2197mm Zoom f/3.5 Hand-Held Photo on a P&S Camera

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by john tallen, Nov 3, 2008.

  1. john tallen

    john tallen Guest

    I've been following the P&S vs. Digital-SLR debates for awhile. I
    thought I'd try what was suggested on an older P&S camera that I
    happened to have laying around for backup purposes. I borrowed a
    tel-extender from a friend to stack it on the one I already had.

    Here's a quick sample of the results of hand held photography with
    good optics, stacked tel-extenders, and a good but inexpensive P&S
    camera.

    Focal Length (in 35mm equivalent) = 432mm (camera's zoom lens) X 1.76
    (digital zoom) X 1.7 (optical tel-extender) X 1.7 (optical
    tel-extender) =

    2197mm effective focal length with an aperture of f/3.5. Downsized
    only, no cropping, no other editing done.

    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2124/2999210192_bc589b9887_o.jpg


    For that kind of light grasp at that focal length reach, doing this
    hand held with this much clarity, I say that P&S guy is 100% right.
    For nature photography I can't think of a lighter, smaller, and more
    adaptable kit. You can even see the small drops of drinking-water on
    its beak from as far away as I shot this photo.

    You can keep your digital SLR cameras. I'll be selling mine. Do doubt
    about it.
    john tallen, Nov 3, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. john tallen

    Me Here Guest

    "john tallen" <> wrote in message
    news:gemmji$p3$...
    > I've been following the P&S vs. Digital-SLR debates for awhile. I thought
    > I'd try what was suggested on an older P&S camera that I happened to have
    > laying around for backup purposes. I borrowed a tel-extender from a friend
    > to stack it on the one I already had.
    >
    > Here's a quick sample of the results of hand held photography with good
    > optics, stacked tel-extenders, and a good but inexpensive P&S camera.
    >
    > Focal Length (in 35mm equivalent) = 432mm (camera's zoom lens) X 1.76
    > (digital zoom) X 1.7 (optical tel-extender) X 1.7 (optical tel-extender) =
    >
    > 2197mm effective focal length with an aperture of f/3.5. Downsized only,
    > no cropping, no other editing done.
    >
    > http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2124/2999210192_bc589b9887_o.jpg
    >

    I see a soft image with CA. Pretty crappy image, but if you think it's good
    then be happy. BTW it's not f:3.5 with all that glass and digital zoom
    applied.
    Me Here, Nov 3, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
    drugs began to take hold. I remember "john tallen"
    <> saying something like:

    >You can keep your digital SLR cameras. I'll be selling mine. Do doubt
    >about it.


    Idiot.
    Grimly Curmudgeon, Nov 3, 2008
    #3
  4. john tallen

    john tallen Guest

    "Me Here" <> wrote in message
    news:gen0i3$743$...
    >
    > "john tallen" <> wrote in message
    > news:gemmji$p3$...
    >> I've been following the P&S vs. Digital-SLR debates for awhile. I
    >> thought I'd try what was suggested on an older P&S camera that I
    >> happened to have laying around for backup purposes. I borrowed a
    >> tel-extender from a friend to stack it on the one I already had.
    >>
    >> Here's a quick sample of the results of hand held photography with
    >> good optics, stacked tel-extenders, and a good but inexpensive P&S
    >> camera.
    >>
    >> Focal Length (in 35mm equivalent) = 432mm (camera's zoom lens) X
    >> 1.76 (digital zoom) X 1.7 (optical tel-extender) X 1.7 (optical
    >> tel-extender) =
    >>
    >> 2197mm effective focal length with an aperture of f/3.5. Downsized
    >> only, no cropping, no other editing done.
    >>
    >> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2124/2999210192_bc589b9887_o.jpg
    >>

    > I see a soft image with CA. Pretty crappy image, but if you think
    > it's good then be happy. BTW it's not f:3.5 with all that glass and
    > digital zoom applied.
    >


    It's interesting that you would see CA in it. The small black and
    white details in the corners of the plastic container show no shifting
    of colors, there's not even any purple fringing from the sensor on the
    bright sunlit portions of the bird. Your comment shows that either
    your monitor or eyes are badly aligned. Do you imagine things because
    you don't want to believe what you see? Yes, the image is a little
    soft but when put through a Fourier-transform sharpener it's quite
    usable from the full-size image. I foresee no problems making 8x10
    prints from the original after sharpening.

    For that price at that aperture at that focal length there's nothing
    at all in the digital SLR camera world that could even come close. And
    it is too f/3.5 with all that glass. P&S cameras do not use the same
    tel-extender method as digital SLRs. Putting a tel-extender on a P&S
    lens is like redesigning the lens and increasing its diameter. If the
    camera and tel-extender glass is of high quality then this is no
    different than buying a whole new high-quality lens that has larger
    components up front. It's like having a modular lens system. If you
    figure the total new aperture and also take into consideration that a
    smaller area of the sensor is being used because a low amount of
    digital-zoom was involved (higher crop-factor to account for that
    focal-length) then it really is an f/3.5 aperture at that focal
    length.

