If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Stacked teleconverters (was Telephoto Reach and Digital Cameras- lens comparison)
On 12/16/2010 10:17 PM, Paul Furman wrote:
peter wrote: Roger N. Clark wrote: Compare that to a mere 1400 mm (real) focal length: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...0mm.d-923.html I noticed on your site that you take images with stacked teleconverters. It is my understanding that in addition to loss of light a teleconverter also exaggerates any flaws in the prime lens. I could not see any such exaggeration of aberrations. The stacked teleconverters will also crop off the edges where aberrations are most troublesome like CA, coma and astigmatism. What I've found is that teleconverters will give a softer image at the pixel level but they do generally increase actual subject detail, so not great for large prints but still useful. Also, I would think that stacking would work for your astro shots, when mounted on a proper tracking mount, but would not be very practical for wildlife photography. A loose fitting gimbal head is ideal for wildlife: http://www.google.com/images?q=gimbal+head Absolutely, a gimbal mount works well. I was actually referring to stacked teleconverters not being practical due to the loss of light. In my own experience the only combination I have liked is the Nikkor 1.7 attached to my 70-200. I have tried the Kenko 1.4 and the Nikkor 2x on the 80-400, but have not been even close to happy with the results. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Stacked teleconverters (was Telephoto Reach and Digital Cameras- lens comparison)
peter wrote:
Paul Furman wrote: peter wrote: Roger N. Clark wrote: Compare that to a mere 1400 mm (real) focal length: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...0mm.d-923.html I noticed on your site that you take images with stacked teleconverters. It is my understanding that in addition to loss of light a teleconverter also exaggerates any flaws in the prime lens. I could not see any such exaggeration of aberrations. The stacked teleconverters will also crop off the edges where aberrations are most troublesome like CA, coma and astigmatism. What I've found is that teleconverters will give a softer image at the pixel level but they do generally increase actual subject detail, so not great for large prints but still useful. Also, I would think that stacking would work for your astro shots, when mounted on a proper tracking mount, but would not be very practical for wildlife photography. A loose fitting gimbal head is ideal for wildlife: http://www.google.com/images?q=gimbal+head Absolutely, a gimbal mount works well. drool I was actually referring to stacked teleconverters not being practical due to the loss of light. In my own experience the only combination I have liked is the Nikkor 1.7 attached to my 70-200. I have tried the Kenko 1.4 and the Nikkor 2x on the 80-400, but have not been even close to happy with the results. The Nikon 1.4 is good, and small. It basically turns an FX camera into a DX, I never tried to figure out if that ever makes sense though, I guess I've assumed not. You'd have to factor in the ISO to really evaluate it; I think it'd be a wash for shutter speed and the optical compromises of a teleconverter on FX would let the DX body win. Perhaps FX would win for astro with a guided head more drool. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Telephoto Reach and Digital Cameras - lens comparison
On 12/17/2010 01:15 AM, Superzooms Still Win wrote:
As for your physics proving everything, it FAILS because it does NOT take into account the figure of the lenses. The lenses on the superzoom camera can and ARE polished to diffraction-limited quality. Yes, they are polished to diffraction-limited quality at the top of a high moutain by virgin girls under the full moon. They are then laid on silk cushions and brought back in the valley using buffalo carts, and the tiny moves of the lenses on the cushions caused by the gentle rocking of the cart finishes the polishing to perfection. -- Bertrand |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Telephoto Reach and Digital Cameras - lens comparison
David J Taylor wrote:
"bobwilliams" wrote in message ... [] But just to level the playing field a bit, estimate the COST and WEIGHT of the system you used to get this moon image vs the COST and WEIGHT of the Superzoom camera to which you made the image comparison. Bob Williams That's a fair comment, Bob. One uses the tools most appropriate to the task in hand, and I know that I won't carry such big lenses as Roger uses, and I accept the performance will be somewhat worse. I do now use a DSLR as it has many advantages for me over the cameras I used before, but I still have a pocket camera for those occasions which require it. What Roger's page clearly shows is that very small sensors and lenses cannot overcome the limitations of physics. Cheers, David Everything in life (and photography) is a compromise. There is no question that Roger's Super System will outperform ANY Superzoom.....But at what cost,in Price, Portability and Convenience? All of us have to settle for "good enough"...... even Roger. He is heavy into astro-photography and I suspect that he has even better moonshots than the ones he posted here, taken with astronomical telescopes. But these systems used are so specialized that comparing them to a consumer Superzoom or even to an unaided Canon 5D MkII with a Canon 300 mm f4 L IS lens is of little practical significance. BTW, I admire Roger's contributions to this newsgroup and take all his data, images and conclusions very seriously. Bob |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Stacked teleconverters (was Telephoto Reach and Digital Cameras- lens comparison)
