mm to X

just find out the 35mm equiv of his camera (i usually find this on stevesdigicams.com) and compare to yours...

let's take the S1 IS for example..
the 35mm equiv is: 38 - 380 mm

so when your friends brag about 10x zoom, i assume they're bragging about how far they can get instead of the RANGE (what it actually is.. 380/38 = 10)

take for example my 75-300mm lens (4x zoom because 300/75 = 4).. multiply that by the 1.6x factor, i get 480mm.. farther than they get with my 4x zoom lens

go bring them to a camera store and try out a 600mm prime and tell them it's only 1x zoom

Am I missing something? Isn't this basic math?

1.4x + 2x TC = 2.8X

For example, put a 2x TC on a 100mm lens and you have a 200mm, right? So put a 1.4x TC behind that and you get a 280mm, 2.8 times your original lens (or magnification, whichever).

corectomundo

Ok, but then what was this:

1.4 tcon=140x
2 tcon=200x
1.4+2=240x

and this:

1.4TC = 1.4 x
2.0TC = 2X
1.4+2TC = 3.4X

I guess Timmy and I are the product of our inferior educational system.

I'm happy with my 0x investment I'm also happy with my 4.?x investment, and my 1x investment... and I can't wait until I make my 2.?x investment.

I just bought an f/6.3 reducer to shoot the eclipse through an f/10 scope which had too much magnification to fit the moon in frame, which is roughly a -1.4x TC. Negative zoom, how's that for a waste?

Man, this sure is becoming a silly thread.