    The image was taken in the late afternoon in the far north, low sun
    angle, sunset is at 4:50 pm. With diffuse sunlight diffused further by
    surrounding dense woods. Using the Sunny-16 rule this image would
    require an exposure of about f/4.5 to f/5.6 at ISO100 and 1/100
    shutter speed. It was shot with an exposure of f/3.5, that's 0.6 to
    1.3 stop larger, +EV. ISO200, 1.0 stop larger, +EV. 1/640 shutter, 2.3
    stops lower, -EV. Even without figuring it from lens diameters and
    focal lengths, the exposure settings and subject itself all adds up to
    prove that it is completely acting as an f/3.5 aperture lens. Whether
    you want to believe it or not.

    For those interested in bokeh from P&S cameras the twigs behind the
    bird were about 5 feet away.

    I guess you're all going to have to reconsider what you've convinced
    yourselves of all your lives. I'm doing just that.

    As for as the other person that replied, the only idiots around here
    are the ones that can't do the simple math involved.
    john tallen, Nov 3, 2008
    #4
  5. john tallen

    ray Guest

    On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 05:17:06 -0600, john tallen wrote:

    > I've been following the P&S vs. Digital-SLR debates for awhile. I
    > thought I'd try what was suggested on an older P&S camera that I
    > happened to have laying around for backup purposes. I borrowed a
    > tel-extender from a friend to stack it on the one I already had.
    >
    > Here's a quick sample of the results of hand held photography with good
    > optics, stacked tel-extenders, and a good but inexpensive P&S camera.
    >
    > Focal Length (in 35mm equivalent) = 432mm (camera's zoom lens) X 1.76
    > (digital zoom) X 1.7 (optical tel-extender) X 1.7 (optical tel-extender)
    > =
    >
    > 2197mm effective focal length with an aperture of f/3.5. Downsized only,
    > no cropping, no other editing done.
    >
    > http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2124/2999210192_bc589b9887_o.jpg
    >
    >
    > For that kind of light grasp at that focal length reach, doing this hand
    > held with this much clarity, I say that P&S guy is 100% right. For
    > nature photography I can't think of a lighter, smaller, and more
    > adaptable kit. You can even see the small drops of drinking-water on its
    > beak from as far away as I shot this photo.
    >
    > You can keep your digital SLR cameras. I'll be selling mine. Do doubt
    > about it.


    For starters, you can factor out the 1.76x digital zoom. That is,
    effectively, a simple crop.
    ray, Nov 3, 2008
    #5
  6. john tallen

    john tallen Guest

    "ray" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 05:17:06 -0600, john tallen wrote:
    >
    >> I've been following the P&S vs. Digital-SLR debates for awhile. I
    >> thought I'd try what was suggested on an older P&S camera that I
    >> happened to have laying around for backup purposes. I borrowed a
    >> tel-extender from a friend to stack it on the one I already had.
    >>
    >> Here's a quick sample of the results of hand held photography with
    >> good
    >> optics, stacked tel-extenders, and a good but inexpensive P&S
    >> camera.
    >>
    >> Focal Length (in 35mm equivalent) = 432mm (camera's zoom lens) X
    >> 1.76
    >> (digital zoom) X 1.7 (optical tel-extender) X 1.7 (optical
    >> tel-extender)
    >> =
    >>
    >> 2197mm effective focal length with an aperture of f/3.5. Downsized
    >> only,
    >> no cropping, no other editing done.
    >>
    >> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2124/2999210192_bc589b9887_o.jpg
    >>
    >>
    >> For that kind of light grasp at that focal length reach, doing this
    >> hand
    >> held with this much clarity, I say that P&S guy is 100% right. For
    >> nature photography I can't think of a lighter, smaller, and more
    >> adaptable kit. You can even see the small drops of drinking-water
    >> on its
    >> beak from as far away as I shot this photo.
    >>
    >> You can keep your digital SLR cameras. I'll be selling mine. Do
    >> doubt
    >> about it.

    >
    > For starters, you can factor out the 1.76x digital zoom. That is,
    > effectively, a simple crop.


    No, you cannot. That is what defines the FOV, which in turn defines
    the effective focal-length.

    Do you discount the 1.6x crop factor from a DSLR when using a 55mm
    lens when calculating its 35mm equivalent focal length? Digital-zoom
    in effect is just using a smaller central portion of the same sensor.
    That increases the crop-factor. Which in turn increases the 35mm
    equivalent focal-length.

