|
|
Welcome, Anonymous (Profile, Private Messages)
Having trouble signing into the forums? Please [ logout ] and log back in.
 Log in
| Author |
Message |
blinztree
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 1875
Location: Beats me... I'm Lost!
|
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 8:15 pm
|  |
| copidosoma wrote: | | I find that landscapes sell better than wildlife but I enjoy wildlife photography much more. 200mm is not really what I'd call a "wildlife" lens. I often struggle at 300mm on an aps-c. Frankly, I got some grizzly photos with it one year and didn't feel particularly safe at all. |
Thanks, Christopher for your input.
|
|
turboal1960
Joined: 11 Dec 2008
Posts: 867
Location: Argentina
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:33 pm
| |
OK, this come from an old Pentax 400 5,6, used on an APSC camera. 200 is nice, but not enough for wildlife.
I do more landscapes than wildlife. I find that, for a cropped sensor, 35 mm and 15 mm are good options.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
58.7 KB |
| Viewed: |
1973 Time(s) |
|
|
|
blinztree
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 1875
Location: Beats me... I'm Lost!
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:46 pm
| |
Alfredo, thanks for your input. That was informative. I just bought a fun lens last night; Pentax 200mm/f3.5 to play around with birding as the 200/1.4G is out of my reach at the moment.
Is it correct that I find the older 28mm lens do not have anything brighter than f2.8?
Nice port BTW. Beautiful country.
| jadams08 wrote: | What's EF-S?
Are you guys talking about canon and I'm always looking at nikon. Or it's just because I haven't gotten to that yet in my lens learning. |
I'm not a Canon user , so FYI - Happy reading http://photography-on-the.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-177376.html
|
|
jadams08
Joined: 04 Mar 2012
Posts: 33
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:37 am
| |
Got it.
Thanks!
|
|
robhainer
Joined: 03 May 2010
Posts: 2895
Location: Dallas, GA, USA
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:17 am
| |
| peteklinger wrote: | Full Sensor  vs  Crop Sensor
A telephoto at 200mm, (same lens both images, only the camera is changed) is still only 200mm. All you are doing is CROPPING the image. It doesn't magically become a 300mm.
You gain nothing in magnification, the perception that it's closer because the field of view is smaller. Then people blow it up and, hey... identical to digital zoom.
Yes blinztree it's possible that a crop sensor lens, will lose the image around the edges. |
Actually, you do gain something because that cropped area is crammed into 18 mp or whatever resolution your camera sensor happens to be. So, say you're taking photos of birds with a crop sensor Nikon D300 and a full frame Nikon D700, both 12mp cameras using a 300 mm lens. The Nikon D300 would get you a tighter image than a D700 at the same distance. If you cropped the D700 image to look the same, it would lose megapixels to get there.
|
|
copidosoma
Joined: 17 Nov 2009
Posts: 3920
Location: Canada
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:30 am
| |
| robhainer wrote: | | peteklinger wrote: | Full Sensor vs Crop Sensor
A telephoto at 200mm, (same lens both images, only the camera is changed) is still only 200mm. All you are doing is CROPPING the image. It doesn't magically become a 300mm.
You gain nothing in magnification, the perception that it's closer because the field of view is smaller. Then people blow it up and, hey... identical to digital zoom.
Yes blinztree it's possible that a crop sensor lens, will lose the image around the edges. |
Actually, you do gain something because that cropped area is crammed into 18 mp or whatever resolution your camera sensor happens to be. So, say you're taking photos of birds with a crop sensor Nikon D300 and a full frame Nikon D700, both 12mp cameras using a 300 mm lens. The Nikon D300 would get you a tighter image than a D700 at the same distance. If you cropped the D700 image to look the same, it would lose megapixels to get there. |
That was pretty well my argument. People often make the comparison between FF and APS-c assuming the same number of pixels in the crop area. A 5DIII and a 7D have essentially the same number of MP but an image taken with the same lens at the same distance will look extremely different (one of the biggest reasons why I won't be giving up my 7D any time soon). Comparing Nikon's D800 to a 7D will be a much less dramatic difference and is really the only sort of comparison where the "if you crop a FF image to APS-c dimensions it will look the same" argument is close to valid.
|
|
peteklinger
Joined: 01 Aug 2007
Posts: 1040
Location: Great Place By a Great Lake
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:38 pm
| |
It's not all about pixels, and yes the areas are not identical # of pixels when made the same size, but...
You Don't Get a 320mm lens from a 200mm, by sticking it on the crop camera. You get a cropped 200mm image. There's no optical gain or magic.
It doesn't make the subject any closer.
|
|
copidosoma
Joined: 17 Nov 2009
Posts: 3920
Location: Canada
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:07 pm
| |
| peteklinger wrote: | It's not all about pixels, and yes the areas are not identical # of pixels when made the same size, but...
You Don't Get a 320mm lens from a 200mm, by sticking it on the crop camera. You get a cropped 200mm image. There's no optical gain or magic.
It doesn't make the subject any closer. |
Why do people always insist on making this argument?
If you read the above statements you will understand that you are getting significantly MORE information(i.e. detail, resolution, call it what you want) on an 18MP APS-c than you would on a 22MP FF with a given focal length lens at a given distance. That is a simple fact. Don't bother arguing it. It is NOT the equivalent of cropping the full frame sensor unless that full frame sensor is 46 megapixels; which they are not unless you are talking meduim format which is a whole other apples to oranges comparison. As above, only the D800 is even coming close to the point where a FF camera compares to an APS-c camera with a given focal length lens at a given distance.
