Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > shooting the impossible...

Reply
Thread Tools

shooting the impossible...

 
 
chibitul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-02-2003
Hi,

I was reading an article and one of the points of dSLR with small
sensors (such as 1.5 conversion factor) was that an 300mm/f2.8 becomes
effectively an 450mm f/2.8: the effective focal length (angle of view
changes) but the f number stays the same.

So this ot me thinking: with the low noise of Canon 10D at ISO 1600 and
this increased focal length (from 300 to 450) it should be possible to
take pictures in very dim light, that was not possible before with film.
is that complete bullshit or is it true? Let's ignore IS here, since it
gives you one more stop regardless of what's behind it, film or CMOS...
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
AJ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-02-2003
Wherever did you get the idea 10Ds were "low noise" at ISO 1600?
AJ

"chibitul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> Hi,
>
> I was reading an article and one of the points of dSLR with small
> sensors (such as 1.5 conversion factor) was that an 300mm/f2.8 becomes
> effectively an 450mm f/2.8: the effective focal length (angle of view
> changes) but the f number stays the same.
>
> So this ot me thinking: with the low noise of Canon 10D at ISO 1600 and
> this increased focal length (from 300 to 450) it should be possible to
> take pictures in very dim light, that was not possible before with film.
> is that complete bullshit or is it true? Let's ignore IS here, since it
> gives you one more stop regardless of what's behind it, film or CMOS...



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Alan Browne
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-02-2003


chibitul wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I was reading an article and one of the points of dSLR with small
> sensors (such as 1.5 conversion factor) was that an 300mm/f2.8 becomes
> effectively an 450mm f/2.8: the effective focal length (angle of view
> changes) but the f number stays the same.


Yes.

>
> So this ot me thinking: with the low noise of Canon 10D at ISO 1600 and
> this increased focal length (from 300 to 450) it should be possible to
> take pictures in very dim light, that was not possible before with film.
> is that complete bullshit or is it true? Let's ignore IS here, since it
> gives you one more stop regardless of what's behind it, film or CMOS...


The main point I pull out of your post is that 450mm f/2.8 never existed
before (35mm) so this is new ground ... yeah, sort of. (Using a TC, the
aperture is constant but the FL is longer resulting in a high f. no.).

f/2.8 is better than say f/4.5 but it's not like it has magic light
gathering powers... film or digital...
you are correct on the low noise issue, shooting low (or any) light / hi
iso with the digital will be less noisy than the film counterpart. But
bring a sturdy tripod and use MLU if you can.

What should really blow your socks is a 600mm f/4 becomes a 900 f/4....

Alan.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Joseph Meehan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-02-2003
But by keeping the same density and going to a full size sensor, you
increase the total capability to record an image.

It is much the same as using silver film 35mm and cropping the image, or
just using a full frame digital and cropping it.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math


"chibitul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> Hi,
>
> I was reading an article and one of the points of dSLR with small
> sensors (such as 1.5 conversion factor) was that an 300mm/f2.8 becomes
> effectively an 450mm f/2.8: the effective focal length (angle of view
> changes) but the f number stays the same.
>
> So this ot me thinking: with the low noise of Canon 10D at ISO 1600 and
> this increased focal length (from 300 to 450) it should be possible to
> take pictures in very dim light, that was not possible before with film.
> is that complete bullshit or is it true? Let's ignore IS here, since it
> gives you one more stop regardless of what's behind it, film or CMOS...



 
Reply With Quote
 
Todd Walker
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-02-2003
In article <PDcpb.175949$(E-Mail Removed)>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> Wherever did you get the idea 10Ds were "low noise" at ISO 1600?
> AJ
>


The 10D has lower noise at 1600 than any other DSLR except maybe the
Fuji S2. And high speed film can't even touch the noise performance of
the 10D or S2.

--
________________________________
Todd Walker
http://www.toddwalker.net
Canon 10D:
http://www.toddwalker.net/canon10d
My Digital Photography Weblog:
http://www.toddwalker.net/dpblog.htm
_________________________________
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-02-2003
Todd Walker <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>(E-Mail Removed) says...


>> Wherever did you get the idea 10Ds were "low noise" at ISO 1600?

>
>The 10D has lower noise at 1600 than any other DSLR except maybe the
>Fuji S2. And high speed film can't even touch the noise performance of
>the 10D or S2.


