes.

Incubus wrote:
-hh wrote:
Incubus wrote:
-hh wrote:
Incubus wrote:
[…]
On the other hand, their 24Mp APS camera costs a lot
less than a 45Mp FF camera. In addition, their 24Mp
APS with 300mm lens costs an awful lot less than a
FF camera with 400 - 500mm lens. I would say the
"reach" argument is valid on that basis.

It will also be smaller & weigh less.

That is true, although not an advantage for everyone;
I can use a slower shutter speed with my heavier camera
and old, heavy manual focus Nikkor telephoto lens than
I ever could with equivalent DX gear because the size
and weight helps to keep it more stable.

My POV is mostly that once one starts using the longer/
faster telephoto lenses, there's never a problem with
them "not being heavy enough" for stability. For example,
a generic 70-200mm f/2.8 IS is ~3lbs and a prosumer
dSLR body is ~2lbs (total 5lbs).

Try the older AF Nikkor 70 - 300G - the bog standard version
without VR. It's very light and plastic and I had an awful
job holding the camera and lens steady when I briefly owned one.
I used it with a D300. Granted, one would prefer a tripod
with an equivalent focal length of 450mm but it was difficult
to control at focal lengths that I could shoot handheld with
a heavier lens.

I'm on Canon; the equivalent lens might have been the old
75-300 f/4.5-5.6 which I found very soft longer than 200mm,
so immediately replaced it with the IS/VR version which was
only slightly less bad...but still soft at 200mm+ even with
good film and on a tripod.

I was lucky enough to have traded that lens in well before
my local small business camera store went out of business
due to the digital age to replace it with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS
that I still have today. Even with a 1.4x on it, it is much
sharper, although also heavier.

Because of weight, I picked up a "kit" lens a few years ago of
a Canon EF-S 18-135mm IS f/4.5-5.6 which I've been pleasantly
surprised at its performance (plus its much lighter in the bag).
IMO, this 18-135 is probably intended to be a modern EF-S version
of Canon's ancient (introduced 1998) EF 28-135mm IS … I'd used
one of these for years back in film days (still have it, although
its gyros are getting sticky). This 18-135, along with an EF-S
10-22mm, were the two lenses I just took on a trip to Rapa Nui where
the subjects were almost exclusively landscapes. Used it several
times, along with the (broken - see other thread) tripod, so both
pieces of gear proved to be worth taking along; should get a chance
to start to look at the pics from the trip this coming weekend;
need to change around some HDD/SSDs before uploading.


-hh

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 12:26:14 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
wrote:

Try the older AF Nikkor 70 - 300G - the bog standard version without VR. It's
very light and plastic and I had an awful job holding the camera and lens
steady when I briefly owned one. I used it with a D300. Granted, one would
prefer a tripod with an equivalent focal length of 450mm but it was difficult
to control at focal lengths that I could shoot handheld with a heavier lens.

If one is even reasonably serious, why would they compromise
themselves with that lens? That is not a standard to base a comparison
upon.

I shoot DX for the "length", but it involves much more than just
equivocal fl. Started with a D70 18-70 kit lens and 1st gen
70-200/f2.8 VR. Added a TC-20 for more length for wildlife photography
and sports car races. Later went crazy and got a 1st gen 200-400 f/4
VR. Have had it repaired once. Then added a TC-14 as got more serious
about wildlife. Have also added a Tokina 12-24 f/4 and Rokinon manual
8mm fisheye for limited WA use. Nikon 18-200 (hurt) and 18-300
walkabouts added along the way as well.

I shoot 99=% handheld. The 200-400 will easily push most anyone to
their limits. For the most part I find it too restrictive to use at
the racetracks behind fences and it is definitely harder to pan
smoothly with. 70-200 + TC-14 , has been my go to lately here.

Depending on subject one cannot always win with shutter speed. Feather
movement in wind, atmospheric turbulence etc, cannot be overcome even
with VR.

FWIW, a good friend of mine has been getting positive results with the
newer 200-500 f/5.6 on his D5300.

YMMV.