    I see now why the P&S proponent (TrollSpotter?) is having such a
    difficult time with convincing others. If you can't even comprehend
    how simply that this all ties together.
    john tallen, Nov 3, 2008
    #6
  7. john tallen

    john tallen Guest

    "ResidentTrollSpotter" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:20:20 -0600, "john tallen"
    > <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > I just did the quick math involved to see what kind of lens it would
    > require on
    > a DSLR with a 1.6x crop-factor sensor to get the same aperture and
    > focal length
    > as you obtained on your compact P&S setup.
    >
    > You'd need a DSLR lens that is 15.45 inches in diameter. Almost the
    > exact size
    > of one of those large telescopes that they discussed in another
    > thread, the ones
    > that weigh 200 to 250 lbs. and costs $10,000 to $55,000.
    >
    > After they take out a mortgage to buy one, let's see them carry that
    > for more
    > than a few steps while storing it in their jacket pocket on their
    > next
    > bird-watcher's day-hike.
    >
    > LOL
    >


    True. An interesting point to make. However, you might be in error
    about one thing. As far as I know they can't make telescope optics
    with that f-ratio. The amount of coma at that f-ratio makes them unfit
    for imaging. There are a rare few rich-field (wide-field) telescopes
    at that f-ratio but they can't be used for magnified imaging. The best
    they can do is f/4.5 at those sizes of physical apertures. This f/3.5
    aperture at that focal-length is therefore unavailable to any digital
    SLR owner, no matter what cost of telescope that they wish to attach
    to their camera. It can't be done even if they wanted one. What a
    relief. This saves them from having to pay even more for the
    guaranteed chiropractor bills from just one hand-held shot. :) They'd
    better have the foresight too to have had sensor-shift
    image-stabilization. As that too could never be done optically in that
    impossible to make digital SLR lens.
    john tallen, Nov 3, 2008
    #7
  8. john tallen

    Pete D Guest

    "savvo" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 2008-11-03, ResidentTrollSpotter <> wrote:
    >> On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:20:20 -0600, "john tallen"
    >> <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"Me Here" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:gen0i3$743$...
    >>>>
    >>>> "john tallen" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:gemmji$p3$...
    >>>>> I've been following the P&S vs. Digital-SLR debates for awhile. I
    >>>>> thought I'd try what was suggested on an older P&S camera that I
    >>>>> happened to have laying around for backup purposes. I borrowed a
    >>>>> tel-extender from a friend to stack it on the one I already had.
    >>>>>
    >>>> I see a soft image with CA. Pretty crappy image, but if you think
    >>>> it's good then be happy. BTW it's not f:3.5 with all that glass and
    >>>> digital zoom applied.
    >>>>
    >>>I guess you're all going to have to reconsider what you've convinced
    >>>yourselves of all your lives. I'm doing just that.
    >>>
    >>>As for as the other person that replied, the only idiots around here
    >>>are the ones that can't do the simple math involved.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Thanks for posting this John. (But now you've gone and ruined my fun,
    >> watching
    >> the throngs of resident-trolls jump around claiming that it can't be
    >> done. :) )

    >
    > Oh dear, Vern, new depths. But I'm surprised it's taken so long for your
    > multiple personalities to start talking to each other.
    >
    > Nice snapshot of a tit, but nothing to get yourself so excited over.
    >
    > --
    > savvo orig. invib.
    > man


    And one thing to keep in mind is that with this setup sure you will get the
    occasional shot but sadly the delay in focus for P&S setups will mean many
    missed shots compared to pretty much any D-SLR.

    Cheers.

    Pete
    Pete D, Nov 3, 2008
    #8
  9. john tallen

    Pete D Guest

    "john tallen" <> wrote in message
    news:gemmji$p3$...
    > I've been following the P&S vs. Digital-SLR debates for awhile. I thought
    > I'd try what was suggested on an older P&S camera that I happened to have
    > laying around for backup purposes. I borrowed a tel-extender from a friend
    > to stack it on the one I already had.
    >
    > Here's a quick sample of the results of hand held photography with good
    > optics, stacked tel-extenders, and a good but inexpensive P&S camera.
    >
    > Focal Length (in 35mm equivalent) = 432mm (camera's zoom lens) X 1.76
    > (digital zoom) X 1.7 (optical tel-extender) X 1.7 (optical tel-extender) =
    >
    > 2197mm effective focal length with an aperture of f/3.5. Downsized only,
    > no cropping, no other editing done.
    >
    > http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2124/2999210192_bc589b9887_o.jpg
    >
    >
    > For that kind of light grasp at that focal length reach, doing this hand
    > held with this much clarity, I say that P&S guy is 100% right. For nature
    > photography I can't think of a lighter, smaller, and more adaptable kit.
    > You can even see the small drops of drinking-water on its beak from as far
    > away as I shot this photo.
    >
    > You can keep your digital SLR cameras. I'll be selling mine. Do doubt
    > about it.


