A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

enlargement from prime vs. telephoto



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old October 5th 04, 05:44 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 04 Oct 2004 16:10:34 -0700, Phil Stripling
wrote:

(street shooter) writes:

Or you could move three steps closer with the 50.


Neither always possible nor desirable in Africa.


You're right. In Africa, taking 3 steps forward might violate my
puckerbrush rule of always trying to keep someone else closer to nasty
critters than I am. Back to photography, I take a look at photos from
my medium format and then look at the prices of digital slrs that have
some chance of producing very clean prints, and I'm thinking I simply
can't afford the gear I want. This might sound like heresy to this
newsgroup but I'm beginning to think I might be just as well off
buying something like the new Nikon Coolpix 8800 (ED glass, image
stabilization, 10X optical zoom and 8mp). The price of that wouldn't
get me even close to the dslr camera and lens I'd like. And the heft
of the camera would be suchthat I'd actually tote it along. And I'd be
unlikely to misplace the lens, not that I've ever done anything like
that.
  #22  
Old October 5th 04, 05:35 PM
Phil Stripling
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

writes:

You're right. In Africa, taking 3 steps forward might violate my
puckerbrush rule of always trying to keep someone else closer to nasty
critters than I am.


One of my favorite lawyer jokes: A lawyer takes a client on a photo safari
to Africa, and they're charged by a lion. As the lawyer drops his pack and
starts to run, the client says, "Do you actually think you can outrun a
lion?" Answer: "I don't have to outrun it; I only have to outrun you."

SNIP
newsgroup but I'm beginning to think I might be just as well off
buying something like the new Nikon Coolpix 8800 (ED glass, image
stabilization, 10X optical zoom and 8mp). The price of that wouldn't
get me even close to the dslr camera and lens I'd like. And the heft
of the camera would be suchthat I'd actually tote it along. And I'd be
SNIP


My wife used a Sony Mavica for years and years. The kind that writes to
floppies. She'd print her photos on 8x10 paper and if people didn't know it
was from the Sony, they'd assume is was a regular photographic print.
Nobody ever saw anything on the print that clued them in it was from a
digital camera. If the Coolpix suits your various needs, then go for it. As
you correctly point out, not all needs are photographic. Louise has a
little shirt-pocket sized digital camera that she uses more than her
digital Rebel because she actually carries the little one and it's all
automatic -- just point and shoot (to coin a phrase).

I would suggest a back up camera of some kind. I know you've budgeted your
trip, but my budgeting process differs from others. The trip is the most
expensive part, not the camera, not the film. If the photos are important,
saving money on an inexpensive camera that fails and leaves you cameraless
is what I'd call false economy. YMMV, of course.

--
Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.
  #23  
Old October 5th 04, 05:35 PM
David Littlewood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
writes
Thanks to all for your comments. I suffer from a very common problem:
not being able to afford the gear I really want. And I'm trying to
figure out where to get the best bang for the buck. I've been a
life-long birder and have taken many trips to the Central and South
American tropics to see them. I've never attempted to photograph them
because the gear required for the kind of images I'd want is too heavy
to lug around. And expensive. But now I'm planning a birding trip to
Africa for next year and since I doubt I'll ever get there again, I'm
rethinking my choice of a camera to carry. I know I don't want to buy
or lug a 600mm lens and I'm not sure I even want to carry a camera
that weighs 3 lbs. So I've ruled out the long premium lenses, leaving
me with choices about normal or short telephotos. I'm not going to try
bird photos per se. Just want excellent images with some ability to
enlarge certain photos with good resolution. I'm used to the
resolution from my MF camera, so I already figure I'm going to
compromise on print detail. I'm considering buying a new/used Canon
10D or Nikon D70 but I'm not sure about the lens. A premium prime lens
has its appeal since I wouldn't be bothered changing lenses, and
that's a very important feature for my style of thrashing through the
puckerbrush. I don't want to lug a lot of gear and I don't want to be
changing lenses. Then there's the 28-70 zoom. Canon's and Nikon's are
both quite good apparently, but they're also expensive and fairly
heavy. Are they better (for my purposes) than their 80mm primes? All
subjective, I know. Bottom line is that the best gear in the world
isn't worth much if I can't afford it or if it's so awkward that I
wouldn't tote it with me. Again, thanks for all your comments. And I
know this can't be answered by anyone but me.


From what you say, consider the Canon 28-135 IS USM - assuming you
settle on the 10D of course. I use one with my 10D (and my 1n); it is an
ideal single lens - for me - for use with the 1n. With the 10D it lacks
at the wide end, but if birds are you thing you should find the
normal-to-tele quite useful. The IS will also help you a lot in dim
light as well, though not of course if the bird moves. Still think you
would be restricting yourself a lot without a 20-35 for landscapes
though.

For a once-in-a-lifetime trip and a serious passion, I would though look
to beg, borrow or otherwise acquire a longer lens. I know you said you
ruled it out, but... A 70-200L IS + 2x TC would be good, or a 100-400L
IS (much cheaper but lacking the wide aperture of the 70-200 used
alone). Buy a good second hand one and resell it on eBay when you get
back if you must....

