Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 5, 2007, 2:26 AM   #81
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

jpmann66 wrote:
Quote:
3. Quality of kit lens (because it will be two years till I can afford to upgrade.)
While the Pentax 18-55mm (like virtually all maker kits and the range... had a similar Canon one on my Rebel too)

OK but honestly kept me away from PENTAX lenses (or Canon) for a long time....

Have just started hunting down used Pentax lenses... and my first just blew me away.
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=94

While OK/adequate, sort of ashame all manufactures seem to really fudge on kit lenses rather than make an impression.

SIGMA 70-300mm looked about as good as kit.... but not near a really even just good midline used Pentax.




Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 5, 2007, 2:35 AM   #82
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

fldspringer wrote:
Quote:
I'd say the 300mm (35mm terms) reach is a minimum for nature photography and would take about a 200mm lens in the 1.5 and 1.6 crop cameras.
Then again with 70-210mm Pentax vs my previous 70-30mm SIGMA mentioned above.... I was really rather shocked at how little framing difference there was betwwen 210 and 300mm (had never had a 200mm before)

Yes big difference between 50 and 150mm but you need to keep RATIO in mind not just bigger numbers.

200mm to 300mm is equiv to the difference in a 50mm conpared to a 75mm... not a lot.
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 5, 2007, 6:39 AM   #83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

Hayward wrote:
Quote:
fldspringer wrote:
Quote:
I'd say the 300mm (35mm terms) reach is a minimum for nature photography and would take about a 200mm lens in the 1.5 and 1.6 crop cameras.
Then again with 70-210mm Pentax vs my previous 70-30mm SIGMA mentioned above.... I was really rather shocked at how little framing difference there was betwwen 210 and 300mm (had never had a 200mm before)

Yes big difference between 50 and 150mm but you need to keep RATIO in mind not just bigger numbers.

200mm to 300mm is equiv to the difference in a 50mm conpared to a 75mm... not a lot.
For wildlife, there is simply no substitute for the bigger numbers. Sure, your correct about the ratio, but if your subject is a bird in a tree, you need to make that bird cover as many pixels of the sensor as possible. There is simply no other way.

To put it in context, the 210mm to 300mm jump is almost exactly the jump of the 1.4 teleconverter that just about every manufacturer makes. Another way of looking at it, if you were to crop the 210mm photo to exactly match the 300mm photo, you would be cropping roughly half the pixels out of the photo.

I agree with the ratio vs big number thing, but disagree with the "not a lot" part.


fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 5, 2007, 6:48 AM   #84
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

fldspringer wrote:
Quote:
For wildlife, there is simply no substitute for the bigger numbers. Sure, your correct about the ratio, but if your subject is a bird in a tree, you need to make that bird cover as many pixels of the sensor as possible. There is simply no other way.

To put it in context, the 210mm to 300mm jump is almost exactly the jump of the 1.4 teleconverter that just about every manufacturer makes. Another way of looking at it, if you were to crop the 210mm photo to exactly match the 300mm photo, you would be cropping roughly half the pixels out of the photo.

I agree with the ratio vs big number thing, but disagree with the "not a lot" part.

I'm with fldspringer on this if by 'nature photography' we are talking about wildlife (as opposed to plants, trees etc where reach might not be an issue). You need as much reach as you can possibly get. No amount is enough and every bit of extra reach makes a big difference. 200mm is way too short for wildlife work (heck I use 400mm and I find that short). So yes, while it's not a quantum leap going from 200mm to 300mm it is a very helpful boost.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 5, 2007, 7:04 AM   #85
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 133
Default

fldspringer wrote:
Quote:
To put it in context, the 210mm to 300mm jump is almost exactly the jump of the 1.4 teleconverter that just about every manufacturer makes. Another way of looking at it, if you were to crop the 210mm photo to exactly match the 300mm photo, you would be cropping roughly half the pixels out of the photo.
I need more Megapixels.... LOL
Gozinta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 6, 2007, 12:40 AM   #86
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

fldspringer wrote:
Quote:
To put it in context, the 210mm to 300mm jump is almost exactly the jump of the 1.4 teleconverter that just about every manufacturer makes. Another way of looking at it, if you were to crop the 210mm photo to exactly match the 300mm photo, you would be cropping roughly half the pixels out of the photo.

I agree with the ratio vs big number thing, but disagree with the "not a lot" part.
I think you really meant that the other way around.... crop the 300 to match the 200

And no it would not be half by a long shot more like a quarter of CONTENT in a thin surrounding border sense. (try it)

Actally the ratio 50 to 75mm example is actually more severe than the 200 - 300mm difference really.

I have been shooting the same distant fixed things for years with a 300mm, and know how they looked in the VF and on screen) And again was really shocked at how little difference the 210mm made but hugely sharper, brighter, and even contrast (another consideration) without spending huge bucks . And I could still throw a 1.4x on it if real need, of that slight nudge, and the higher mm you go the ever more of just a nudge that is.

Sure 250 to 500mm big difference.... 200 to 300 not really.

Sort of like Megapixels 2 to 4MP BIG difference 6 to 8MP really not much (you need to go to 10MP to be significant)... yet still 2MP (or say 100mm) but the differences of that quantity become less and less as the numbers get bigger.

And I understand what you are saying about wildlife.... you want to see the pupils of their eyes.... but again you aren't really talking out the difference between 200 and 300 there ... more like between 200 and 4 or 500mm


Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 6, 2007, 6:41 AM   #87
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

Hayward wrote:
Quote:
fldspringer wrote:
Quote:
To put it in context, the 210mm to 300mm jump is almost exactly the jump of the 1.4 teleconverter that just about every manufacturer makes. Another way of looking at it, if you were to crop the 210mm photo to exactly match the 300mm photo, you would be cropping roughly half the pixels out of the photo.

