Popphoto rant

Just started my Popular Photography subscription. The magazine's plain
lousy. Its full of advertisments and the articles aren't worth
anything. No indepth testing reports or insightful articles!! dpreview
does a more thorough job anyday.

Very disappointed!!

Infact, one of the articles about teleconverters didn't look right to
me. The "Editors" opine that on a dSLR (as compared to a film SLR) the
teleconverter will magnify any shake or blur. I don't understand how
can the affect of shake be more magnified on a dSLR than on a 35mm
full-frame film camera? The 1.6x crop factor affects the angle of view
and not the magnification. Right? So the affect of camera shake should
be the same given that you blow up a sub-35mm dSLR and 35mm film shot
in the same proportion. Right?

- Siddhartha

With a 1.6 "crop factor" a typical 70-200mm lens becomes a 112-320mm. Now
add your 2x teleconverter and you have 224-640mm lens. Now add the f stop
loss due to the teleconverter and the slower speed you'll be shooting at -
plus manual focus at the extreme end and camera shake is a real concern.

Bob S.


"Siddhartha Jain" wrote in message
oups.com...
Just started my Popular Photography subscription. The magazine's plain
lousy. Its full of advertisments and the articles aren't worth
anything. No indepth testing reports or insightful articles!! dpreview
does a more thorough job anyday.

Very disappointed!!

Infact, one of the articles about teleconverters didn't look right to
me. The "Editors" opine that on a dSLR (as compared to a film SLR) the
teleconverter will magnify any shake or blur. I don't understand how
can the affect of shake be more magnified on a dSLR than on a 35mm
full-frame film camera? The 1.6x crop factor affects the angle of view
and not the magnification. Right? So the affect of camera shake should
be the same given that you blow up a sub-35mm dSLR and 35mm film shot
in the same proportion. Right?

- Siddhartha

"Siddhartha Jain" wrote in message
oups.com...
Just started my Popular Photography subscription. The magazine's plain
lousy. Its full of advertisments and the articles aren't worth
anything. No indepth testing reports or insightful articles!! dpreview
does a more thorough job anyday.

Very disappointed!!

Infact, one of the articles about teleconverters didn't look right to
me. The "Editors" opine that on a dSLR (as compared to a film SLR) the
teleconverter will magnify any shake or blur. I don't understand how
can the affect of shake be more magnified on a dSLR than on a 35mm
full-frame film camera? The 1.6x crop factor affects the angle of view
and not the magnification. Right?

No. Not angle of view.... FIELD of view.
While the 1.6 crop factor does not REALLY change the true focal length, it
does effect shake when you consider that you'll be enlarging more in order
to achieve the same print sizes. ANy time you enlarge, you are hightening
the blur/shake factors. So... Yes. -In effect, DSLRs DO in fact increase
the chance that you'll see camera-motion blur, meaning technologies like
Canon's IS become more important/useful.

But as for your comments about the magazine in gereral...
-Pop photo is basically a catalogue...with a few articals thrown in so that
it can pretend to be a magazine.
The publisher does NOT CARE one little bit that many of its advertisers are
KNOWN scam shops, so ignore the Pop Photo "Check-rated" BS. It is just
that...BS.
If you want to look at ads, stick to B&H and Adorama. They are quite
legitimate.
Most of the others are crap.
I'd send them their bill without payment and cancel...or if you've already
paid...request cancelation and refund.
The magazine is essentially worthless.

So the affect of camera shake should
be the same given that you blow up a sub-35mm dSLR and 35mm film shot
in the same proportion. Right?

See above.

"Siddhartha Jain" wrote in message
oups.com...
Just started my Popular Photography subscription. The magazine's plain
lousy. Its full of advertisments and the articles aren't worth
anything. No indepth testing reports or insightful articles!! dpreview
does a more thorough job anyday.

Very disappointed!!

Infact, one of the articles about teleconverters didn't look right to
me. The "Editors" opine that on a dSLR (as compared to a film SLR) the
teleconverter will magnify any shake or blur. I don't understand how
can the affect of shake be more magnified on a dSLR than on a 35mm
full-frame film camera? The 1.6x crop factor affects the angle of view
and not the magnification. Right?