    Perhaps you should keep your grammar checker though.

    I for one would be very interested in seeing some more of your shots, do you
    have a link to some more?

    Thanks.

    Pete
    Pete D, Nov 3, 2008
    #9
  10. john tallen

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 12:25:10 -0600, "john tallen"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"ResidentTrollSpotter" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:20:20 -0600, "john tallen"
    >> <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I just did the quick math involved to see what kind of lens it would
    >> require on
    >> a DSLR with a 1.6x crop-factor sensor to get the same aperture and
    >> focal length
    >> as you obtained on your compact P&S setup.
    >>
    >> You'd need a DSLR lens that is 15.45 inches in diameter. Almost the
    >> exact size
    >> of one of those large telescopes that they discussed in another
    >> thread, the ones
    >> that weigh 200 to 250 lbs. and costs $10,000 to $55,000.
    >>
    >> After they take out a mortgage to buy one, let's see them carry that
    >> for more
    >> than a few steps while storing it in their jacket pocket on their
    >> next
    >> bird-watcher's day-hike.
    >>
    >> LOL
    >>

    >
    >True. An interesting point to make. However, you might be in error
    >about one thing. As far as I know they can't make telescope optics
    >with that f-ratio. The amount of coma at that f-ratio makes them unfit
    >for imaging. There are a rare few rich-field (wide-field) telescopes
    >at that f-ratio but they can't be used for magnified imaging. The best
    >they can do is f/4.5 at those sizes of physical apertures. This f/3.5
    >aperture at that focal-length is therefore unavailable to any digital
    >SLR owner, no matter what cost of telescope that they wish to attach
    >to their camera. It can't be done even if they wanted one. What a
    >relief. This saves them from having to pay even more for the
    >guaranteed chiropractor bills from just one hand-held shot. :) They'd
    >better have the foresight too to have had sensor-shift
    >image-stabilization. As that too could never be done optically in that
    >impossible to make digital SLR lens.


    You might find http://www.pbase.com/bm2amb/image/60097051 of interest.



    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Nov 3, 2008
    #10
  11. john tallen

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 12:01:16 -0600, "john tallen"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"ray" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 05:17:06 -0600, john tallen wrote:
    >>
    >>> I've been following the P&S vs. Digital-SLR debates for awhile. I
    >>> thought I'd try what was suggested on an older P&S camera that I
    >>> happened to have laying around for backup purposes. I borrowed a
    >>> tel-extender from a friend to stack it on the one I already had.
    >>>
    >>> Here's a quick sample of the results of hand held photography with
    >>> good
    >>> optics, stacked tel-extenders, and a good but inexpensive P&S
    >>> camera.
    >>>
    >>> Focal Length (in 35mm equivalent) = 432mm (camera's zoom lens) X
    >>> 1.76
    >>> (digital zoom) X 1.7 (optical tel-extender) X 1.7 (optical
    >>> tel-extender)
    >>> =
    >>>
    >>> 2197mm effective focal length with an aperture of f/3.5. Downsized
    >>> only,
    >>> no cropping, no other editing done.
    >>>
    >>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2124/2999210192_bc589b9887_o.jpg
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> For that kind of light grasp at that focal length reach, doing this
    >>> hand
    >>> held with this much clarity, I say that P&S guy is 100% right. For
    >>> nature photography I can't think of a lighter, smaller, and more
    >>> adaptable kit. You can even see the small drops of drinking-water
    >>> on its
    >>> beak from as far away as I shot this photo.
    >>>
    >>> You can keep your digital SLR cameras. I'll be selling mine. Do
    >>> doubt
    >>> about it.

    >>
    >> For starters, you can factor out the 1.76x digital zoom. That is,
    >> effectively, a simple crop.

    >
    >No, you cannot. That is what defines the FOV, which in turn defines
    >the effective focal-length.
    >
    >Do you discount the 1.6x crop factor from a DSLR when using a 55mm
    >lens when calculating its 35mm equivalent focal length? Digital-zoom
    >in effect is just using a smaller central portion of the same sensor.
    >That increases the crop-factor. Which in turn increases the 35mm
    >equivalent focal-length.
    >
    >I see now why the P&S proponent (TrollSpotter?) is having such a
    >difficult time with convincing others. If you can't even comprehend
    >how simply that this all ties together.
    >
    >

    When it comes to evaluating the optics the 'effective focal length' is
    irrelevant. All that matters is the actual focal length. All this talk
    of 'effective' focal length and 'crop factors' serves to muddle what
    should be simple physics.