On 16/12/2010 15:59, peter wrote:
On 12/15/2010 1:56 AM, Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote: Compare to: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...st2/index.html Starting at Figure 3, at only 300 mm, image quality shows far more detail than any of the superzoom images, and as you go further down the page, the images with the DSLR just keep showing more and more detail, and these are an in-camera produced jpegs. Figures 4 and 5 are far past any superzoom P&S camera image possible. Again, simple physics proves the point. By the time you get to Figure 7 with the DSLR raw image, it is so far beyond the P&S image, it is amazing. But wait, we not done yet. DSLRs keep getting better and better. And more to the point you can hang one on a real telescope at prime focus. The only worry is getting dust on the sensor and that some DSLRs burn through batteries when used in B mode for long exposures. Some of the picassaweb images are claiming 2016 mm equivalent focal length, e.g. http://picasaweb.google.com/aniramca...54027503541298 (probably the best P&S image on the page). Compare that to a mere 1400 mm (real) focal length: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...0mm.d-923.html The full resolution image is here (781 kbytes): http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...d-2385srgb.jpg No contest, the DSLR blows away any P&S superzoom moon image, as simple physics proved it would. I noticed on your site that you take images with stacked teleconverters. It is my understanding that in addition to loss of light a teleconverter also exaggerates any flaws in the prime lens. I could not see any such exaggeration of aberrations. If anything the aberrations are less with a teleconverter as the longer effective focal length means the rays going through the lens to the film plane are closer to the lens axis and at a shallower angle where all the optics approximations hold more accurately. It is the edge of field corners where a prime lens has its worst aberrations. However, you do need a prime lens that is tack sharp since when you multiply the lens focal length by 2x there needs to be something useful to go into the additional pixels. Otherwise you could just take the full frame picture and interpolate the missing pixels in software. Also, I would think that stacking would work for your astro shots, when mounted on a proper tracking mount, but would not be very practical for wildlife photography. When using teleconverters with a telescope which is already a long focal length and by comparison with a normal lens many have long back focus you can alter the magnification a fair bit by adding extension tubes between the teleconverter/compressor and the camera. This does slightly affect aberrations but is usually OK. http://www.nezumi.demon.co.uk/astro/zoom/zoom.htm Regards, Martin Brown |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Stacked teleconverters (was Telephoto Reach and Digital Cameras- lens comparison)
peter wrote:
I noticed on your site that you take images with stacked teleconverters. It is my understanding that in addition to loss of light a teleconverter also exaggerates any flaws in the prime lens. I could not see any such exaggeration of aberrations. Also, I would think that stacking would work for your astro shots, when mounted on a proper tracking mount, but would not be very practical for wildlife photography. Paul, Stacked TCs work well with wildlife photography too. The Moon is a very difficult target with very high contrast. Any aberrations will show around the edges of the Moon and in shadow boundaries in craters. So if your lens can image the Moon well, it will do very well on wildlife. Some examples with stacked 1.4x and 2x TCs: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...979.b-700.html http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...awk.b-600.html The biggest problem with stacked TCs is the very long focal lengths mean one needs to be very steady when taking the picture. I have not seen any zoom ;ens that will work well with stacked TCs, because zoom lenses are not that sharp. Roger |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Stacked teleconverters (was Telephoto Reach and Digital Cameras- lens comparison)
peter wrote:
I noticed on your site that you take images with stacked teleconverters. It is my understanding that in addition to loss of light a teleconverter also exaggerates any flaws in the prime lens. I could not see any such exaggeration of aberrations. Also, I would think that stacking would work for your astro shots, when mounted on a proper tracking mount, but would not be very practical for wildlife photography. Paul, Stacked TCs work well with wildlife photography too. The Moon is a very difficult target with very high contrast. Any aberrations will show around the edges of the Moon and in shadow boundaries in craters. So if your lens can image the Moon well, it will do very well on wildlife. Some examples with stacked 1.4x and 2x TCs: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...979.b-700.html http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...awk.b-600.html The biggest problem with stacked TCs is the very long focal lengths mean one needs to be very steady when taking the picture. I have not seen any zoom ;ens that will work well with stacked TCs, because zoom lenses are not that sharp. Roger |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Telephoto Reach and Digital Cameras - lens comparison
