Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera 
Thread started 04 Jan 2018 (Thursday) 21:00
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Point and shoot with telephoto range?

 
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,231 posts
Gallery: 72 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3518
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
Post edited 4 months ago by TeamSpeed. (2 edits in all)
     
Jan 06, 2018 22:37 as a reply to  @ post 18535234 |  #31

25-750mm 35mm equiv if this is the sx700hs.

So handholding at 750mm can be a challenge depending on physical traits and holding technique.


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
11,889 posts
Gallery: 138 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2719
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Jan 06, 2018 22:55 |  #32

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18535228 (external link)
30x isn't a zoom factor... it is the ratio of the wide vs zoom FL. It has no value at all in these discussions without knowing more.

It is like saying person A is 3x the mass of person B, then trying to talk about obesity.

It is a zoom factor and it is important.

One thing that means a lot to me for the kind of shooting I do is the range that a zoom has. Not in focal length, but the long end of the zoom relative to the short end. I have found that a 70-200mm is pretty much useless to me because it is not even a 3x zoom, while a 24-105 is very useful because it is well over 4x. It's not so much the focal lengths that matter, but rather how much difference there is between the short end and the long end.

I love the new Canon 100-400mm, but, even as good as it is, I have been tempted to get a Sony DSLR and that 70-400mm zoom they made for it, for no other reason than the fact that it is almost 5x, compared to just 4x. The ratio between the long end and the short end is very important indeed, regardless of the focal lengths involved.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,231 posts
Gallery: 72 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3518
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
Post edited 4 months ago by TeamSpeed. (7 edits in all)
     
Jan 06, 2018 23:14 |  #33

When talking about handhold-ability, 30x means nothing, without knowing more. You just stated you need to know something about one of the two focal lengths, which is exactly the point.

A 50-100 and a 10-20 are both 2x, you need to know a focal length to really discuss them.

2 different point and shoots can be 30x, and one can be more easily handheld than the other.

The entire ##x notation is really more a marketing ploy than anything truly useful. A consumer thinks that if camera A is 20x and camera B is 30x, they can see farther with camera B and it must be better, when the opposite could be true. This started in earnest with camcorders in the 90s.


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,290 posts
Likes: 244
Joined Jan 2010
     
Jan 07, 2018 08:44 |  #34

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18535282 (external link)
25-750mm 35mm equiv if this is the sx700hs.

So handholding at 750mm can be a challenge depending on physical traits and holding technique.

That's widely variable. Some people vibrate neurologically, more than others; some people shove their cameras when the press the shutter button. IS can vary greatly. A viewfinder camera pressed against my face is much more stable than an LCD at arm's length, in my experience.

I sometimes use a lens&TCs combo of a real 1120mm on my 7D2 , and need live view for AF since f/11 through the OVF just hunts, and I sometimes press the rig against my face, anyway, the LCD a blur to me, relying on the green square focus confirmation. Seeing is the problem; stability is not. Even though the 2.8x stack of TCs reduces maximum pixel-level contrast, I can see that the lens' IS still did its job. A hoodman-like loupe device can help, optically, but it is too narrow at the point of face contact to get the same stability, in my experience, and holding the camera higher takes some getting used to.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
7,662 posts
Gallery: 515 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1438
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Jan 08, 2018 07:52 |  #35

For anyone wondering about the P900 performance here is a link to a Youtube video (external link) of the most recent SpaceX Falcon 9 launch and recovery. Shot by someone who is more interested in the rockets than photography/videograph​y. I thought it might help with gauging video quality in difficult conditions.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,231 posts
Gallery: 72 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3518
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
     
Jan 08, 2018 07:56 |  #36

John Sheehy wrote in post #18535486 (external link)
That's widely variable. Some people vibrate neurologically, more than others; some people shove their cameras when the press the shutter button. IS can vary greatly. A viewfinder camera pressed against my face is much more stable than an LCD at arm's length, in my experience.

I sometimes use a lens&TCs combo of a real 1120mm on my 7D2 , and need live view for AF since f/11 through the OVF just hunts, and I sometimes press the rig against my face, anyway, the LCD a blur to me, relying on the green square focus confirmation. Seeing is the problem; stability is not. Even though the 2.8x stack of TCs reduces maximum pixel-level contrast, I can see that the lens' IS still did its job. A hoodman-like loupe device can help, optically, but it is too narrow at the point of face contact to get the same stability, in my experience, and holding the camera higher takes some getting used to.

It certainly is very variable by person and equipment and what they want to shoot.

I am guilty of running a 2x and 1.4x on the Sigma 150-600 to take moon shots, and will rest the lens on the back of a chair and use live view to snap pictures. I have handheld the 2x on the Sigma before in the past as well. So APS-C at 600mm even with just the 2x is 1920mm equiv. That was really pushing it for me!


