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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
In message ,
Bob Salomon wrote: 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. No; unless the editors said that the same lens with the same TC will require a faster shutter speed with the 1.6x crop, which is not what the OP implied. The OP implied that the editors said that putting a 2x converter on a digital will require more of a shutter speed adjustment than with full-frame film (less than half the exposure time). It's one of those things that doesn't need to be said, and only is said because someone was looking at it the wrong way. -- John P Sheehy |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... 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. It is different to the extent that eventual enlargement (prints) will be a greater ratio of enlargement compared with full-size sensor shots, and will therefore reveal more evidence of movement. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
In message fNWGd.1647$Nu.781@fed1read04,
"MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote: wrote in message .. . 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. It is different to the extent that eventual enlargement (prints) will be a greater ratio of enlargement compared with full-size sensor shots, and will therefore reveal more evidence of movement. That is an obvious "given". What the paraphrase of the article implies is that you have to compensate more when you take your lens off of a DSLR with a crop factor, and stick a converter in-between, which is nonsense. You double the denominator for a 2x TC, regardless of the crop or lack thereof. It is a typical magazine profundity created by an illusory starting point (you weren't using the proper shutter speed before you attached the converter). -- John P Sheehy |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:20:57 +0100, "sid derra"
wrote: "Siddhartha Jain" wrote in message roups.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!! did you not check out the mag before you subscribet to it? Excellent question if you had not asked, I was ready to. 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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Just remember your subscription will never run out either. I subscribed
for a year back in the 90s and am still getting the magazine. -- http://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html "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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... In message fNWGd.1647$Nu.781@fed1read04, "MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote: wrote in message .. . 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. It is different to the extent that eventual enlargement (prints) will be a greater ratio of enlargement compared with full-size sensor shots, and will therefore reveal more evidence of movement. That is an obvious "given". Obvious to you and I, perhaps, but not to folks who tend to ask these questions. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
In message 49_Gd.4527$Nu.616@fed1read04,
"MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote: Obvious to you and I, perhaps, but not to folks who tend to ask these questions. .... but let's get everything in a logical perspective. If you're going to use a 1.6x-crop DSLR, then the denominator of the longest shutter speed needs to be multiplied by 1.6x what it would be for 35mm film. If you're going to use a 2x TC with either, you have to double those numbers. The way the article stated (or was paraphrased), it sounded like some special thing happens with digital and/or crops that changes the basic principal. There is no need for such confusion. -- John P Sheehy |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
sid derra wrote:
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. Mine's an international subscription. Costs $20 including shipping for a year - Siddhartha |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... In message 49_Gd.4527$Nu.616@fed1read04, "MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote: Obvious to you and I, perhaps, but not to folks who tend to ask these questions. ... but let's get everything in a logical perspective. If you're going to use a 1.6x-crop DSLR, then the denominator of the longest shutter speed needs to be multiplied by 1.6x what it would be for 35mm film. If you're going to use a 2x TC with either, you have to double those numbers. The way the article stated (or was paraphrased), it sounded like some special thing happens with digital and/or crops that changes the basic principal. There is no need for such confusion. Yes. I see what you're focussing on there. I was talking more to the basic question of whether camera shake can be more evident a problem when using a smaller sensor vs. film. The apparent point about the 2x TC is indeed silly...if that's what they were saying. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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. Substitute the name of most photo mags and the above would still apply. I'm surprised that someone who knows about dpreview would subscribe to Pop Photo. Didn't you buy a test issue at the newstand first?? Phil |
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 |