If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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 did you not check out the mag before you subscribet to it? i got a 3 yr subscription for 10.49 off ebay and am totally happy with it. keeps me updated at least - and i think i have an own opinion to a point where i can disagree with parts of the zine w/o freaking out. sid |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Frank ess" wrote in message
... ... 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? I think the conclusion in the last sentence is right, but I'd state the premise a bit differently. The "physical distance an image must be moved" to consider it blurred depends on the size of the pixels. If there are 2,000 pixels fit across a 10 mm width sensor, each pixel is .005 mm across. On a sensor with the same number of pixels that's 20 mm wide, each pixel is .01 mm across. It would seem to me that the perceived blur for the same physical motion would be greater for the smaller sensor. Alan |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
In message ,
"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. Perhaps, but the increased need in relative shutter speed is not any greater for a 1.6x crop camera than a full frame, when using the TC, so the article makes an incorrect assertion, if the OP is paraphrasing it correctly. -- John P Sheehy |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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. They are all pretty thin on content but I currently subscribe to POP, Outdoor Photographer and Digital Photo Pro. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A Rant re Focal Length Multipliers | C Wright | Digital Photography | 18 | January 29th 05 03:44 PM |
Popphoto rant | Siddhartha Jain | Digital Photography | 36 | January 18th 05 06:08 PM |
Popphoto rant | Siddhartha Jain | Digital Photography | 0 | January 17th 05 06:08 PM |
Purchasing Camera Experience...... Bad hair Day Rant - Blowing Off Steaml... | BobS | Digital Photography | 3 | August 21st 04 05:07 AM |