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_aperture



    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Nov 3, 2008
    #11
  12. john tallen

    Me Here Guest

    "Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > When it comes to evaluating the optics the 'effective focal length' is
    > irrelevant. All that matters is the actual focal length. All this talk
    > of 'effective' focal length and 'crop factors' serves to muddle what
    > should be simple physics.
    >
    > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_aperture
    >
    >

    I agree, a 300mm lens is still a 300mm regardless! If I took a photo on film
    ans raised the enlarger up 40% I would get the same result as the APS-C
    sensor. The OP thinks that stacking three supplementary lenses in front
    doesn't affect light transmission, well sorry it does. If he was to measure
    the light, he would see there was some form of "filter factor" with light
    loss.

    As for his contention his image was sharp, nope it was soft.
    Me Here, Nov 3, 2008
    #12
  13. john tallen

    john tallen Guest

    "Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 12:25:10 -0600, "john tallen"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"ResidentTrollSpotter" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:20:20 -0600, "john tallen"
    >>> <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I just did the quick math involved to see what kind of lens it
    >>> would
    >>> require on
    >>> a DSLR with a 1.6x crop-factor sensor to get the same aperture and
    >>> focal length
    >>> as you obtained on your compact P&S setup.
    >>>
    >>> You'd need a DSLR lens that is 15.45 inches in diameter. Almost
    >>> the
    >>> exact size
    >>> of one of those large telescopes that they discussed in another
    >>> thread, the ones
    >>> that weigh 200 to 250 lbs. and costs $10,000 to $55,000.
    >>>
    >>> After they take out a mortgage to buy one, let's see them carry
    >>> that
    >>> for more
    >>> than a few steps while storing it in their jacket pocket on their
    >>> next
    >>> bird-watcher's day-hike.
    >>>
    >>> LOL
    >>>

    >>
    >>True. An interesting point to make. However, you might be in error
    >>about one thing. As far as I know they can't make telescope optics
    >>with that f-ratio. The amount of coma at that f-ratio makes them
    >>unfit
    >>for imaging. There are a rare few rich-field (wide-field) telescopes
    >>at that f-ratio but they can't be used for magnified imaging. The
    >>best
    >>they can do is f/4.5 at those sizes of physical apertures. This
    >>f/3.5
    >>aperture at that focal-length is therefore unavailable to any
    >>digital
    >>SLR owner, no matter what cost of telescope that they wish to attach
    >>to their camera. It can't be done even if they wanted one. What a
    >>relief. This saves them from having to pay even more for the
    >>guaranteed chiropractor bills from just one hand-held shot. :)
    >>They'd
    >>better have the foresight too to have had sensor-shift
    >>image-stabilization. As that too could never be done optically in
    >>that
    >>impossible to make digital SLR lens.

    >
    > You might find http://www.pbase.com/bm2amb/image/60097051 of
    > interest.
    >
    >
    >
    > Eric Stevens


    Why should I find that of any interest? Do you want me to carry around
    350 lbs of glass to equal the same focal-length range and apertures as
    can be done with 2 lbs of glass + camera? It's not even hopefully
    equivalent. That 2000mm f/11 lens doesn't have anywhere near the same
    aperture.

    Add in the price too. No, I have no interest whatsoever in that page
    nor anything on it.

    I can see again why that P&S guy is laughing at you people. You don't
    have a clue. It's just all wishful thinking and desperation to justify
    why you choose digital SLRs. Nothing more than that. And that's just
    for optics reasons. Add in those fast shutter speeds he's listed, the
    convenience, etc. Digital SLRs can't even compete with a good P&S
    anymore. You're all just fooling yourselves.
    john tallen, Nov 3, 2008
    #13
  14. john tallen

    Pete D Guest

    "TomRobbin" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 07:01:12 +1100, "Pete D" <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"savvo" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On 2008-11-03, ResidentTrollSpotter <> wrote:
    >>>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:20:20 -0600, "john tallen"
    >>>> <>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>"Me Here" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>news:gen0i3$743$...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "john tallen" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:gemmji$p3$...
    >>>>>>> I've been following the P&S vs. Digital-SLR debates for awhile. I
    >>>>>>> thought I'd try what was suggested on an older P&S camera that I
    >>>>>>> happened to have laying around for backup purposes. I borrowed a
    >>>>>>> tel-extender from a friend to stack it on the one I already had.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> I see a soft image with CA. Pretty crappy image, but if you think
    >>>>>> it's good then be happy. BTW it's not f:3.5 with all that glass and
    >>>>>> digital zoom applied.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>I guess you're all going to have to reconsider what you've convinced
    >>>>>yourselves of all your lives. I'm doing just that.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>As for as the other person that replied, the only idiots around here
    >>>>>are the ones that can't do the simple math involved.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Thanks for posting this John. (But now you've gone and ruined my fun,
    >>>> watching
    >>>> the throngs of resident-trolls jump around claiming that it can't be
    >>>> done. :) )
    >>>
    >>> Oh dear, Vern, new depths. But I'm surprised it's taken so long for your
    >>> multiple personalities to start talking to each other.
    >>>
    >>> Nice snapshot of a tit, but nothing to get yourself so excited over.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> savvo orig. invib.
    >>> man