I agree with the ratio vs big number thing, but disagree with the "not a lot" part.
I think you really meant that the other way around.... crop the 300 to match the 200

And no it would not be half by a long shot more like a quarter of CONTENT in a thin surrounding border sense. (try it)

Actally the ratio 50 to 75mm example is actually more severe than the 200 - 300mm difference really.

I have been shooting the same distant fixed things for years with a 300mm, and know how they looked in the VF and on screen) And again was really shocked at how little difference the 210mm made but hugely sharper, brighter, and even contrast (another consideration) without spending huge bucks . And I could still throw a 1.4x on it if real need, of that slight nudge, and the higher mm you go the ever more of just a nudge that is.

Sure 250 to 500mm big difference.... 200 to 300 not really.

Sort of like Megapixels 2 to 4MP BIG difference 6 to 8MP really not much (you need to go to 10MP to be significant)... yet still 2MP (or say 100mm) but the differences of that quantity become less and less as the numbers get bigger.

And I understand what you are saying about wildlife.... you want to see the pupils of their eyes.... but again you aren't really talking out the difference between 200 and 300 there ... more like between 200 and 4 or 500mm

No Hayward, the 210mm is a wider angle and you crop that until the angle is the same as the 300mm. The ratio is the same from 50mm-75mm and from 200mm-300mm. Both would be 1.5x if it were a zoom.

The crop of the 210mm would take half the pixels. Try it. Multiply the pixel width by pixel height of the resulting photo and compare that result with your cameras native pixel count.

Pixel count is a function of area, not of a linear measure.

Most buy their first tele lens and expect to take portrait shots of the sparrow on the fence across the street. It doesn't work that way. Lenses get bigger and more expensive fast, but you have to go that way and work hard to get very close to the wildlife to get good photos. 300mm (35mm terms) is a bare minimum in my opinion. I currently can reach 560mm and that isn't enough. Its never enough until you can't pick up the camera because its too heavy.
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 6, 2007, 7:23 AM   #88
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 22
Default

This is a bit discouraging.....Perhaps I just need to get some good binoculars and take someginko bilobato remember what I saw.....
jpmann66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 6, 2007, 3:59 PM   #89
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

jpmann66 wrote:
Quote:
This is a bit discouraging.....Perhaps I just need to get some good binoculars and take someginko bilobato remember what I saw.....
I don't want to discourage. Honest I don't. Camera lenses are not designed to magnify. They are designed to decrease the field of view as the focal length increases. The image below was shot with 300mm (35mm equiv) lens and has about 2.5 megapixels (1810x1356) of the 8mp camera after the crop. I'd guess I was somewhere between 30 and 40 yards from the deer. Now consider a bird about the size of the deer's ear (Robin?) and you begin to understand how close you still need to get to have a suitable photo.



Getting close to the wildlife is what makes it fun. Getting at eye level is even more of a challenge (or below as in this photo). I remember I was beside some open water of a stream in hopes of getting a photo of ducks or geese when this fellow came out of the pines behind me and I was twisting to get the shot. I was happy I was somewhat stable to get the shot I did.

If your going to do a fair amount of wildlife photography, the Olympus DSLR's begin to shine with the 2x multiplier. This came from the 40-150mm f3.5-4.5 kit lens. Its not a perfect photo, but more of the blame is on me because of camera shake induced by being in a very uncomfortable position in snow flurries on a zero degree day. Gee, I guess there's another place for stabilization. Its still fun!
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 6, 2007, 4:43 PM   #90
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
I have seen the light (or not) and I am converted to the Church of true believers in Anti-Shake.
Reading back through the posts in this thread, I can't resist posting a few shots from inside of a Church. :-)

The only photos I had available earlier were on memory cards I hadn't reused yet since I've been swapping around hard drives. So, I just uploaded a few images after getting everything back to normal.

A church is a good example of lighting where Anti-Shake can give you more flexibility, when you don't want to use a flash.

These were taken with a hand held Maxxum 5D in a church using a Vivitar 70-210mm f/2.8-4 Series I APO Autofocus Lens I got for $79.95, brand new in the box from CametaAuctions.

210mm (about the same angle of view that you'd have with a 315mm lens on a 35mm camera) with the aperture wide open at f/4, ISO 1600, 1/20 second




210mm (same angle of view as a 315mm lens on a 35mm camera), ISO 1600, f/4.5, 1/60 second




Stabilization also allows me to use lower ISO speeds when lighting permits (and it can change around a lot in many environments like this).

For example, I chose to shoot this next one at lower ISO 800. It's at 1/40 second with the aperture wide open at f/2.8 at 75mm (about the same angle of view as a 112mm lens on a 35mm camera).

You can see reviewers tests on shots with and without anti-shake and generally see a two stop improvement. But, from my perspective, once you get below the 1/focal length rule of thumb for desired shutter speed, you're going to get a higher percentage of keepers with stabilization versus without it and it gives you more flexibility in what you can use (lenses, apertures, iso speeds) since you're taking more of the blur from camera shake out of the equation.




Or, even if I'm using a brighter lens, if it's a tightly framed shot where DOF is going to be shallower, I may want to close down the aperture a bit for Depth of Field purposes (and most lenses are sharper stopped down some, too)

This is an example of that using a Minolta 100mm f/2 (same angle of view as a 150mm lens on a 35mm camera), where I stopped down the aperture to f4. It's at 1/80 second, ISO 1600.



JimC 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 2:43 AM.