Superzooms Still Win wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 08:39:38 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username to wrote: Superzooms Still Win wrote: On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 01:25:07 -0600, Dudley Hanks wrote: Now that Roger has debunked your claims about detail, LOL, perhaps we should run an analysis of the number of colour shades captured in those DSLR and P&S pics? Or, are you still smarting from the butterfly drubbing you took ... ? But but DUDley! Didn't you compare that other image I posted that showed many many thousands of more color shades in its data so therefore it MUST be a better image according to your reasoning? What? Didn't you show it to your sighted friends so they could laugh out loud at your absurdity and failed reasoning? Didn't you even show them how your "editing skills" totally trashes every photo you put through your "enhancing" routines? We've all seen it, that's why they were all remaining so silent, you were making such a total fool of yourself, AGAIN. You are not getting it. Simple physics proves you are wrong. Regarding image detail, the super zoom P&S cameras have clear apertures on the order of an inch or less. Diffraction from such a small lens means poor subject resolution. A DSLR with even a lower end fixed telephoto like 300 f/4 has about a 3-inch clear aperture, thus on the order of 3x higher resolution on a subject. The 3x larger diameter lens delivers 9x more light. More light = finer gradations due to better signal-to-noise ratio. Again, this is simple physics. There is no contest between a DSLR versus P&S whether telephoto resolution on a subject or color tonality, or signal-to-noise ratio. Simple physics, the DSLR wins. Anyone who can do simple physics can prove this. Dudley is correct. Roger Hey MORON, this has nothing to do with lens physics, DUDley is throwing in another situation that he created which proved himself too to be a total moron. You are wrong. It has to do with both lens physics and sensor physics. Conisder two cameras, one with double the sensor size, double the lens focal length, and double the pixel size, and the same f/ratio lens. The lens has 4 times the area so collects 4 times the light. The sensors have the same spatial resolution, but the larger pixels collect 4 times the light from the lens delivering 4 times the light. The signal-to-noise ratio is double on the large sensor camera. The higher signal-to-noise ratio delivers finer tonality and greater dynamic range. This is well proven and simple physics. As for your physics proving everything, it FAILS because it does NOT take into account the figure of the lenses. The lenses on the superzoom camera can and ARE polished to diffraction-limited quality. They have to be in order to allow the photosites resolve individual details. Otherwise nobody would buy them. Thereby allowing them to have more resolution at larger apertures. DSLR glass is NEVER ground to diffraction-limited quality, because the cost to do so puts them outside the reach of every consumer, therefore they can never attain diffraction-limited resolutions at ANY useful aperture. What a laugh! Physics does very well. Again it is simple physics that shows that the big lenses with DSLRs doesn't even need to be close to diffraction limited in other to deliver better resolution on a subject compared to the tiny lenses on P&S super zoom cameras. Simple physics proves it. But then you already knew this, or you wouldn't have blatantly biased your fools' tests again by choosing aperture and exposure settings and resolutions and JPG compressions which would give an advantage to your PIECE OF **** DSLR CRAP. Shove that "physics" up your useless asshole full of relentless BAD-SCIENCE bull****. Now, go ahead, spend three more years of your useless life trying to outdo more P&S cameras that have already surpassed anything you have ever accomplished in your miserable existence. Simple equation: Dawes limit = 5.45/D where D=lens clear aperture diameter. You can try shoving the physics wherever you want to but it won't change the basic and well understood laws of physics. Simple physics proves you wrong. QED Roger |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Telephoto Reach and Digital Cameras - lens comparison
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Stacked teleconverters (was Telephoto Reach and Digital Cameras - lens comparison)
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:43:54 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" wrote: I have not seen any zoom ;ens that will work well with stacked TCs, because zoom lenses are not that sharp. Only because Canon doesn't make anything in the class of the Nokon 200-400mm f/4 VR Ior II. :-) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Comparison shop for digital cameras | robert | Digital Photography | 1 | March 13th 07 06:18 PM |
FA: Leitz 500 mm mirror telephoto lens for Leica R cameras | Collector | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | June 2nd 04 07:45 PM |
Good comparison reviews of digital cameras | D | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 1 | May 4th 04 05:22 PM |
FS: Two Rolleicord V(b) cameras, eyelevel prism finder, telephoto lens, close up lens, etc. | Otto Fajen | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | April 17th 04 07:58 AM |
FS: Two Rolleicord V(b) cameras, eyelevel prism finder, telephoto lens, close up lens, etc. | Otto Fajen | Medium Format Equipment For Sale | 0 | April 17th 04 07:58 AM |