focal length and aperture values?

[jim monroe]

No topic is discussed more on this forum than lenses and part of that discussion centers often focal length, how to get more magnification with teleconverters, etc. Of course the Canon 1200mm is sometimes mentioned.
Well yesterday I was watching the Masters golf tournament on TV. It was raining and not much going on. At one point they showed a great picture of an owl sitting in its nest atop a tree. I figured they must be taking the shoot from one of the TV towers near the tree. Later however they showed the owl again and when I say they showed the owl they have an extreme closeup with the eyes looking as big as saucers. Then they zoomed back and it looked as though they had to be 200 yards or more from the owl. They must have some reach with their cameras. It seems to me my 400mm lens couldn't come close to gettting the picture they got. Anyone have any idea of what the focal length of their lense might be?
Also once the rain stopped the golf got started again and they televised well into dusk. They of course mentioned several times that the picture on the screen did not reflect the actual conditions which were much darker than they appreared. This made me believe they must have some tremendous aperture. Being new to photography I really have no idea about their lenses. Anyone give me an idea of the aperture value in a case like this?
Just curious.

[DaveG]

No topic is discussed more on this forum than lenses and part of that discussion centers often focal length, how to get more magnification with teleconverters, etc. Of course the Canon 1200mm is sometimes mentioned.
Well yesterday I was watching the Masters golf tournament on TV. It was raining and not much going on. At one point they showed a great picture of an owl sitting in its nest atop a tree. I figured they must be taking the shoot from one of the TV towers near the tree. Later however they showed the owl again and when I say they showed the owl they have an extreme closeup with the eyes looking as big as saucers. Then they zoomed back and it looked as though they had to be 200 yards or more from the owl. They must have some reach with their cameras. It seems to me my 400mm lens couldn't come close to gettting the picture they got. Anyone have any idea of what the focal length of their lense might be?

Also once the rain stopped the golf got started again and they televised well into dusk. They of course mentioned several times that the picture on the screen did not reflect the actual conditions which were much darker than they appreared. This made me believe they must have some tremendous aperture. Being new to photography I really have no idea about their lenses. Anyone give me an idea of the aperture value in a case like this?
Just curious.

The focal length of a lens on a TV camera doesn't mean much if you don't know the format size. A 50 is normal for 35mm, a short telephoto for a 10D and a super wide angle on 4x5. I expect that the CCD or whatever in the TV camera is quite small. I'd also expect it - inspite of it's incredible zoom range - to be very quick, and probably under f2.

Those are amazing lenses, there's no doubt about that. But they'd also cost what you'd expect to pay for a really good car.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Some of the lenses for Video cameras at the pro sports/news level are INSANE a far as magnification...

Think of the turret mounted units in news choppers... etc.. thats the kind of magnification they have at a golf tournament... (visualize the lens following the ball at teee off all the way till it hits the gorund.. :shock: )

I'm sure that the magnification for the format is as great as the 1200mm is for 35mm if not more... I can't remeber what the lens X factor is when an EF lens is mounted on a Canon X video camera but uts something like 3X... so a 400mm lens equtes to more like 1200mm givien the small CCD in a video camera.

...imagine one of these cameras with the equivelent of the relatively inexpensive Sigma 50-500mm.... at only $900.00 or so,. then cosider that the lens on the helicopter,. or at the Masters tournament is probably more like $15,000.00 ... :shock:

[ijohnson]

The Masters tournament has been recorded in High Definition for the last 2 years. The largest magnification Canon HD lens is 100x, the most magnification available of any lens and it costs about $110,000. That should equate to about 3500mm and I believe that it has IS on it. You can find more information on the Canon web site.

[robertwgross]

$110,000???

I'm sure we are all going to rush out and buy those from eBay.

---Bob Gross---

[vvizard]

Some short facts.. The Canon 1200mm f/5.6 costs ~ ?110.000 if I'm not mistaken (Yeah that's Euro not dollars). Mounted to a Canon XL1 (yes you can mount it on that cam), you will have to multiply it's focal-length with 7.2x, giving you a 35mm equivalent of (1200 * 7.2) = 8640mm. Throw in the 2x TC, and you land at 17280mm :shock:

And remember, the quality of an image which is "flying" over your TV-screen 25 times per second, doesn't need to be half as good as the quality you need for printing stills. Guess that's a big reason why most consumer video-cameras can be sold with 20-40x optical zoom. And for good marketing measures, they usually throw in 500x (or more) digital-zoom to support it.

A funny article showing the 1200mm with 2x extender mounted on a Canon XL1 Video-cam is here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php

[yellowroadster]

bump

Just saw this.

17280mm??? :shock: :shock: :shock: