 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / April 2006300mm+ prices
I'd like to know prices of lenses of any brand which are 300mm or above. prime, telephoto, etc.Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Tamron, Sigma, Minolta, I dont care. Also, I dont see how anyone could carry around such large objects which are the sizes of bazookas. If you go on an African safari would you bring an SLR with a 500mm lens, or a P&S with a 3x/4x? > I'd like to know prices of lenses of any brand which are 300mm or > above. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you > bring an SLR with a 500mm lens, or a P&S with a 3x/4x? DSLR with a 70-200mm zoom, my cousin was in Africa and the long lenses were just too much since the guides brought them very close to the action. I would still take long lenses and wides too just because it would be a shame to leave them at home, after all why do we buy all this equipment? certainly not to leave it at home gathering dust. Jean >> Also, I dont see how anyone could carry around such large objects >> which are the sizes of bazookas. If you go on an African safari would >> you >> bring an SLR with a 500mm lens, or a P&S with a 3x/4x? Evidently, you're not familiar with African safaris. Unless you're on a tour where you stay in the Rover most of the time, you bring whatever gear you want, and pay local porters to carry it around for you. The cost of a porter (or two, three, four, as many as you need) is completely negligible compared to the rest of the trip. It's not uncommon for film crews climbing Kilimanjaro to have over three dozen porters to carry their gear for them! You could argue that to be an elitist American "You do the menial labor" point of view, an easy way to help the local economy, or wherever in between suits your social ideals, but regardless of how you look at it, that's how it works. On another note, don't forget that Africa isn't all about the telephoto end, you also want the widest lens you've got, you wouldn't want to miss out on the landscapes and scenery! steve >I'd like to know prices of lenses of any brand which are 300mm or >above. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >you >bring an SLR with a 500mm lens, or a P&S with a 3x/4x? 300mm arent't all that large.. the 600's.. yea, you need a cart. Here is my problem with a point and shoot.... I can' t follow motion, have difficult time seeing anything important on the tiny screens. and can't stand electronic view finders.. I much prefer the brighter clea view finder of SLR or DSLR. Even on my DSLR the only thing I consul the screen for is to check highlights using the curve functions . suspose I could check gross compositional errors... but my time is bette spent looking the view finder finding photos. I spent some time in the Everglades and Corkscrew Swamp.. all the time wishing I had a faste and longer lens than a 70/300 4.5 Granted Elephants are larger tha Aligators but I still doni't a 300 would come amiss. -- Ji >I'd like to know prices of lenses of any brand which are 300mm or >above. >prime, telephoto, etc.Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Tamron, Sigma, Minolta, I >dont care. You've got internet access - it's easy enough to look up prices at B&H, Adorama, or other online retailers. But ... A 300mm/f4.5 or so will run you somewhere in the region of $1000 A 300/f2.8 goes anywhere from $2300 for a Sigma to $5000 and up, although you could very well pick up a used Tamron Adaptall for somewhere close to the price of a new 300mm/f4.5. >Also, I dont see how anyone could carry around such large objects >which are the sizes of bazookas. If you go on an African safari >would you bring an SLR with a 500mm lens, or a P&S with a 3x/4x? http://www.panix.com/~johnf/gallery/sdwap.html (Although those are just at San Diego, not on an African safari). For a once-in-a-lifetime shot I want to use the best glass I've got. [For a bonus: spot the two images in that gallery taken with a P&S. one of them is pretty obvious - but can you find the second one?] "A 300mm/f4.5 or so will run you somewhere in the region of $1000 A 300/f2.8 goes anywhere from $2300 for a Sigma to $5000 and up, " I can safely say that unless I'll be doing work for National Geographic, weddings for $1000, or shooting supermodels who get $10k/day, I wont be looking at lenses for those prices. Lumix fz-30 is 35mm-420mm. Their DMW-LT55 - 1.7x teleconverter goes for $200, it takes you from 420mm to 714mm. Considering how much a 714mm lens would cost, a gain of 294mm is worth $200. >"A 300mm/f4.5 or so will run you somewhere in the region of $1000 >A 300/f2.8 goes anywhere from $2300 for a Sigma to $5000 and up, " [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >at lenses for >those prices. Then you probably don't want to know what a 600mm/f4 costs ... >Lumix fz-30 is 35mm-420mm. No it isn't - it's 7.4 - 88mm >Their DMW-LT55 - 1.7x teleconverter goes for $200, it takes you from >420mm to 714mm. Considering how much a 714mm lens would cost, a gain >of 294mm is worth $200. You'd only need a 714mm lens on a full-frame DSLR. On a typical APS-C camera you'd need a 510mm lens (or, with a 1.7x TC, a 300mm). Bear in mind that the sensor there is less than 1/3 the linear dimensions of an APS-C sized sensor as found in most DSLRs. That means that each pixel is around 1/10 of the area of a pixel in, say, the Canon 350D As long as you understand the tradeoffs, the FZ-30 might be the right camera for you. But it's not going to deliver as noise-free an image as somebody would get, standing right beside you, using a APS-C DSLR with a 300mm/f4 and a 1.7x TC. Here's an example with a 300mm + 1.7x TC: http://www.jfwaf.com/Recent%20Work/pages/IMGP5192.html You'd match that angle of view, but I think you'd see the difference on anything larger than x 6x4 print. ">Lumix fz-30 is 35mm-420mm. No it isn't - it's 7.4 - 88mm" 35mm-420mm is what it says on the site and in the brochure as an equivalebt to a film camera. >">Lumix fz-30 is 35mm-420mm. > >No it isn't - it's 7.4 - 88mm" > >35mm-420mm is what it says on the site and in the brochure as >an equivalebt to a film camera. You can believe it's "equivalent" if you like. It's the same field of view, but that's because the actual sensor is tiny. The lens on the camera says 7.4 - 88.8 mm, which is plausible. Their marketing people, of course, would really like you to believe that this is just the same as using a 420mm lens. But, in any case, I was addressing the inconsistency in an earlier post, where you were prepared to allow the rather dubious equivalency for the Panasonic, but weren't using the corresponding equivalences for a DSLR. >>">Lumix fz-30 is 35mm-420mm. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Their marketing people, of course, would really like you to > believe that this is just the same as using a 420mm lens. In what practical way is it different? The Z7 at full zoom seems to do pretty much the same thing as the 400 fixed-focus on my 35mm. Is there some drastic variation of behavior that I should look for? > But, in any case, I was addressing the inconsistency in an > earlier post, where you were prepared to allow the rather > dubious equivalency for the Panasonic, but weren't using the > corresponding equivalences for a DSLR.  Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>">Lumix fz-30 is 35mm-420mm. >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >pretty much the same thing as the 400 fixed-focus on my 35mm. Is there >some drastic variation of behavior that I should look for? It depends what you care about. Field of view is equivalent. Depth of field will be very different. So will actual resolution (with a very small sensor, it's unlikely that the lens will be able to resolve sufficient detail to actually use the marketing megapixels). But the single most visible difference (apart from DOF) is the fact that with those tiny sensors, each pixel is only 1/10 the area of a pixel on an "APS-C" sensor with the same pixel count. That means you'll get a far worse signal-to-noise ratio. >>>> ">Lumix fz-30 is 35mm-420mm. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > area of a pixel on an "APS-C" sensor with the same pixel count. That > means you'll get a far worse signal-to-noise ratio. Whilst what John says is technically correct, the Panasonic FZ5 (the predecessor to the FZ7) is a highly usable camera at the 432mm focal length and, with its image stabilisation, is capable of taking hand-held shots that I could never have managed with my Nikon F3 and a 400mm lens. Using the lower speeds, e.g. ISO 100, you will not see the noise on normal sized prints at normal viewing distances. Of course, if you are after the very best quality, then only a far more costly DSLR, lens, and tripod will suffice. E.g. http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/index.html You have a choice according to your needs an finances! David >>>>> ">Lumix fz-30 is 35mm-420mm. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/index.html If I was after the very best quality with there being no other factors to consider I probably wouldn't be using digital to begin with. > You have a choice according to your needs an finances! > > David Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/index.html > > If I was after the very best quality with there being no other factors to > consider I probably wouldn't be using digital to begin with. If you wanted to do wildlife action, or sports action, if you don't go digital, you would not get the best quality. The trade point is approximately: 6 megapixel digital equals 35 mm ISO 100 film in spatial resolution, see http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html So with fast cameras like the Canon 1D Mark II and 8.2 megapixels, means higher spatial resolution than ISO 100 film (and you don't usually do wildlife action at less than ISO 100; often at ISO 200, 400 and even 800). Then the spatial resolution is higher than film, and in all cases (all ISOs) digital has much higher signal to noise ratios. So digital quality is better than film. See: The Signal-to-Noise of Digital Camera images and Comparison to Film http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.noise If you want to do landscapes and make small prints, digital is fine; if you want large prints, do digital mosaicking or do large format film (200 megapixel equivalent). I do large format film for landscapes, but for wildlife the best tool delivering the highest quality images is a fast DSLR. I use a 1D Mark II for wildlife. Roger >>> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/index.html >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If you wanted to do wildlife action, or sports action, if you > don't go digital, you would not get the best quality. In that case, though, "the best quality" is not the only factor. > The trade point is approximately: 6 megapixel digital > equals 35 mm ISO 100 film in spatial resolution, see [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Roger Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/index.html >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > In that case, though, "the best quality" is not the only factor. What do you mean? >>The trade point is approximately: 6 megapixel digital >>equals 35 mm ISO 100 film in spatial resolution, see [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> >>Roger >>>>> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/index.html >>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > What do you mean? You have now placed the limitation of live action, which competes with absolute image quality. >>>The trade point is approximately: 6 megapixel digital >>>equals 35 mm ISO 100 film in spatial resolution, see [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >>> >>>Roger Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>>If I was after the very best quality with there being no other factors >>>>>to consider I probably wouldn't be using digital to begin with. >>>>If you wanted to do wildlife action, or sports action, if you >>>>don't go digital, you would not get the best quality. >>>In that case, though, "the best quality" is not the only factor. >>What do you mean? > You have now placed the limitation of live action, which competes with > absolute image quality. It only competes if you have crappy equipment. Good equipment for wildlife or sports action provides outstanding image quality, and its not film. Sports without action is pretty boring. Wildlife without action is pretty boring. Some examples that I have made 16x20 inch prints that are sharper than film prints, and images I could not have gotten on a good low speed film: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/c12.19.2002.IMG_3480.crane .takeoff.b.close-600.html http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/sandhill.cranes.c12.01.200 4.JZ3F7332.arl.d-700.html http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/c01.15.2003.img_5506.b-600.html http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/eagle.c09.11.2004.JZ3F4717 .b-700.html http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear/web/brown_bear.c09.07.2004.JZ3 F0862.b-700.html http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear/web/brown_bear.c09.09.2004.JZ3 F4117.b-700.html http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear/web/brown_bear.c09.09.2004.JZ3 F4246.b-700.html and many other (go the the gallery index). Wildlife that's better on film: (4x5 film, but some of the birds are still blurry from movement): http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/bosque_del_apache_sunrise- c12.xx.2002.L4.02c-600.html Roger >>>>>>If I was after the very best quality with there being no other factors >>>>>>to consider I probably wouldn't be using digital to begin with. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > It only competes if you have crappy equipment. > Good equipment > for wildlife or sports action provides outstanding image quality, For certain values of "outstanding". > and its > not film. Sports without action is pretty boring. > Wildlife without action is pretty boring. So you compromise image quality to get the action. Sorry, but you can't shoot sports with a 8x10 camera and you can't match the image quality of an 8x10, film, digital, or otherwise, with anything that is suitable for sports. But I guess that all 8x10s are "crappy equipment". > Some examples that I have made 16x20 inch prints that are sharper > than film prints, Sharper than _which_ film prints? <numerous links to web site, taking up much space, snipped> It is not necessary to include three spaces between links, and your continual "look at my web site" is getting boring. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > So you compromise image quality to get the action. Sorry, but you can't > shoot sports with a 8x10 camera and you can't match the image quality of an > 8x10, film, digital, or otherwise, with anything that is suitable for > sports. > > But I guess that all 8x10s are "crappy equipment". For shooting sports action, yes it is. The right tool for the right job. Just like with a hammer and a wrench, both are excellent tools for what they are designed for. The hammer is a crappy tool for turning a bolt, but a great tool for hammering a nail. An 8x10 camera can be a great tool for a landscape photo, but a crappy tool for wildlife action >>Some examples that I have made 16x20 inch prints that are sharper >>than film prints, > > Sharper than _which_ film prints? All film. The examples I showed were wildlife action. If I was using film, to get the action stopped, I needed ISOs around 400. Film (35mm) would be lower resolution than the digital camera I used, and the film would have had much lower signal- to-noise ratios. If I used slower speed film to improve sharpness, the action would have been blurred. If I used a larger format film camera to get more resolution, I would have need a much larger lens (e.g. if a 6x7 camera), I would have needed a 1400 mm f/5.6 lens, which I could not move nor point accurately enough to follow the action, and it would have too small a depth of field, plus the fact that you can't buy such a lens for a 6x7 camera. The right tool for the right job. I used the highest quality tool for my wildlife action, and today that is the fastest DSLRs available. Life is a compromise. There is no perfect tool for any photo. But right now, the highest quality images in wildlife and sports action is being done with fast DSLRs, and they produce better quality images than film cameras. To choose otherwise would compromise quality. If I went out to photograph a landscape, I would use my 4x5 and film as that would give me better quality than my DSLR. > <numerous links to web site, taking up much space, snipped> > > It is not necessary to include three spaces between links, and your > continual "look at my web site" is getting boring. You don't have to go there, but my site does have some unique studies not seen anywhere else on the web. It is not a commercial site and I do not make a profit from it. Roger > Life is a compromise. There is no perfect tool for any photo. > But right now, the highest quality images in wildlife and sports > action is being done with fast DSLRs, and they produce better > quality images than film cameras. To choose otherwise > would compromise quality. Just the shutter lag alone from the best P&S is enough to turn one's stomach. Rita > > Life is a compromise. There is no perfect tool for any photo. > > But right now, the highest quality images in wildlife and sports [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Just the shutter lag alone from the best P&S is enough to turn one's > stomach. The Fuji F11 has shutter lag of 10 milliseconds -- that's something like 7 times *better* than most film or digital SLRs. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> >>Just the shutter lag alone from the best P&S is enough to turn one's >>stomach. > > The Fuji F11 has shutter lag of 10 milliseconds -- that's something > like 7 times *better* than most film or digital SLRs. Does that include auto focus? >>>Just the shutter lag alone from the best P&S is enough to turn one's >>>stomach. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Does that include auto focus? Has the F11 really improved over the F10 that much? Even with pre-focus (from a half pressed shutter release button to full press and subsequent shutter release) the F10 takes 50 milliseconds. That's fast for a P&S, but not "7 times *better* than most film or digital SLRs". And doesn't include time taken to autofocus, of course. > >>>Just the shutter lag alone from the best P&S is enough to turn one's > >>>stomach. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > *better* than most film or digital SLRs". And doesn't include time taken to > autofocus, of course. 10 ms is the F10 and F11 time as claimed by Fuji; dpreview.com says their *test* doesn't go below 50 ms but they see no reason to doubt the Fuji claim. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> >>>Just the shutter lag alone from the best P&S is enough to turn one's >>>stomach. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Does that include auto focus? No. But the number I cited in my previous post in this thread for the F10 came from DPReview, which notes that Fuji claims .010 seconds (excluding autofocus time) and comments "this seems fair". I missed the "<" before the 0.050 seconds timing given by DPReview. I checked Imaging Resource, which says "The FinePix F10's autofocus system is faster that those of most cameras on the market, with shutter delays in full autofocus mode of only 0.55 second or so, and the optional 'High Speed Shooting' mode reduces shutter lag to only 0.29 second at wide angle." These figures closely match DPReview's (~0.5 and ~0.3). IR's figure for pre-focus shots is similar to Fuji's - 0.014 seconds. Of course, even a half second for full-autofocus-to-capture is quite good for P&S cameras, but it's not as fast as DSLRs. Most are at least twice as fast. The 10 milliseconds (with pre-focus) time *is* faster than DSLRs (even the Canon 1D MII takes ~0.05), but of course the Fuji F10 doesn't have to swing a mirror out of the way before it can open the shutter. > >>>Just the shutter lag alone from the best P&S is enough to turn one's > >>>stomach. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > MII takes ~0.05), but of course the Fuji F10 doesn't have to swing a mirror out > of the way before it can open the shutter. Yep, it's much easier to make a direct-light-path camera fast; see also Leica rangefinders :-). When my D200 misses and has to hunt end-to-end with the macro lens, now *that's* slow. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> >>> Just the shutter lag alone from the best P&S is enough to turn one's >>> stomach. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Does that include auto focus? This reminds me: Did DPreview at one time have stats on shutter lag? I can see why they might have removed it, but does anyone recall when? SignatureJohn McWilliams > >>> Just the shutter lag alone from the best P&S is enough to turn one's > >>> stomach. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > This reminds me: Did DPreview at one time have stats on shutter lag? I > can see why they might have removed it, but does anyone recall when? I just looked up the F10 stats at dpreview last night. And just this minute I looked at their latest review, the Canon 30D, and the section is still there; on that review it's #11, "Timings & Sizes". SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > >>Just the shutter lag alone from the best P&S is enough to turn one's > >>stomach. > > The Fuji F11 has shutter lag of 10 milliseconds -- that's something > > like 7 times *better* than most film or digital SLRs. > > Does that include auto focus? No, that's just shutter lag. And yes, the P&S autofocus much slower than the good DSLRs. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> Check out the Pentax P&S. The've reduced some of them to equal the DSLRs. Collin >>>>>>http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/index.html >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > You have now placed the limitation of live action, which competes with > absolute image quality. Is it practical to get long telephoto lenses for medium format? Assuming no, that explains why people pay $100K for preposterously long lenses on a 'piddly' format like 35mm. The small sensor makes it possible to use very long lenses and very fast lenses too. >>>>The trade point is approximately: 6 megapixel digital >>>>equals 35 mm ISO 100 film in spatial resolution, see [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >>>> >>>>Roger SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com >>>>>>>http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/index.html >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > a 'piddly' format like 35mm. The small sensor makes it possible to use > very long lenses and very fast lenses too. So? I'm sorry, but you're missing the point. Now you don't want to get close to the subject. That's adding a different limitation. >>>>>The trade point is approximately: 6 megapixel digital >>>>>equals 35 mm ISO 100 film in spatial resolution, see [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >>>>> >>>>>Roger Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>>>>http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/index.html >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >a 'piddly' format like 35mm. The small sensor makes it possible to use >very long lenses and very fast lenses too. People don't pay $100k for length, they pay it for length and speed. 500-1200mm is nothing when it comes to long lenses, except in the camera world. -Rich > >>> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/index.html > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > In that case, though, "the best quality" is not the only factor. Depends; if you go with Bishop Berkeley and considier existence to be a form of perfection (which is either really stupid or profound, I think), then the "best picture" of a sporting event must be one which *exists*; so if you can't take that picture with a 20x24" view camera, well.... SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > If you want to do landscapes and make small prints, digital > is fine; if you want large prints, do digital mosaicking or > do large format film (200 megapixel equivalent). I do large > format film for landscapes, but for wildlife the best tool > delivering the highest quality images is a fast DSLR. > I use a 1D Mark II for wildlife. Yeah, it's very useful to remind people now and then that 35mm film is not, in fact, the ultimate expression of photographic quality. It's a compromise that works very well for a wide range of things, but is *best* for only a smaller range (extreme telephoto work and fast action generally being in that smaller range, along with other things). SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > Whilst what John says is technically correct, the Panasonic FZ5 (the > predecessor to the FZ7) is a highly usable camera at the 432mm focal > length and, with its image stabilisation, is capable of taking hand-held > shots that I could never have managed with my Nikon F3 and a 400mm lens. > Using the lower speeds, e.g. ISO 100, you will not see the noise on normal > sized prints at normal viewing distances. David, It would be very interesting to compare images. Could you take a picture of the moon in the next few nights at 432 (equiv) mm? I would do the same with a 1D Mark II with a 300 mm f/4 lens which would be 390 mm equivalent on a 1DII. I could also do 300+1.4x for 420 mm (546 equiv) (and I could also do it with a 500 mm f/4, which is 650 mm equivalent). It would be interesting to see both a tripod and hand held shot. If you do this, email me, and I'll try (weather permitting) get the shots on the same night. I'll post full resolution unprocessed images, as well as processed. The advantage of processing is that with the high signal-to-noise ratios of DSLR images, you can improve resolution with image restoration algorithms, greatly improving (in my opinion) images. I just printed this image: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear/web/brown_bear.c09.07.2004.JZ3 F0862.b-700.html at 16x20 inches, 305 ppi on a lightjet and after upsizing and Richardson-Lucy image restoration, some of the water drops are 1 pixel (that's one printer pixel!); that is 29.8 megapixel equivalent. > Of course, if you are after the very best quality, then only a far more > costly DSLR, lens, and tripod will suffice. E.g. > > http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/index.html > > You have a choice according to your needs an finances! Thanks, David. There is certainly something to be said for portability. A 500 mm f/4 lens on a big tripod is luggable, but not easily for great distances. Stowed in a backpack (40+ pounds of gear) I can go much further. But a 300 mm f/4 IS fixed is pretty portable. Roger >> Whilst what John says is technically correct, the Panasonic FZ5 (the >> predecessor to the FZ7) is a highly usable camera at the 432mm focal [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Roger Roger, I have a couple of moon shots online: http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/FZ20-moon-2004-10-23-2335-01-crop.jpg http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/FZ5-moon-2005-04-23-2223-53-crop.jpg which are "casual" hand-held shots (me braced against a window ledge, after a good evening meal with wine), so no tripod. I believe the images still have the EXIF data, but are cropped to just the moon's disk. No processing, IIRC. Perhaps those shots would be enough for your purposes. You're welcome to suggest a date and local time - my outlook to the south-west is best so I would suggest 21:00 local time (without DST) on April 5th. If it's cloudy, tough! That would be 22:00 clock for those in the UK. Thanks for your comments on the extra processing possible when you have the higher SNR from the DSLR, and I can appreciate that is the case. The comparison really is between the US $300 300g compact camera and something much bigger and more expensive. I used to think that small cameras were rubbish, and that only an SLR was good enough. I'm now a little wiser and realise that for some people the little camera is, in fact, now good enough. Cheers, David >>>Whilst what John says is technically correct, the Panasonic FZ5 (the >>>predecessor to the FZ7) is a highly usable camera at the 432mm focal [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > Cheers, > David David, Those images will work too. I'll try and take some images over the next week and a half that match those you posted. If you get a clear evening over the next week, email me, and I'll try extra hard to get a shot (forecast shows a lot of clouds, by may be a hole to shoot in). I think I saw a note you are in Edinburgh (neat place; I was there last September). If so you get the the first shot as I'm in Colorado, USA. Are the images you posted full pixel at 432 mm equivalent? I think well see that the DSLR does better, but not 10X better (the cost factor between the cameras). So I think we'll see a big price to pay for improved quality. Roger >>>> Whilst what John says is technically correct, the Panasonic FZ5 >>>> (the predecessor to the FZ7) is a highly usable camera at the [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > > Roger OK, Roger. I'll see what I can do, but we do have a starting point. Yes, those are at maximum zoom, with two different cameras. I would certainly hope that the DSLR does better, particularly if you can interpolate for more detail. I don't think there's anything more which can be dragged out of those images! Another twist in favour of the DSLR is that those are JPEG images, and the Panasonic FZ5 doesn't offer RAW, so JPEG it is! Next time you are in Edinburgh - e-mail me and perhaps we can share a beer or something! David >>>>">Lumix fz-30 is 35mm-420mm. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > It depends what you care about. Field of view is equivalent. > Depth of field will be very different. What will be the actual magnitude of the difference? Generally if one is concerned about depth of field control a 400 would not be the first choice you know. > So will actual resolution > (with a very small sensor, it's unlikely that the lens will be able > to resolve sufficient detail to actually use the marketing megapixels). Why is that unlikely? > But the single most visible difference (apart from DOF) is the fact > that with those tiny sensors, each pixel is only 1/10 the area of a > pixel on an "APS-C" sensor with the same pixel count. That means > you'll get a far worse signal-to-noise ratio. Nobody claimed otherwise. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>>">Lumix fz-30 is 35mm-420mm. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >concerned about depth of field control a 400 would not be the first choice >you know. On the contrary. If you want to limit depth of field, longer focal lengths are good. You just won't be able to get that subject 'pop' with the smaller sensor - you're going to be limited to the depth of field you'd get with small apertures (larger f-stop numbers) on the DSLR. The DOF you get with the Z7 will be roughly equivalent to the DOF from an APS-C DSLR stopped down by three stops. >> So will actual resolution >> (with a very small sensor, it's unlikely that the lens will be able >> to resolve sufficient detail to actually use the marketing megapixels). > >Why is that unlikely? An 8-megapixel camera on an APS-C DSLR needs a lens capable of resolving 72 line pairs/mm to match the pixel spacing of the sensor. With a sensor only 1/3 of the linear dimensions of the DSLR, that means you need a lens capable of resolving over 200 lp/mm. That's well beyond all but the most expensive glass. So, in practice, the resolving power of the lens will be the limiting factor in the optical system, and you'd do just as well with, say, a 5MP sensor (which should, in fact, have lower noise). Going to 8MP on such a small sensor is almost entirely driven by the perception that more megapixels must mean a better system. >>>>>>">Lumix fz-30 is 35mm-420mm. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > On the contrary. If you want to limit depth of field, longer focal > lengths are good. Never thought of a 400 as a lens that one uses across the room, mainly because I never had one that would focus that close. I see that at close focus it does indeed have that property. Learn something every day. > You just won't be able to get that subject 'pop' > with the smaller sensor - you're going to be limited to the depth of > field you'd get with small apertures (larger f-stop numbers) on the > DSLR. The DOF you get with the Z7 will be roughly equivalent to the > DOF from an APS-C DSLR stopped down by three stops. However without any extension tubes or bellows or the like I can move it to about 1/3 the distance from the subject that can be achieved with an f/2.8 Canon or Nikon 300. Now there may be some circumstances in which this is inconvenient, and maybe the depth of field won't be quite as narrow as I could achieve by schlepping around $4K worth of glass and a larger sensor but geez, you're complaining because something that costs 400 bucks and fits in a coat pocket doesn't do _everything_ that something that costs and weighs ten times as much does and I don't see why that's so damned important to you. >>> So will actual resolution >>> (with a very small sensor, it's unlikely that the lens will be able [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Going to 8MP on such a small sensor is almost entirely driven by > the perception that more megapixels must mean a better system. Well that's nice but the camera in question doesn't have an 8MP sensor so all of that is moot. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>>>>">Lumix fz-30 is 35mm-420mm. >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >weighs ten times as much does and I don't see why that's so damned >important to you. I've never said what was, and what wasn't, important to me. All I've tried to do is point out just what it is you give up for that convenience. If you're happy with the trade-off, that's fine. But this originally started when the question was raised as to just why anyone would ever want to use a big, heavy DSLR instead of the Panasonic. I pointed out the areas where the DSLR would outperform a small-sensor camera. Sometimes a pocket camera is the right choice. Sometimes a DSLR/35mm is the right balance between convenience and resolution. And sometimes the answer is medium format, or even large format. It all depends on what you're trying to do, and how large you want the final image to be. >>>> So will actual resolution >>>> (with a very small sensor, it's unlikely that the lens will be able [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Well that's nice but the camera in question doesn't have an 8MP sensor so >all of that is moot. OK - substitute 6MP, not 8MP. That's only a 15% change in linear resolution - you still end up needing a lens capable of delivering 200 lp/mm (I was generous in my initial calculations). You won't get that from a 10x zoom - there are very, very few prime lenses capable of that sort of resolution (and they are likely to cost rather more than the entire camera system). I wouldn't expect the Z7 to do measurably better than a 3MP camera. But it's a lot easier to sell megapixels, even if they are pointless. >OK - substitute 6MP, not 8MP. That's only a 15% change in linear >resolution - you still end up needing a lens capable of delivering >200 lp/mm (I was generous in my initial calculations). You won't >get that from a 10x zoom - there are very, very few prime lenses >capable of that sort of resolution (and they are likely to cost >rather more than the entire camera system). Huh? The sensor is the limiting factor to resolution with many lenses. There are many lenses with which you can add TCs, and the images have almost no loss in pixel-to-pixel contrast. How do you think that those small-sensor P&S and ZLR cameras get pixel-sharp images at 5 to 8 MP? Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>OK - substitute 6MP, not 8MP. That's only a 15% change in linear >>resolution - you still end up needing a lens capable of delivering [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Huh? The sensor is the limiting factor to resolution with many lenses. On a DSLR, when you only need a lens that can deliver 60 lp/mm or so for a 6MP APS-C (Canon 300D, Nikon D70, Pentax *ist-D, ...). >There are many lenses with which you can add TCs, and the images have >almost no loss in pixel-to-pixel contrast. How many of those are zooms? How many cost less than $400? >How do you think that those small-sensor P&S and ZLR cameras get >pixel-sharp images at 5 to 8 MP? They don't. Even with overly-agressive image sharpening, they're still not truly pixel sharp. Especially, as in the camera under discussion, when you've got a 10x optical zoom. You'd get just as good an image using a sensor with half the number of sites. >>>OK - substitute 6MP, not 8MP. That's only a 15% change in linear >>>resolution - you still end up needing a lens capable of delivering [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > How many of those are zooms? How many cost less than $400? Bear in mind that the actual range doesn't have to be nearly as high either due to the smaller sensor size--another part of the tradeoff that you are neglecting. >>How do you think that those small-sensor P&S and ZLR cameras get >>pixel-sharp images at 5 to 8 MP? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > discussion, when you've got a 10x optical zoom. You'd get just > as good an image using a sensor with half the number of sites. Is that your opinion or do you have test results to back it up? Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>OK - substitute 6MP, not 8MP. That's only a 15% change in linear >>>resolution - you still end up needing a lens capable of delivering [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > discussion, when you've got a 10x optical zoom. You'd get just > as good an image using a sensor with half the number of sites. In point of fact testing of the Lumix FZ30, which uses the same lens as the FZ5 and 7 but an 8 megapixel sensor vs 6 or 5 shows about 1800 lines of resolution, and my own quick and dirty test on the FZ7 shows about 1400. This is about the same as the Nikon D-70 with the kit lens, so it would seem that (a) the DSLR doesn't have any huge advantage in this area, (b) the lens is capable of resolution greater than that of the sensor in the FZ7, and (c) Leica knows something about lenses that you don't. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) [] > I wouldn't expect the Z7 to do measurably better than a 3MP camera. > But it's a lot easier to sell megapixels, even if they are pointless. I believe your expectations are flawed. In my own tests with a fixed subject and using a tripod, an 8MP non-SLR camera (Nikon 8400) shows a higher resolution than 5MP cameras (Panasonic FZ5, FZ20, Nikon 5700), which in turn show higher resolution than a 3.2MP camera (Nikon 990). David [] > An 8-megapixel camera on an APS-C DSLR needs a lens capable of > resolving 72 line pairs/mm to match the pixel spacing of the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Going to 8MP on such a small sensor is almost entirely driven by > the perception that more megapixels must mean a better system. It is my belief that the resolution of the system /should/ be limited more by the lens and less by the sensor, so that the nasty aliasing artefacts are reduced. David > >>>>">Lumix fz-30 is 35mm-420mm. > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > concerned about depth of field control a 400 would not be the first choice > you know. Huge -- factor of more than 2. And a 400 might well be the first choice for depth of field control -- if "control" means "reducing", which is often wanted. People use 300 f/2.8 lenses to shoot fashion shows partly to *limit* the depth of field -- to eliminate distracting background. > > So will actual resolution > > (with a very small sensor, it's unlikely that the lens will be able > > to resolve sufficient detail to actually use the marketing megapixels). > > Why is that unlikely? Diffraction effects. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> >> >>>>">Lumix fz-30 is 35mm-420mm. >> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Huge -- factor of more than 2. Which means what in terms of the actual numbers? Does it go from a millimeter to two millimiters? Ten miles to twenty miles? What? I'm sorry but I don't see a factor of 2 difference in depth of field to be an earth shattering difference by itself. > And a 400 might well be the first choice for depth of field control -- > if "control" means "reducing", which is often wanted. People use 300 > f/2.8 lenses to shoot fashion shows partly to *limit* the depth of > field -- to eliminate distracting background. So how much more "distracting background" would you see in that environment if your "huge factor" is present? >> > So will actual resolution >> > (with a very small sensor, it's unlikely that the lens will be able [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Diffraction effects. Care to calculate the diffraction limited performance and get back to us? Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>Diffraction effects. > > Care to calculate the diffraction limited performance and get back to us? See Table 6 at: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter Note P&S cameras have typical pixel sizes in the less than 3 micron range. With the blur filter, when the diffraction spot diameter becomes larger than a pixel, resolution starts to be limited (how much larger before the effect becomes noticeable depends on the blur filter). Roger >>>Diffraction effects. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to be limited (how much larger before the effect becomes > noticeable depends on the blur filter). Instead of talking about "typical" perhaps you'll talk about specific. One popular model with a Leitz lens has a pixel size of approximately 4 microns, perfectly matched to the f/2.8 aperture of that lens. And instead of advertising your damned web site, it wouldn't have hurt you to cut and paste your table. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > Instead of talking about "typical" perhaps you'll talk about > specific. One popular model with a Leitz lens has a pixel size of > approximately 4 microns, perfectly matched to the f/2.8 aperture of > that lens. Because what he's saying is pretty much general fact of the majority of P&S camera models. > And instead of advertising your damned web site, it wouldn't have > hurt you to cut and paste your table. And where is your website that provides anything remotely useful, John? Robert's site is a wealth of information with some really spectacular pictures and I'm glad that he has taken the time to share this wealth of knowledge with us all. At least he has the balls and the passion to take on such an endeavor for everyone's benefit instead of trying to tear down everyone else's hard work. Oh, John, please be civil and don't start with your childish antics in this group like you did a few years back in that "storage" newsgroup or I'll be forced to spank you like I did then and allow you to publicly humiliate yourself again. Rita > Oh, John, please be civil and don't start with your childish antics in this > group like you did a few years back in that "storage" newsgroup or I'll be > forced to spank you like I did then and allow you to publicly humiliate > yourself again. Nice call. I really learn a lot from Roger as a lurker and not a damned thing from whoever this John is. > Nice call. I really learn a lot from Roger as a lurker and not a > damned thing from whoever this John is. He's just another nobody troll that wants to be someone I guess? Hell, case in point, anybody that has to continually use a sig in their posts displaying their former and now years defunct e-mail address "(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)" must have accomplished a lot in life. I think after all these years of seeing his defunct e-mail address we all realize that his highest ranking at IBM might have been senior custodial engineer. Rita >>>>Diffraction effects. >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >And instead of advertising your damned web site, it wouldn't have hurt you >to cut and paste your table. This site has an interactive table that shows various cameras, how they perform, diffraction spot size versus pixels, versus f-ratios. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm > >> >>>>">Lumix fz-30 is 35mm-420mm. > >> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > sorry but I don't see a factor of 2 difference in depth of field to be an > earth shattering difference by itself. Ah. Well, it depends on what kind of photography you do. For macro photography a factor of two difference (which means adding a few millimeters usually) is *tremendous*. The difference between 1 inch and 2 inches of sharpness in a candid portrait (low-light with an ultra-fast lens) is also tremendous. > > And a 400 might well be the first choice for depth of field control -- > > if "control" means "reducing", which is often wanted. People use 300 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So how much more "distracting background" would you see in that environment > if your "huge factor" is present? Easily enough to make the difference between a salable picture and an unsalable picture. > >> > So will actual resolution > >> > (with a very small sensor, it's unlikely that the lens will be able [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Care to calculate the diffraction limited performance and get back to us? Already been done, and I think posted in this thread. There are many sites on the net with online calculators. Optics is not a new discipline, we already know quite a lot about it. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> >> >> >>>>">Lumix fz-30 is 35mm-420mm. >> >> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > photography a factor of two difference (which means adding a few > millimeters usually) is *tremendous*. I've never had a problem with excessive depth of field in macro photography. My problem has always been the opposite. In any case, how many millimeters is the _actual_ difference? You don't have a clue, do you. > The difference between 1 inch > and 2 inches of sharpness in a candid portrait (low-light with an > ultra-fast lens) is also tremendous. So you want what, the tip of the nose in focus and everything else blurred? What? In any case, if the photography requires an "ultra fast lens" then it is not within the capabilities of any point and shoot currently on the market so the depth of field in that application is irrelevant. >> > And a 400 might well be the first choice for depth of field control -- >> > if "control" means "reducing", which is often wanted. People use 300 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Easily enough to make the difference between a salable picture and an > unsalable picture. So let's see, you're shooting a fashion show and one option has a 2 inch depth of field and the other has 4 and there's so much distracting background within that 2 inches that the photo become unsalable? Models are thin but they aren't _that_ thin. Sorry, but these vague generalities are not compelling. Or maybe the depth of field is 20 feet? Or 2? Or what? What depth of field do you _need_ to have for this application? In any case, if someone was _paying_ me to do this I would have no objection to carrying an 8x10 view camera or trucking around a 30 inch telescope if that's what it took to make the customer happy. >> >> > So will actual resolution >> >> > (with a very small sensor, it's unlikely that the lens will be able [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > many sites on the net with online calculators. Optics is not a new > discipline, we already know quite a lot about it. Yes, I know, I took three optics courses as part of my physics degree 30 years ago. Instead of waving ones arms about and saying "well there are calculators online" why not actually use one of them to demonstrate the validity of your argument? The bottom line on this seems to be that you are saying "point and shoot bad" without actually performing the comparison necessary to find out just how bad. I don't expect a point and shoot camera to do everything that an SLR system will do. But instead of saying "well because it can't it's worthless junk", my view is that it's bloody amazing what it _can_ do given the size and price. If you don't find that bloody amazing you have to be a young fellow. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > >> >> >>>>">Lumix fz-30 is 35mm-420mm. > >> >> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > My problem has always been the opposite. In any case, how many millimeters > is the _actual_ difference? You don't have a clue, do you. I can go to a calculator site and work through a pair of examples no more easily than you can. I know from experience doing macro work in 35mm, with a P&S digital, and with a 1.5x digital that it makes a big difference sometimes. I've also seen this discussed on photo.net and other places by people who do more serious macro shooting than I do. And at least *some* of them were complaining about the the increase from digital. > > The difference between 1 inch > > and 2 inches of sharpness in a candid portrait (low-light with an [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it is not within the capabilities of any point and shoot currently on the > market so the depth of field in that application is irrelevant. No, I want the more-visible eye sharp, and enough of the rest of the face so it doesn't look too weird (maybe eye out to tip of nose, or eye back to ear; depends on pose and such). And I wasn't discussing just P&S cameras, and neither were you if the sensor size difference between P&S and DSLRs was part of the discussion. > >> > And a 400 might well be the first choice for depth of field control -- > >> > if "control" means "reducing", which is often wanted. People use 300 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > are not compelling. Or maybe the depth of field is 20 feet? Or 2? Or > what? What depth of field do you _need_ to have for this application? There's a *big* difference between "not in focus" and "blurred enough to not be a distraction". For this purpose, you need to throw the background all the way to "not a distraction". > In any case, if someone was _paying_ me to do this I would have no objection > to carrying an 8x10 view camera or trucking around a 30 inch telescope if > that's what it took to make the customer happy. You couldn't do it with either of those. > >> >> > So will actual resolution > >> >> > (with a very small sensor, it's unlikely that the lens will be able [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > calculators online" why not actually use one of them to demonstrate the > validity of your argument? Already been done, no reason to repeat it. > The bottom line on this seems to be that you are saying "point and shoot > bad" without actually performing the comparison necessary to find out just > how bad. You are clearly not reading what I am writing. I'm saying the differences in DOF are often significant. I did NOT say that the DSLR is always better. Sometimes more DOF is good, sometimes bad, sometimes beyond a certain point it doesn't matter at all. > I don't expect a point and shoot camera to do everything that an SLR > system will do. But instead of saying "well because it can't it's > worthless junk", my view is that it's bloody amazing what it _can_ > do given the size and price. If you don't find that bloody amazing > you have to be a young fellow. You will not find me saying, anywhere, in this thread or any other, that all P&S cameras are worthless junk. If you think I have, you are confused; either you've confused me with somebody else, or you've misunderstood what I've written. I *agree* with your statement about how bloody amazing the performance is for the size and price. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > "A 300mm/f4.5 or so will run you somewhere in the region of $1000 > A 300/f2.8 goes anywhere from $2300 for a Sigma to $5000 and up, " [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > at lenses for > those prices. If you do weddings for $1000, that's way too cheap. But it's a rare wedding that needs a 300mm lens. Not unheard of, but rare... 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS: http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com/mc18.html http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com/cm23.html ;-) SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Lumix fz-30 is 35mm-420mm. Canon 350D + 70-300/4-5.6 IS is not much more expensive, but 10 times better. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr > Their DMW-LT55 - 1.7x teleconverter goes for $200, it takes you from > 420mm to 714mm. Considering how much a 714mm lens would cost, a gain > of 294mm is worth $200. Olympus B-300 is better. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#tele > I'd like to know prices of lenses of any brand which are 300mm or > above. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you > bring an SLR with a 500mm lens, or a P&S with a 3x/4x? Check this out: http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/tanzania_2006 I think pretty much every image was with a 500 mm f/4. A 500 mm f/4 + 300mm f/4 + smaller lenses and 2 bodies (including pro level 1D series) fit in an airline carry-on legal (US carrier) backpack. Roger >Check this out: > http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/tanzania_2006 > I think pretty much every image was with a 500 mm f/4. >A 500 mm f/4 + 300mm f/4 + smaller lenses and 2 bodies (including >pro level 1D series) fit in an airline carry-on legal (US carrier) >backpack. >Roger I think these pics are great, but you don't have to redo Bill's pics. When I was in college I spent some time traveling and working in Tanzania. All I had was a Nikorrmat at a 50 and 135 lenses. Had some lovely photos, it is right you can get very close to some of the animals. For lenses I would say at least a 28mm wide, a mid range zoom ( or just a 60-100 macro) and a 70-200 f2.8. This would be on an APS sensor camera. Full frame I would add a 300 or 400, If you want to go really tight a little longer. Enjoy the trip. Tom > If you go on an African safari would > you > bring an SLR with a 500mm lens, or a P&S with a 3x/4x? Canon 350D Canon 70-300/4-5.6 IS or Canon 200/2.8 http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr > I'd like to know prices of lenses of any brand which are 300mm or > above. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you > bring an SLR with a 500mm lens, or a P&S with a 3x/4x? Minolta 300 f/2.8 SSM, $4500; older non-SSM version is at "clearance" price of $3300 at B&H. It's not the lens that's the problem as much as the tripod. And to get full measure of high quality long lenses you must have a tripod or at least a mono and high shutter speed. Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. I'd consider a 300mm or 500mm mirror or 80-200/2.8. And a 1.4xor 1.7 .epends what I'm going to shoot and how long i'd be out. And whether riding or walking. Tokina keeps the price down nicely. So does being a *thrifty* person and almost always buying good used equipment. Collin KC8TKA >I'd consider a 300mm or 500mm mirror or 80-200/2.8. And a 1.4xor 1.7 >.epends what I'm going to shoot and how long i'd be out. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Collin >KC8TKA Your results with either will be marginal. A sad truth in the "camera" world is that the most attention to quality is lavished on the fast fixed telephotos. Which is why a 300mm f2.8 wide open will in most cases beat a 300mm f4 wide open when it comes to contrast and resolution. Ideally, it should be the opposite and would be, if all lenses were diffraction limited across the sensor plane. -Rich Of course. But if I were on a safari and working (resumably) in bright light and if size were a major consideration and it was a pleasure trip and not for publication a good quality mirror still produces *good* (acceptable) results. So much depends on purpose, environment, and target use. Then again I wouldn't mind having another Pentax F*300/4.5. A bit slow but contrast and resolution to beat all. Still very compact. (One of those lenses that I wish I'd never sold. But alas, the budget of a hobbyist.) Collin KC8TKA |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.