What you gain with the current crop of APS-c cameras vs. full frame is not magic, it is not changing the focal length and it is not making the subject closer. However, it is like magic and like changing the focal length and like making the subject closer in many ways. You are getting a cropped image from a sensor that in theory (if it actually existed) would have vastly more resolution than what currently exists in FF sensors today.
In some situations (wildlife is a good example), it may not be ALL about pixels but having alot of them on target is a really, really useful thing. If I wanted to crop a 5DII or III image down to 8MP or so then I'd be perfectly happy using FF. Alternatively, if I wanted to use a 400mm lens to get the same field of view (so that my subject looks the same size in the frame without me having to get closer) I could do that too. Why would I though? when I can use a 300mm lens which is vastly less expensive and lighter and get the same results?
I've seen this argument so many times that I just have to remind myself to ignore it and do waht is good for me. Nevermind the misinformation people put out there.
|
|
robhainer
Joined: 03 May 2010
Posts: 2895
Location: Dallas, GA, USA
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:25 pm
| |
| peteklinger wrote: | It's not all about pixels, and yes the areas are not identical # of pixels when made the same size, but...
You Don't Get a 320mm lens from a 200mm, by sticking it on the crop camera. You get a cropped 200mm image. There's no optical gain or magic.
It doesn't make the subject any closer. |
It is about the pixels. You get better resolution with a crop sensor assuming the same composition and focal length on a distant subject. It's the one advantage crop sensors have.
|
|
turboal1960
Joined: 11 Dec 2008
Posts: 867
Location: Argentina
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:43 pm
| |
| blinztree wrote: | Alfredo, thanks for your input. That was informative. I just bought a fun lens last night; Pentax 200mm/f3.5 to play around with birding as the 200/1.4G is out of my reach at the moment.
Is it correct that I find the older 28mm lens do not have anything brighter than f2.8?
Nice port BTW. Beautiful country.
|
Thanks for your comments! Nice port too, I get hungry. :-). Nice flowers, tools and illustrations.
There is a 28 mm F2. Never had one. Have a 2,8 and a 3,5 and 3,5 is OK for me. The F2 become rather expensive.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/category-SMC-Pentax-Lenses.html
Current generation of sensors behave good on high ISO. So, for me, a fast lens is important for better AF, and specially for separate the subject. Wide lenses do not separate so well, and even focus by distance scale is OK. Love the deep of field scale that old primes always have. For wider lenses, the fast aperture had a cost (money and size) that I can not justify, at list for me. You can find a 35 F2 or 1,8 in good size and price in Nikon, Canon or Pentax, but not a 28 or 24.
If you find an old Tokina 17mm 3,5 at a good price, it is a nice lens for play with. But not in back light.
Have fun with your 200 mm! I get my Owl from one of this MF ones.
|
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39640
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:08 pm
| |
I prefer crop cameras actually.
|
|
Mike Price
Joined: 06 Jun 2008
Posts: 2933
Location: South Wales
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:44 pm
| |
| copidosoma wrote: | | peteklinger wrote: | It's not all about pixels, and yes the areas are not identical # of pixels when made the same size, but...
You Don't Get a 320mm lens from a 200mm, by sticking it on the crop camera. You get a cropped 200mm image. There's no optical gain or magic.
It doesn't make the subject any closer. |
Why do people always insist on making this argument?
If you read the above statements you will understand that you are getting significantly MORE information(i.e. detail, resolution, call it what you want) on an 18MP APS-c than you would on a 22MP FF with a given focal length lens at a given distance. That is a simple fact. Don't bother arguing it. It is NOT the equivalent of cropping the full frame sensor unless that full frame sensor is 46 megapixels; which they are not unless you are talking meduim format which is a whole other apples to oranges comparison. As above, only the D800 is even coming close to the point where a FF camera compares to an APS-c camera with a given focal length lens at a given distance.
What you gain with the current crop of APS-c cameras vs. full frame is not magic, it is not changing the focal length and it is not making the subject closer. However, it is like magic and like changing the focal length and like making the subject closer in many ways. You are getting a cropped image from a sensor that in theory (if it actually existed) would have vastly more resolution than what currently exists in FF sensors today.
In some situations (wildlife is a good example), it may not be ALL about pixels but having alot of them on target is a really, really useful thing. If I wanted to crop a 5DII or III image down to 8MP or so then I'd be perfectly happy using FF. Alternatively, if I wanted to use a 400mm lens to get the same field of view (so that my subject looks the same size in the frame without me having to get closer) I could do that too. Why would I though? when I can use a 300mm lens which is vastly less expensive and lighter and get the same results?
I've seen this argument so many times that I just have to remind myself to ignore it and do waht is good for me. Nevermind the misinformation people put out there. |
+1
Mike
|
|
peteklinger
Joined: 01 Aug 2007
Posts: 1040
Location: Great Place By a Great Lake
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:00 pm
| |
| rinder99 wrote: | | I prefer crop cameras actually. |
So do I but it's getting lost in the 22MB vs 18MB diversion from basic the optical fact.
A 200mm does not become a 320mm lens when you clip it onto a crop camera. That's the point.
|
|
| |
|
  |
Page 2 of 2
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page Previous 1, 2
|
Shutterstock Forum for Contributors
|