"Lower" is not synonymous with "low". There's a fair bit of noise at
ISO 1600.

--
Ray Fischer
(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-02-2003
chibitul <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> I was reading an article and one of the points of dSLR with small
> sensors (such as 1.5 conversion factor) was that an 300mm/f2.8 becomes
> effectively an 450mm f/2.8: the effective focal length (angle of view
> changes) but the f number stays the same.


> So this ot me thinking: with the low noise of Canon 10D at ISO 1600 and
> this increased focal length (from 300 to 450) it should be possible to
> take pictures in very dim light, that was not possible before with film.
> is that complete bullshit or is it true? Let's ignore IS here, since it
> gives you one more stop regardless of what's behind it, film or CMOS...


Well, let's just say that I'm very fond of my 87mm f1.2 NOCT aspheric
portrait lens on my Fuji S2. Very useful at parties.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <(E-Mail Removed)>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-02-2003
(E-Mail Removed) (Ray Fischer) writes:

> Todd Walker <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >(E-Mail Removed) says...

>
> >> Wherever did you get the idea 10Ds were "low noise" at ISO 1600?

> >
> >The 10D has lower noise at 1600 than any other DSLR except maybe the
> >Fuji S2. And high speed film can't even touch the noise performance of
> >the 10D or S2.

>
> "Lower" is not synonymous with "low". There's a fair bit of noise at
> ISO 1600.


Yeah, in the S2 also. But it's still quite useful -- and a *huge*
improvement over what I used to put with using film.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <(E-Mail Removed)>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-02-2003
"Joseph Meehan" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> But by keeping the same density and going to a full size sensor, you
> increase the total capability to record an image.
>
> It is much the same as using silver film 35mm and cropping the image, or
> just using a full frame digital and cropping it.


Only cheaper.


--
David Dyer-Bennet, <(E-Mail Removed)>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>
 
Reply With Quote
 
MarkH
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-02-2003
Alan Browne <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:5Scpb.4088$(E-Mail Removed):

> chibitul wrote:
>
>> I was reading an article and one of the points of dSLR with small
>> sensors (such as 1.5 conversion factor) was that an 300mm/f2.8
>> becomes effectively an 450mm f/2.8: the effective focal length (angle
>> of view changes) but the f number stays the same.

>
> Yes.
>
>> So this ot me thinking: with the low noise of Canon 10D at ISO 1600
>> and this increased focal length (from 300 to 450) it should be
>> possible to take pictures in very dim light, that was not possible
>> before with film. is that complete bullshit or is it true? Let's
>> ignore IS here, since it gives you one more stop regardless of what's
>> behind it, film or CMOS...

>
> The main point I pull out of your post is that 450mm f/2.8 never
> existed before (35mm) so this is new ground ... yeah, sort of. (Using
> a TC, the aperture is constant but the FL is longer resulting in a
> high f. no.).
>
> f/2.8 is better than say f/4.5 but it's not like it has magic light
> gathering powers... film or digital...
> you are correct on the low noise issue, shooting low (or any) light /
> hi iso with the digital will be less noisy than the film counterpart.
> But bring a sturdy tripod and use MLU if you can.
>
> What should really blow your socks is a 600mm f/4 becomes a 900
> f/4....



On the 10D the effective focal length multiplier is 1.6, combined with a
400 f2.8 IS from canon you effectively have a 640mm with f2.8 and IS.
Think about the low light hand held ability of that! (but donít think
about the cost)

Of course if Canon released a 16MPix full frame D-SLR with the same or
better low noise levels then you still have the same thing because you
could crop and still have 6MPix of data (this is exactly what you get with
the 10D except you donít have the option not to crop).



--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~markh/
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Please save me from shooting myself in the head! =?Utf-8?B?V2lsbGlhbSBTdWxsaXZhbg==?= ASP .Net 2 10-19-2005 12:36 PM
Powering off as a trouble shooting procedure Dugie Computer Support 10 01-27-2005 12:50 AM
Trouble shooting a shutdown problem Not Bill Gates Computer Support 6 04-24-2004 03:57 PM
Please Help! java.mail trouble shooting for MMS sending over mm3 Andrea Maschio Java 0 12-05-2003 02:45 PM
looking for Trouble shooting guide for lockups and freezes Matt Ferrari Computer Support 8 09-18-2003 11:59 AM



Advertisments