    >>
    >>And one thing to keep in mind is that with this setup sure you will get
    >>the
    >>occasional shot but sadly the delay in focus for P&S setups will mean many
    >>missed shots compared to pretty much any D-SLR.
    >>
    >>Cheers.
    >>
    >>Pete
    >>

    >
    > Ah, spoken like a true amateur P&S-DSLR snapshooter. PROS know how to use
    > manual
    > focus set to hyperfocal distance settings to capture the best shots, so
    > not ONE
    > is lost hoping and praying that their auto-focus will latch onto the right
    > spot
    > this time. Which means, any recent P&S camera is faster on shutter-lag
    > than any
    > DSLR. Because it doesn't have to wait for that annoyingly loud and slow
    > slapping
    > mirror and shutter-curtain to get out of the way.
    >
    > Go ahead, keep revealing how ignorant and amateurish all DSLR proponents
    > in this
    > newsgroup are. This is fun.
    >


    Hello tom,

    My P&S does not have manual focus. How does this go for moving targets?

    Thanks.

    Pete
    Pete D, Nov 3, 2008
    #14
  15. john tallen

    ray Guest

    On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 12:01:16 -0600, john tallen wrote:

    > "ray" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 05:17:06 -0600, john tallen wrote:
    >>
    >>> I've been following the P&S vs. Digital-SLR debates for awhile. I
    >>> thought I'd try what was suggested on an older P&S camera that I
    >>> happened to have laying around for backup purposes. I borrowed a
    >>> tel-extender from a friend to stack it on the one I already had.
    >>>
    >>> Here's a quick sample of the results of hand held photography with
    >>> good
    >>> optics, stacked tel-extenders, and a good but inexpensive P&S camera.
    >>>
    >>> Focal Length (in 35mm equivalent) = 432mm (camera's zoom lens) X 1.76
    >>> (digital zoom) X 1.7 (optical tel-extender) X 1.7 (optical
    >>> tel-extender)
    >>> =
    >>>
    >>> 2197mm effective focal length with an aperture of f/3.5. Downsized
    >>> only,
    >>> no cropping, no other editing done.
    >>>
    >>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2124/2999210192_bc589b9887_o.jpg
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> For that kind of light grasp at that focal length reach, doing this
    >>> hand
    >>> held with this much clarity, I say that P&S guy is 100% right. For
    >>> nature photography I can't think of a lighter, smaller, and more
    >>> adaptable kit. You can even see the small drops of drinking-water on
    >>> its
    >>> beak from as far away as I shot this photo.
    >>>
    >>> You can keep your digital SLR cameras. I'll be selling mine. Do doubt
    >>> about it.

    >>
    >> For starters, you can factor out the 1.76x digital zoom. That is,
    >> effectively, a simple crop.

    >
    > No, you cannot. That is what defines the FOV, which in turn defines the
    > effective focal-length.
    >
    > Do you discount the 1.6x crop factor from a DSLR when using a 55mm lens
    > when calculating its 35mm equivalent focal length? Digital-zoom in
    > effect is just using a smaller central portion of the same sensor. That
    > increases the crop-factor. Which in turn increases the 35mm equivalent
    > focal-length.
    >
    > I see now why the P&S proponent (TrollSpotter?) is having such a
    > difficult time with convincing others. If you can't even comprehend how
    > simply that this all ties together.


    What you have cited are entirely different effects. A "digital zoom" is,
    effectively a crop - that is all. "Equivalent focal length" matters only
    as it relates to the size of the sensor. The magnification is true focal
    lenth divided by (diagonal) size of the sensor.
    ray, Nov 3, 2008
    #15
  16. john tallen