David
--
David Littlewood
  #24  
Old October 5th 04, 05:35 PM
David Littlewood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
writes
Thanks to all for your comments. I suffer from a very common problem:
not being able to afford the gear I really want. And I'm trying to
figure out where to get the best bang for the buck. I've been a
life-long birder and have taken many trips to the Central and South
American tropics to see them. I've never attempted to photograph them
because the gear required for the kind of images I'd want is too heavy
to lug around. And expensive. But now I'm planning a birding trip to
Africa for next year and since I doubt I'll ever get there again, I'm
rethinking my choice of a camera to carry. I know I don't want to buy
or lug a 600mm lens and I'm not sure I even want to carry a camera
that weighs 3 lbs. So I've ruled out the long premium lenses, leaving
me with choices about normal or short telephotos. I'm not going to try
bird photos per se. Just want excellent images with some ability to
enlarge certain photos with good resolution. I'm used to the
resolution from my MF camera, so I already figure I'm going to
compromise on print detail. I'm considering buying a new/used Canon
10D or Nikon D70 but I'm not sure about the lens. A premium prime lens
has its appeal since I wouldn't be bothered changing lenses, and
that's a very important feature for my style of thrashing through the
puckerbrush. I don't want to lug a lot of gear and I don't want to be
changing lenses. Then there's the 28-70 zoom. Canon's and Nikon's are
both quite good apparently, but they're also expensive and fairly
heavy. Are they better (for my purposes) than their 80mm primes? All
subjective, I know. Bottom line is that the best gear in the world
isn't worth much if I can't afford it or if it's so awkward that I
wouldn't tote it with me. Again, thanks for all your comments. And I
know this can't be answered by anyone but me.


From what you say, consider the Canon 28-135 IS USM - assuming you
settle on the 10D of course. I use one with my 10D (and my 1n); it is an
ideal single lens - for me - for use with the 1n. With the 10D it lacks
at the wide end, but if birds are you thing you should find the
normal-to-tele quite useful. The IS will also help you a lot in dim
light as well, though not of course if the bird moves. Still think you
would be restricting yourself a lot without a 20-35 for landscapes
though.

For a once-in-a-lifetime trip and a serious passion, I would though look
to beg, borrow or otherwise acquire a longer lens. I know you said you
ruled it out, but... A 70-200L IS + 2x TC would be good, or a 100-400L
IS (much cheaper but lacking the wide aperture of the 70-200 used
alone). Buy a good second hand one and resell it on eBay when you get
back if you must....

David
--
David Littlewood
  #25  
Old October 5th 04, 10:24 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


I would suggest a back up camera of some kind. I know you've budgeted your
trip, but my budgeting process differs from others. The trip is the most
expensive part, not the camera, not the film. If the photos are important,
saving money on an inexpensive camera that fails and leaves you cameraless
is what I'd call false economy. YMMV, of course.


Funny you should mention an inexpensive camera. For almost every trip
I've made into tropical rainforests I've carried an Olympus Stylus,
the cheap one without the zoom lens. I've taken about 30 rolls of film
on each trip. Never had to replace the battery. Camera worked all the
time. And I got adequate snapshots. Good enough to make into 4X6
prints that I gave to the others on the trip. Good enough to trigger
all the necessary memories. I once got within about 3 feet from a very
small flycatcher and took a couple shots of it. Photos showed
something but no one would know what bird it was. But that wasn't the
point. The point was that I carried the camera all the time. It fit in
my shirt pocket and was smaller than a cell phone. Don't think even
the P/S cameras that I'll be considering will be that small but they
might be small enough take. It's tricky carrying binoculars and a
camera because the binos have to be ready at a moment's notice. For
me, the camera will only be used after I've seen the critters with
binos. An interesting thing occurs with many people who take high-end
photo gear on wildlife expeditions, at least from my observations.
They often miss the bird entirely because they prioritize a photo
instead of an observation. But their photos are often wonderful. Can't
have everything, I guess. Thanks for your comments.
  #26  
Old October 8th 04, 02:09 AM
Bandicoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Phil Stripling" wrote in message
...
writes:

This is highly subjective but suppose I want to enlarge a portion of a
photo taken with a premium-quality 50mm lens to equal that of an image
area taken with a premium-quality 80mm lens.


I think there are other variables. While they all can be eliminated, on a
practical level I think nobody actually would. For a few examples, I think
most people would handhold the camera with both a 50 and an 80. (I had an
old Nikon rangefinder with an 8.5cm lens on it -- I never used a tripod.)

I
also think most people would use full automatic exposure, and that the
camera would use different settings for the two lenses. If I were using

the
two lenses on my FM2 and were unaware I were making a test shot, there's

no
guarantee I'd use the same aperture and shutter speed. Given the different
lenses, I suspect I'd take too many things into account -- blurring the
background, using a faster shutter on the 80 to take into account the
longer lens -- to be able to judge whether the differences were the lens
or me.

I've read the answer to this, but I can't remember it: If I enlarge a
segment of an image taken with a 50mm lens to match the unenlarged image
from an 80mm, is the depth of field affected? I get confused about
perspective and whatever else changes. If DOF isn't changed, I think
determining whether the image quality is the same becomes more judgmental.


If you remain at the same distance from your subject, in this case the DoF
_on the print_ will be the same. DoF relates to aperture and degree of
enlargement, so with the same aperture and distance but two different lenses
the DoF is less on the longer lens, but blow up part of the shot taken with
the shorter lens to get the same end image size and you also blow up the
circles of confusion: end result, same DoF _on the print_.

Any effect of camera shake due to handholding will be magnified in exactly
the same way too: in effect the impact of shake relates to the degree of
image enlargement too.


Peter


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Maximum Enlargement Possible from Fuji 800 Larry R Harrison Jr 35mm Photo Equipment 5 September 20th 04 06:03 PM
Decrease depth of field with telephoto attachment? Jon Harris Digital Photography 2 September 19th 04 06:31 AM
photo enlargement Livetocruise Film & Labs 2 August 19th 04 01:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.