No. Not angle of view.... FIELD of view.
While the 1.6 crop factor does not REALLY change the true focal length, it
does effect shake when you consider that you'll be enlarging more in order
to achieve the same print sizes. ANy time you enlarge, you are hightening
the blur/shake factors. So... Yes. -In effect, DSLRs DO in fact increase
the chance that you'll see camera-motion blur, meaning technologies like
Canon's IS become more important/useful.

But as for your comments about the magazine in gereral...
-Pop photo is basically a catalogue...with a few articals thrown in so that
it can pretend to be a magazine.
The publisher does NOT CARE one little bit that many of its advertisers are
KNOWN scam shops, so ignore the Pop Photo "Check-rated" BS. It is just
that...BS.
If you want to look at ads, stick to B&H and Adorama. They are quite
legitimate.
Most of the others are crap.
I'd send them their bill without payment and cancel...or if you've already
paid...request cancelation and refund.
The magazine is essentially worthless.

So the affect of camera shake should
be the same given that you blow up a sub-35mm dSLR and 35mm film shot
in the same proportion. Right?

See above.

In article ,
"BobS" wrote:

With a 1.6 "crop factor" a typical 70-200mm lens becomes a 112-320mm. Now
add your 2x teleconverter and you have 224-640mm lens. Now add the f stop
loss due to the teleconverter and the slower speed you'll be shooting at -
plus manual focus at the extreme end and camera shake is a real concern.

Bob S.


"Siddhartha Jain" wrote in message
oups.com...
Just started my Popular Photography subscription. The magazine's plain
lousy. Its full of advertisments and the articles aren't worth
anything. No indepth testing reports or insightful articles!! dpreview
does a more thorough job anyday.

Very disappointed!!

Infact, one of the articles about teleconverters didn't look right to
me. The "Editors" opine that on a dSLR (as compared to a film SLR) the
teleconverter will magnify any shake or blur. I don't understand how
can the affect of shake be more magnified on a dSLR than on a 35mm
full-frame film camera? The 1.6x crop factor affects the angle of view
and not the magnification. Right? So the affect of camera shake should
be the same given that you blow up a sub-35mm dSLR and 35mm film shot
in the same proportion. Right?

- Siddhartha


May as well add that the rule of thumb is the slowest shutter speed for
hand held use is the reciprocal of the longest focal length. So for a 70
to 200mm the slowest hand held speed for the typical shooter is 1/200th.

Using the tele converter on the 70 to 200 with the 1.6x factor the lens
is equal to a 224-640mm so the slowest hand held speed becomes 1/640th
so yes the editors are right. Hand held vibration or vibration
transmitted by a tripod that is not sturdy enough is greater (or
magnified) on the DSLR with the same lens and converter. On 35mm using
that lens and the 2z the slowest speed would be 1/400.

Note that the above hand held speeds are given for the longest focal
length. Naturally they would be slower at wider settings.

Perhaps the OP was reading magnified as increasing size rather then be
greater in effect.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

In article ,
"BobS" wrote:

With a 1.6 "crop factor" a typical 70-200mm lens becomes a 112-320mm. Now
add your 2x teleconverter and you have 224-640mm lens. Now add the f stop
loss due to the teleconverter and the slower speed you'll be shooting at -
plus manual focus at the extreme end and camera shake is a real concern.

Bob S.


"Siddhartha Jain" wrote in message
oups.com...
Just started my Popular Photography subscription. The magazine's plain
lousy. Its full of advertisments and the articles aren't worth
anything. No indepth testing reports or insightful articles!! dpreview
does a more thorough job anyday.

Very disappointed!!

Infact, one of the articles about teleconverters didn't look right to
me. The "Editors" opine that on a dSLR (as compared to a film SLR) the
teleconverter will magnify any shake or blur. I don't understand how
can the affect of shake be more magnified on a dSLR than on a 35mm
full-frame film camera? The 1.6x crop factor affects the angle of view
and not the magnification. Right? So the affect of camera shake should
be the same given that you blow up a sub-35mm dSLR and 35mm film shot
in the same proportion. Right?

- Siddhartha


May as well add that the rule of thumb is the slowest shutter speed for
hand held use is the reciprocal of the longest focal length. So for a 70
to 200mm the slowest hand held speed for the typical shooter is 1/200th.