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:10:22 -0600, "john tallen"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 12:25:10 -0600, "john tallen"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"ResidentTrollSpotter" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:20:20 -0600, "john tallen"
    >>>> <>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I just did the quick math involved to see what kind of lens it
    >>>> would
    >>>> require on
    >>>> a DSLR with a 1.6x crop-factor sensor to get the same aperture and
    >>>> focal length
    >>>> as you obtained on your compact P&S setup.
    >>>>
    >>>> You'd need a DSLR lens that is 15.45 inches in diameter. Almost
    >>>> the
    >>>> exact size
    >>>> of one of those large telescopes that they discussed in another
    >>>> thread, the ones
    >>>> that weigh 200 to 250 lbs. and costs $10,000 to $55,000.
    >>>>
    >>>> After they take out a mortgage to buy one, let's see them carry
    >>>> that
    >>>> for more
    >>>> than a few steps while storing it in their jacket pocket on their
    >>>> next
    >>>> bird-watcher's day-hike.
    >>>>
    >>>> LOL
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>True. An interesting point to make. However, you might be in error
    >>>about one thing. As far as I know they can't make telescope optics
    >>>with that f-ratio. The amount of coma at that f-ratio makes them
    >>>unfit
    >>>for imaging. There are a rare few rich-field (wide-field) telescopes
    >>>at that f-ratio but they can't be used for magnified imaging. The
    >>>best
    >>>they can do is f/4.5 at those sizes of physical apertures. This
    >>>f/3.5
    >>>aperture at that focal-length is therefore unavailable to any
    >>>digital
    >>>SLR owner, no matter what cost of telescope that they wish to attach
    >>>to their camera. It can't be done even if they wanted one. What a
    >>>relief. This saves them from having to pay even more for the
    >>>guaranteed chiropractor bills from just one hand-held shot. :)
    >>>They'd
    >>>better have the foresight too to have had sensor-shift
    >>>image-stabilization. As that too could never be done optically in
    >>>that
    >>>impossible to make digital SLR lens.

    >>
    >> You might find http://www.pbase.com/bm2amb/image/60097051 of
    >> interest.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Eric Stevens

    >
    >Why should I find that of any interest? Do you want me to carry around
    >350 lbs of glass to equal the same focal-length range and apertures as
    >can be done with 2 lbs of glass + camera? It's not even hopefully
    >equivalent. That 2000mm f/11 lens doesn't have anywhere near the same
    >aperture.
    >
    >Add in the price too. No, I have no interest whatsoever in that page
    >nor anything on it.
    >
    >I can see again why that P&S guy is laughing at you people. You don't
    >have a clue. It's just all wishful thinking and desperation to justify
    >why you choose digital SLRs. Nothing more than that. And that's just
    >for optics reasons. Add in those fast shutter speeds he's listed, the
    >convenience, etc. Digital SLRs can't even compete with a good P&S
    >anymore. You're all just fooling yourselves.
    >

    You should try asking him where he gets his claimed shutter speeds. He
    will never tell you.



    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Nov 3, 2008
    #16
  17. john tallen

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 14:57:19 -0600, steve_wentworth
    <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 09:17:07 +1300, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>When it comes to evaluating the optics the 'effective focal length' is
    >>irrelevant. All that matters is the actual focal length. All this talk
    >>of 'effective' focal length and 'crop factors' serves to muddle what
    >>should be simple physics.
    >>
    >>See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_aperture
    >>

    >
    >Then let's watch all DSLR con-artists stop using equivalent focal lengths to
    >tout the "superiority" of their cameras. They can't do it unless they figure in
    >the sensor size's crop-factor. If they don't, then they'll also understand why
    >the P&S is superior, they can't face that. Just as you can't.
    >
    >You are a double-standard asswipe.
    >


    I've never bothered with 'crop factors'. I've always thought in terms
    of focal length and image size. I suppose 'crop factor' is convenient
    for people such as you who seem to have known nothing previously other
    than 35mm cameras, but its irrelevant as far as the optics of the
    situation is concerned.



    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Nov 3, 2008
    #17
  18. john tallen

    Steve Guest

    On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:20:20 -0600, "john tallen"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Me Here" <> wrote in message
    >news:gen0i3$743$...
    >>
    >> "john tallen" <> wrote in message
    >> news:gemmji$p3$...
    >>> I've been following the P&S vs. Digital-SLR debates for awhile. I
    >>> thought I'd try what was suggested on an older P&S camera that I
    >>> happened to have laying around for backup purposes. I borrowed a
    >>> tel-extender from a friend to stack it on the one I already had.
    >>>
    >>> Here's a quick sample of the results of hand held photography with
    >>> good optics, stacked tel-extenders, and a good but inexpensive P&S
    >>> camera.
    >>>
    >>> Focal Length (in 35mm equivalent) = 432mm (camera's zoom lens) X
    >>> 1.76 (digital zoom) X 1.7 (optical tel-extender) X 1.7 (optical
    >>> tel-extender) =
    >>>
    >>> 2197mm effective focal length with an aperture of f/3.5. Downsized
    >>> only, no cropping, no other editing done.
    >>>
    >>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2124/2999210192_bc589b9887_o.jpg
    >>>

    >> I see a soft image with CA. Pretty crappy image, but if you think
    >> it's good then be happy. BTW it's not f:3.5 with all that glass and
    >> digital zoom applied.
    >>