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
7,662 posts
Gallery: 515 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1438
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Jan 08, 2018 08:05 |  #37

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18536192 (external link)
It certainly is very variable by person and equipment and what they want to shoot.

I am guilty of running a 2x and 1.4x on the Sigma 150-600 to take moon shots, and will rest the lens on the back of a chair and use live view to snap pictures. I have handheld the 2x on the Sigma before in the past as well. So APS-C at 600mm even with just the 2x is 1920mm equiv. That was really pushing it for me!


Sorry for the thread hijack. Which 2× do you use with your 150-600? I'd like to get the two Sigma converters for mine, but they would be a bit expensive. I'm looking to shoot the ISS, and other than that, and some luna shots, don't really see the need for a 2× most of the time. If the upcoming luna eclipse had been visible from the UK I would have rented both the Sigma converters for that, at £18 each plus about £25 shipping for both directions. At the moment I don't have an ƒ/8 AF capable body, if I did then I would definitely go for the 1.4× converter. I often need 900mm optical on APS-C so it would get a lot of use.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,231 posts
Gallery: 72 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3518
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
Post edited 4 months ago by TeamSpeed. (3 edits in all)
     
Jan 08, 2018 08:37 |  #38

BigAl007 wrote in post #18536198 (external link)
Sorry for the thread hijack. Which 2× do you use with your 150-600? I'd like to get the two Sigma converters for mine, but they would be a bit expensive. I'm looking to shoot the ISS, and other than that, and some luna shots, don't really see the need for a 2× most of the time. If the upcoming luna eclipse had been visible from the UK I would have rented both the Sigma converters for that, at £18 each plus about £25 shipping for both directions. At the moment I don't have an ƒ/8 AF capable body, if I did then I would definitely go for the 1.4× converter. I often need 900mm optical on APS-C so it would get a lot of use.

Alan

I had been using the old DG 300 Kenko 1.4x and 2x, but just recently acquired the Canon 2x. The problem with Canon is that their TCs are very restrictive due to their front element design sticking out so much. Kenko works on just about anything. I want to get the 1.4x Canon, but I believe I have to get the vs II because the III won't stack. I haven't done much more research yet on that though.

I would suggest the Canon II 1.4x, because it seems that it is just about the same IQ as the MKIII, the MKIII just adds faster AF to their super telephotos, something I wouldn't be interested in.

The Achilles heel on the old DG 300 Kenkos is the CA they produce.


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,290 posts
Likes: 244
Joined Jan 2010
     
Jan 08, 2018 08:59 |  #39

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18536211 (external link)
The Achilles heel on the old DG 300 Kenkos is the CA they produce.

I haven't noticed CA of any significance with my DG 1.4 TCs. Then again, I mainly use them with APS-C, and they have a rep of being optically better in the center than the Canon 1.4xII, but inferior at the edges of FF.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,231 posts
Gallery: 72 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3518
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
Post edited 4 months ago by TeamSpeed.
     
Jan 08, 2018 09:29 |  #40

My moon shots have them pretty terribly, but not very noticeable with terrestrial objects. :)

The Kenko 2x has some issues with contrast though, the Canon 2x III is better.

If the old DG 300 (not the DGX) is that good, perhaps I will just keep the Kenko 1.4x with the Canon III 2x then, saves me some money!


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,290 posts
Likes: 244
Joined Jan 2010
     
Jan 08, 2018 10:03 |  #41

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18536240 (external link)
My moon shots have them pretty terribly, but not very noticeable with terrestrial objects. :)

The Kenko 2x has some issues with contrast though, the Canon 2x III is better.

If the old DG 300 (not the DGX) is that good, perhaps I will just keep the Kenko 1.4x with the Canon III 2x then, saves me some money!

I get really tired of people telling me that the Pro 300 DG 1.4 is compromising my AF or IQ. I used to have the Canon 1.4xII and the DG 1.4 at the same time (I lost the Canon somewhere), and I never found anything better about the Canon. My camera doesn't even have the advanced communication protocol available with the series III converters. Maybe, I will have such a body in the future, but for now, I already have the Kenko DG, and at the pixel level, I'd have to look at the EXIF to see if I was using it with my 400/4DO II. If it doesn't drop the pixel-level sharpness, it really can't be too much inferior to anything, optically, in any practical sense.

As far as AF goes, I haven't tried the Pro 300 DG 1.4 against the 2xIII, but its ability, compared to the bare 400 DO and with the 2xIII, is *so* much closer to the bare lens that I don't think that it can be improved upon much, if at all, with the 7D2.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,865 views & 6 likes for this thread
Point and shoot with telephoto range?
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is thisisntme
745 guests, 371 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.