All Forum Comments
Comment by andrewk posted on Why bother? at 20/07/2014 - 10:27
McGregNi wrote:
The higher number of mp is only one aspect of the IQ equation. Your FF owing friend can content himself that he doesn't need that massive 500mm monster after all!
My FF friend cannot afford the 500mm f/4 - but it is exactly what two lecturers at our club recently (both pro photographers - one on sports and the other on wildlife) bought so that they could get the best image possible quality. Apparently, most sports and wildlife photographers do that too - that's why you see all those dustbin lid size lenses at football matches.The higher number of mp is only one aspect of the IQ equation. Your FF owing friend can content himself that he doesn't need that massive 500mm monster after all!
Andrew
Comment by andrewk posted on Why bother? at 20/07/2014 - 10:20
I really don't know where you are going with this, Horst. We all know and agree (don't we?) that to have an image fill the frame in a FF camera, you need a lens 1.5x longer than you would with an APS-C camera. This longer lens costs more money. Simples!
Andrew
Andrew
Comment by andrewk posted on Why bother? at 20/07/2014 - 10:15
McGregNi wrote:
What our FF photographer will not get is his human need for frame filling as much as the aps-c photographer. But he doesn't need a longer telephoto to fullfill that need, he just needs to crop his image.
My bet is that our FF photographer's "human need" is to get the best possible quality from his investment. He will not get that by cropping!!What our FF photographer will not get is his human need for frame filling as much as the aps-c photographer. But he doesn't need a longer telephoto to fullfill that need, he just needs to crop his image.
Andrew
Comment by andrewk posted on Why bother? at 20/07/2014 - 10:07
McGregNi wrote:
Andrew and his friend standing together shooting the same thing each with a 300mm lens will record the subject at exactly the same magnification and with the exact same effects of perspective ... The only thing his FF-using friend needs to do to make his image identical to Andrew's is to crop off a lot of the edges.
Exactly so - but for him to fill the frame from the same location in camera, he needs a lens 1.5x longer which costs him megabucks, which is the point I was making. Andrew and his friend standing together shooting the same thing each with a 300mm lens will record the subject at exactly the same magnification and with the exact same effects of perspective ... The only thing his FF-using friend needs to do to make his image identical to Andrew's is to crop off a lot of the edges.
Andrew
Comment by andrewk posted on Why bother? at 20/07/2014 - 09:51
pschlute wrote:
I think his point is that you have to enlarge/magnify you image more than he does (with a FF sensor).
I may not have explained what I meant quite as well as I intended, so I will try again. I think his point is that you have to enlarge/magnify you image more than he does (with a FF sensor).
Let's suppose that I have a 24 mp APS-C camera and 300mm f/4 lens fitted. My mate has a notPentax 24 mp full frame camera. If we both want to take the identical subject, filling the frame in the same way, he will have to use a lens that is 1.5x longer if we stand at the same location. His lens will cost many times that of a 300mm f/4.
Andrew
Comment by andrewk posted on Why bother? at 20/07/2014 - 01:12
Horst wrote:
Now if you had a FF camera, It would see the same image but it has a 1.5 times greater angle and because it has to have about 43Mpixels
One mate has a notPentax 5D MK1 which is 12.8 megapixels (and others have 5D MK2 or 6D - both around 20 mp) - so it doesn't work out quite like that. Practically, I can take the same photos from the same locations on my 16 mp (or 24 mp if I had a K3) APS-C using a lens at less than one tenth of the cost. Now if you had a FF camera, It would see the same image but it has a 1.5 times greater angle and because it has to have about 43Mpixels
Andrew
Comment by andrewk posted on Why bother? at 20/07/2014 - 00:41
McGregNi wrote:
I've always thought it rather false thinking when I read this idea that aps-c is better for wildlife - this theory is based on the crop factor - ie you need a longer telephoto on FF to get the same sized subject from the same distance. But really it misses the point surely? - you're not increasing the magnification on aps-c, so you still need the same focal length to get the same sized subject with the same perspective from where you're standing with both cameras.
There seems to me to be a contradiction in what you are saying here. I agree that you get the same perspective with shots taken by two different cameras at the same location, no matter what lenses are fitted and no matter what the sensor size. I've always thought it rather false thinking when I read this idea that aps-c is better for wildlife - this theory is based on the crop factor - ie you need a longer telephoto on FF to get the same sized subject from the same distance. But really it misses the point surely? - you're not increasing the magnification on aps-c, so you still need the same focal length to get the same sized subject with the same perspective from where you're standing with both cameras.
However, if I have a 300mm f/4 on an APS-C camera and a friend, at the same location, has a (approx) 450mm f/4 on his FF camera, we will both be able to fill the frame with the same image. The big difference between us is that he will have paid over ten grand for his 500mm f/4, but I'll have paid less than a grand for my 300mm f/4. I think I can see some advantage here in using APS-C for sports and wildlife.
Andrew
Comment by andrewk posted on Why bother? at 19/07/2014 - 23:52
McGregNi wrote:
The most difficult aspect of this tube working is getting the subject the correct distance from the camera, as the magnification jumps around so quickly with the slightest movement, and even small changes to angle affect it as well. The 135mm has a huge focus throw which helps, as you can actually use focus to fine tune, not something thats always possible to do with extension tubes.
There are (at least) two approaches you can use to improve that. One is to go and buy yourself a focussing rail. You can get one cheaply either on Ebay or Amazon. The most difficult aspect of this tube working is getting the subject the correct distance from the camera, as the magnification jumps around so quickly with the slightest movement, and even small changes to angle affect it as well. The 135mm has a huge focus throw which helps, as you can actually use focus to fine tune, not something thats always possible to do with extension tubes.
Alternatively, you can clean some paint off the Jessop tube mounts and start using your M75-150, which you will find a lot easier to focus.
Andrew
Comment by andrewk posted on Stock with 13 & 21mm Tubes, 135mm lens at 03/07/2014 - 10:47
OldTaffy wrote:
It's no use trying to reason gently with machinery. Physical violence is the only effective measure.Martin
Absolutely .......... http://web.aanet.com.au/bayling/repair.htmlIt's no use trying to reason gently with machinery. Physical violence is the only effective measure.Martin
Andrew
Comment by andrewk posted on Stuck Tubes - Help ! at 02/07/2014 - 23:16
With FF you can crop to your APS-C size without loosing definition.
Andrew