    >
    >It's interesting that you would see CA in it. The small black and
    >white details in the corners of the plastic container show no shifting
    >of colors, there's not even any purple fringing from the sensor on the
    >bright sunlit portions of the bird. Your comment shows that either
    >your monitor or eyes are badly aligned. Do you imagine things because
    >you don't want to believe what you see? Yes, the image is a little
    >soft but when put through a Fourier-transform sharpener it's quite
    >usable from the full-size image. I foresee no problems making 8x10
    >prints from the original after sharpening.
    >
    >For that price at that aperture at that focal length there's nothing
    >at all in the digital SLR camera world that could even come close. And
    >it is too f/3.5 with all that glass. P&S cameras do not use the same
    >tel-extender method as digital SLRs. Putting a tel-extender on a P&S
    >lens is like redesigning the lens and increasing its diameter. If the


    But you put 2 tele-extenders on it. Are they both the same or does
    the one in front have an appropriatly larger diameter?

    You're also using digital-zoom. I'm not sure why though. You should
    just take the picture without digital zoom and crop for what you want
    in post.

    >camera and tel-extender glass is of high quality then this is no
    >different than buying a whole new high-quality lens that has larger
    >components up front. It's like having a modular lens system. If you
    >figure the total new aperture and also take into consideration that a
    >smaller area of the sensor is being used because a low amount of
    >digital-zoom was involved (higher crop-factor to account for that
    >focal-length) then it really is an f/3.5 aperture at that focal
    >length.
    >
    >The image was taken in the late afternoon in the far north, low sun
    >angle, sunset is at 4:50 pm. With diffuse sunlight diffused further by
    >surrounding dense woods. Using the Sunny-16 rule this image would
    >require an exposure of about f/4.5 to f/5.6 at ISO100 and 1/100
    >shutter speed. It was shot with an exposure of f/3.5, that's 0.6 to
    >1.3 stop larger, +EV. ISO200, 1.0 stop larger, +EV. 1/640 shutter, 2.3
    >stops lower, -EV. Even without figuring it from lens diameters and
    >focal lengths, the exposure settings and subject itself all adds up to
    >prove that it is completely acting as an f/3.5 aperture lens. Whether
    >you want to believe it or not.
    >
    >For those interested in bokeh from P&S cameras the twigs behind the
    >bird were about 5 feet away.
    >
    >I guess you're all going to have to reconsider what you've convinced
    >yourselves of all your lives. I'm doing just that.


    What I see is an image, the quality of which would cause an editor at
    National Geographic to laugh if you tried to submit it for publishing.
    It's not bad. Just not the quality you can get with a high-end DSLR
    and glass. Of course, for much more expense. As usual, you get what
    you pay for.

    Steve
    Steve, Nov 3, 2008
    #18
  19. Viewing EXIF data (was: Re: 2197mm Zoom f/3.5 Hand-Held Photo on a P&S Camera)

    JT's Keeper wrote:
    []
    > 1. "what model/camera did you use?"
    >
    > 2. "what was the recorded focal length (exif data) when the image was
    > captured?"
    >
    >
    > - JT
    > TIA


    If you are using Firefox for your Web browsing, there is a plugin
    available which enables you to right-click on an image and see the
    reported EXIF data.

    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3905

    Very handy.

    Be aware that EXIF data can be edited.

    David
    David J Taylor, Nov 4, 2008
    #19
  20. john tallen

    Ray Fischer Guest

    ResidentTrollSpotter <> wrote:
    >On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:20:20 -0600, "john tallen" <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >I just did the quick math involved to see what kind of lens it would require on
    >a DSLR with a 1.6x crop-factor sensor to get the same aperture and focal length
    >as you obtained on your compact P&S setup.


    The aperture that he did not actually get?

    Maybe you should account for the fact that stacking on extenders
    affects the maximum aperture. Maybe you should realize that the laws
    of physics apply to P&S cameras as much as they do to SLRs.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Nov 4, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jim Jones

    Q. Any hand held device for budgeting on the road ?

    Jim Jones, Dec 28, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    400
    M Mullen
    Dec 29, 2003
  2. OlEnSh

    shutter speed rule for hand-held shots

    OlEnSh, Sep 10, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    10,657
    HRosita
    Sep 11, 2003
  3. Chuck

    EZ Photo hand held scanner

    Chuck, Jul 3, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    363
    Ken Weitzel
    Jul 3, 2005
  4. Scott W

    Tripod vs hand held for sharp photos

    Scott W, Mar 15, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    39
    Views:
    1,435
    Thomas
    Mar 21, 2006
  5. Kiwiboy

    Hand-held pc on the web

    Kiwiboy, Sep 13, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    454
    Stephen Worthington
    Sep 14, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page