Using the tele converter on the 70 to 200 with the 1.6x factor the lens
is equal to a 224-640mm so the slowest hand held speed becomes 1/640th
so yes the editors are right. Hand held vibration or vibration
transmitted by a tripod that is not sturdy enough is greater (or
magnified) on the DSLR with the same lens and converter. On 35mm using
that lens and the 2z the slowest speed would be 1/400.

Note that the above hand held speeds are given for the longest focal
length. Naturally they would be slower at wider settings.

Perhaps the OP was reading magnified as increasing size rather then be
greater in effect.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

Siddhartha Jain wrote:
Just started my Popular Photography subscription. The magazine's plain
lousy. Its full of advertisments and the articles aren't worth
anything. No indepth testing reports or insightful articles!! dpreview
does a more thorough job anyday.

Very disappointed!!

Infact, one of the articles about teleconverters didn't look right to
me. The "Editors" opine that on a dSLR (as compared to a film SLR) the
teleconverter will magnify any shake or blur. I don't understand how
can the affect of shake be more magnified on a dSLR than on a 35mm
full-frame film camera? The 1.6x crop factor affects the angle of view
and not the magnification. Right? So the affect of camera shake should
be the same given that you blow up a sub-35mm dSLR and 35mm film shot
in the same proportion. Right?

- Siddhartha

My logic with regard to the magnified shake question is like this:
There is a physical distance an image must be moved on the sensitive
plane in order for you to consider it blurred. The physical motion of
the camera necessary for sufficient image motion is smaller for smaller
sensors.

Right?


--
Frank ess

Siddhartha Jain wrote:
Just started my Popular Photography subscription. The magazine's plain
lousy. Its full of advertisments and the articles aren't worth
anything. No indepth testing reports or insightful articles!! dpreview
does a more thorough job anyday.

Very disappointed!!

Infact, one of the articles about teleconverters didn't look right to
me. The "Editors" opine that on a dSLR (as compared to a film SLR) the
teleconverter will magnify any shake or blur. I don't understand how
can the affect of shake be more magnified on a dSLR than on a 35mm
full-frame film camera? The 1.6x crop factor affects the angle of view
and not the magnification. Right? So the affect of camera shake should
be the same given that you blow up a sub-35mm dSLR and 35mm film shot
in the same proportion. Right?

- Siddhartha

My logic with regard to the magnified shake question is like this:
There is a physical distance an image must be moved on the sensitive
plane in order for you to consider it blurred. The physical motion of
the camera necessary for sufficient image motion is smaller for smaller
sensors.

Right?


--
Frank ess

Gee, popphoto nothing more than a front for merchandising? Gosh!
Seriously, I'm sorry you got burned. I would recommend, in future,
something like "Peterson's Photographic." They ALL push stuff, but
Peterson's has more meat on the bones, as does "Shutterbug." If it's any
comfort to you, most of us found this out the hard way. When I was a kid,
my dad got the mag every month and it was a pretty decent tech mag, but we
both seem to have grown up.
Speaking of deteriorating standards: is anybody aware that "Cosmopolitan"
used to be a LITERARY magazine????? I have ancient copies to prove it!
Found them in an antique store.

Siddhartha Jain wrote:
Just started my Popular Photography subscription. The magazine's plain
lousy. Its full of advertisments and the articles aren't worth
anything. No indepth testing reports or insightful articles!! dpreview
does a more thorough job anyday.

Very disappointed!

Gee, popphoto nothing more than a front for merchandising? Gosh!
Seriously, I'm sorry you got burned. I would recommend, in future,
something like "Peterson's Photographic." They ALL push stuff, but
Peterson's has more meat on the bones, as does "Shutterbug." If it's any
comfort to you, most of us found this out the hard way. When I was a kid,
my dad got the mag every month and it was a pretty decent tech mag, but we
both seem to have grown up.
Speaking of deteriorating standards: is anybody aware that "Cosmopolitan"
used to be a LITERARY magazine????? I have ancient copies to prove it!
Found them in an antique store.

Siddhartha Jain wrote:
Just started my Popular Photography subscription. The magazine's plain
lousy. Its full of advertisments and the articles aren't worth
anything. No indepth testing reports or insightful articles!! dpreview
does a more thorough job anyday.

Very disappointed!