Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 20, 2005, 12:27 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
bradg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 819
Default

Rob, there is no such thing as a 1600 f/2.8.

Pianoplayer, a 1200mm f/5.6, and maybe a 2x tc might work.

Brad

P.S. While we are talking about imposible things, does anybody know where I can pick up a Nikon 10.5-600mm f/1.8 AFS for under a grand?
bradg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2005, 1:50 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

At only 75,000$cdn each that 1200mm F5.6L USM lens is a bargain :blah:and the current model dosen't even have IS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bradg
Quote:
Pianoplayer, a 1200mm f/5.6, and maybe a 2x tc might work.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2005, 3:53 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
pianoplayer88key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 405
Default

Ok, here's a few test shots.

On shot test 1:

upper left is moon at 10x camera only
upper right is moon at 32x camera only
lower left is moon at 10x camera with a 7x50 binocular
lower right is moon at 32x camera with a 7x50 binocular

I was having a hard time focusing them, though, or getting much detail.

Is there a lens that I can attach to my S1 IS that would give me better results?
Attached Images
 
pianoplayer88key is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2005, 4:00 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
pianoplayer88key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 405
Default

Another tele test with the binoculars...

top four are same as above one, plus bottom is camera at wide through the binoculars. IS there a TC that has at LEAST that much mag power that doesn't vignette at wide angle, and is wide enough so that at tele shutter speeds (assuming spot metering) would be the same with the TC as without (i.e. it doesn't stop down the aperture)? It'd be nice if I could do handheld daytime tele photography with IS turned off. Using just my camera, at 10x zoom I can often handhold at 1/8" with IS on, and sometimes 1/6 or 1/5 if I'm really steady.
Attached Images
 
pianoplayer88key is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2005, 4:10 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
pianoplayer88key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 405
Default

Final tele test for now...

top left is camera at wide
(edit: turns out I pasted the images wrong and I don't feel like changing it - top right and bottom left should have been switched. I edited the text to specify which was which.)
top right is camera at 32x
bottom left is camera at 10x
bottom right is camera at 32x with binocular
Attached Images
 
pianoplayer88key is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2005, 4:22 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
pianoplayer88key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 405
Default

one more test, this time what I'd like to do with wideangle.

First shot is full wide (pardon the severe vignetting) (the FOV, minus vignetting, I'd like to see when my camera is set to 32x tele and F/8.0 with the lens attached and set to its full wide position, or a little more than 360 degree total field of view, whichever is less), second shot is 10x tele, third shot is 32x tele. All three are looking through the wrong end of the binocular.

The full tele shots posted previously (32x on camera with binoculars looking through them normally) is what I'd like to see at the full tele end of the add-on lens when the camera is set to wideangle.

Is there anything currently on the market that will even come CLOSE to this?

One more thing, peter, I don't have $75k cdn for that 1200/5.6 lens. Seeing that I don't plan to make money for my pics - they're for recreational purposes and when I do give copies to my friends they'll most likely be free, I'd like a TC that won't cost more than the $ I plan to get from my images.
Attached Images
 
pianoplayer88key is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2005, 6:06 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 978
Default

I don't know at what magnification your binoculars were set at when you placed your digital camera next to them, but let's just assume for the sake of argument that they were set at 7X. 7 times 32 is 224. You want a digital camera that will give you 224 power magnification with little loss of clarity/detail? Is that right? Am I miscalculating?

You know, sometimes, when they have a baseball game on TV, they will use those huge TV cameras to get a zoom shot of the moon. I could be wrong, but I am almost sure that their maximum magnification is less than 100 power. I checked it out once, but have since forgotten. Anyway, those cameras cost more than $250,000 a piece.

I think your best bet for moon shots is to get an adapter that enables you to attach your camera directly to a telescope. I think the Fuji Forum had a picture by a guy who did that. It was much better than everyone else's moon shots. Go to:

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...=16&page=2

What makes it hard for me to believe your desired specs sometimes is that you want maximum magnification, no noise, no vignetting, etc. etc. and at incredibly low prices. One of these things by itself is doable, maybe, but all together, it's just too much. If you can figure out how to do it, however, more power to you. I am pretty sure that many digital camera ompanies and surveillance companies will want to hire you.


robbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2005, 8:06 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

I really had to laugh when you made this innitial description. Are you really asking to make a 8x11 print of a face at 10 miles away? Almost nothing on the face of the planet can do that. I would have said nothing, but I just recently read an article about a person using old military film equipment from spy satellites to do something similar to what you ask. The man drives the equipment around in a truck and takes pictures *from the truck*. And I don't think even that equipment can do it (I couldn't find the article to see. That camera can do some amazing things, but not what you're asking.)

You clearly know something about photography (or at least the buzz words) because you talk about hyperfocal distance (correctly) and you understand that sensor size effects DOF.

So why do you ask for such things? If it could be done, don't you think every nature photographer on the planet would have one? Especially since you want it to fit in your pocket? And be usable at a moments notice? And be cheap? And have near-perfect image quality? If it could be done cheaply it would be done already and everyone would have it (or it would be patented and only one would do it and everyone else would go out of business.)

I'm not evey sure what else to say, so I'm just going to stop there.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2005, 4:06 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
pianoplayer88key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 405
Default

ok for now I've given up on taking no-noise no-blur-without-a-tripod shots of people in the dark 10 miles away, but I would like some significant magnification, though, without a severe (1 stop or more) reduction of shutter speeds (if possible). I was thinking maybe a total focal length of about 2.5 to 3 feet (on a 1/2.7" sensor, not 35mm terms), and so that the aperture of the lens at full zoom, assuming something like 24" to 27" or so (but not so that the total lens width is more than 28") is no slower than F/4.0 (preferably F/3.1 or F/2.8), or the lens total length is not more than about 5 or 6 feet. Also, having as little vignetting as possible would be nice. Dark corners is acceptable at wide angle, but I would prefer not to have any vignetting at optical (not digital) tele.

What is out there that would have something similar to this, and what's the typical price point?

Also, are there ANY types of lens converters out there that maybe have much shorter focal lengths (like a 35mm equivalent of 360mm or shorter), but a faster effective aperture, and can actually focus more light onto a small sensor?
pianoplayer88key is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2005, 5:55 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 978
Default

OK, mister pianoplayer. Forget the impossibility factor for the moment. What's your budget for this monster super zoom? You just want to show its pictures to friends, right? No monetary contributions from them, right? So how much can you spend?




robbo is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:30 PM.