shooting the impossible...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by chibitul, Nov 2, 2003.

  1. chibitul

    chibitul Guest

    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...
     
    chibitul, Nov 2, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. chibitul

    AJ Guest

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

    "chibitul" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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...
     
    AJ, Nov 2, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. chibitul

    Alan Browne Guest

    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.
     
    Alan Browne, Nov 2, 2003
    #3
  4. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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...
     
    Joseph Meehan, Nov 2, 2003
    #4
  5. chibitul

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <PDcpb.175949$>,
    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
    _________________________________
     
    Todd Walker, Nov 2, 2003
    #5
  6. chibitul

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Todd Walker <> wrote:
    > 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
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 2, 2003
    #6
  7. chibitul <> 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, <>, <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/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 2, 2003
    #7
  8. (Ray Fischer) writes:

    > Todd Walker <> wrote:
    > > 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, <>, <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/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 2, 2003
    #8
  9. "Joseph Meehan" <> 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, <>, <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/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 2, 2003
    #9
  10. chibitul

    MarkH Guest

    Alan Browne <> wrote in
    news:5Scpb.4088$:

    > 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 don’t 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 don’t 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"
     
    MarkH, Nov 2, 2003
    #10
  11. chibitul

    chibitul Guest

    In article <bo3vjs$1o2$>,
    (Ray Fischer) wrote:

    > Todd Walker <> wrote:
    > > 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.


    Grammatically you are correct. I said "low noise" when I should have
    said "lower noise than film". By hey, English is my second language...
    would that be an acceptable excuse???
     
    chibitul, Nov 2, 2003
    #11
  12. 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.
    >
    > 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...


    Yes, you are basically correct (except it is really a crop factor).
    But the low noise of digital at high ISO (compared to same
    speed film) means we can now do with digital what was much
    more difficult or impossible with high speed film.

    Example: I'm doing astrophotography from a large
    city (Denver). See:

    http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/m31-500mm-8780-8825-av46_RJ.v5-600.html

    This is a galaxy done with a 10D and Canon 500 mm f/4. Scroll
    down and see what one original frame looks like. With the
    low noise of digital (only iso 400 here), I can subtract
    off the bright sky and reveal the galaxy that is much fainter
    than the light pollution.

    But low speed film, like velvia still records more detail
    than current DSLRs (see my web pages below).

    Roger Clark
    Photos, other digital info at:
    http://www.clarkvision.com
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Nov 3, 2003
    #12
  13. chibitul

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    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.
    >
    > 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...


    Actually I'm having a blast with my D100 and my
    telephoto lenses that suddenly gained a 50% in focal
    length at no extra cost... ;-)

    ISO 1600 won't produce the same results as a lower
    setting, but with the noise reduction on (and maybe
    a little Photoshop tweaking) you can get pretty decent
    pictures in low-light that you won't be able to take
    with a film SLR.
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Nov 3, 2003
    #13
  14. chibitul

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    MarkH wrote:

    > 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
    > don't think about the cost)


    Yeah, but you must consider that lens specs are ALWAYS
    exaggerated in excess (especially zooms.) When you put
    say a 200-400mm through a benchmark test, you rarely
    discover it's actually that, more likely it's something like
    a 209-386 (and in that case, the 200-400 claim would be
    considered pretty honest...) Some manufacturers - which
    will remain unnamed :) - cheat even more than that. That's
    why if you multiplied by 1.5 instead of 1.6, you'd get a more
    realistic figure. This is actually what Nikon suggests for the
    D100 (whose magnification is comparable to that of the
    D60/10D.)
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Nov 3, 2003
    #14
  15. chibitul

    Lionel Guest

    On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 18:58:24 GMT, in
    <>, chibitul
    <> said:

    >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, like most simple statements about complex topics, it's partially
    true. For example; I routinely take low-light photos with my 10D that
    are far better *quality* than I could get with a film camera under the
    same conditions.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, Nov 11, 2003
    #15
  16. chibitul

    Lionel Guest

    On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 22:14:21 GMT, in <bo3vjs$1o2$>,
    (Ray Fischer) said:

    >Todd Walker <> wrote:
    >> 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".


    He was obviously using 'low' in a comparitive sense. The 10D is indeed
    "low noise" in comparison to just about every other camera.

    > There's a fair bit of noise at
    >ISO 1600.


    It actually varies quite a bit. I've found that I get more noise at the
    shadow end of the scale than at the highlight end. If I shoot ISO 1600
    to get the most light out of a dark scene, I get far more noise than if
    I use it to enable a really fast shutter speed in good lighting.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, Nov 11, 2003
    #16
    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. =?Utf-8?B?WW91dmVz?=

    WIN XPsp2 - WIN 98se wireless network file sharing impossible

    =?Utf-8?B?WW91dmVz?=, Jan 15, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    917
    Guest
    Jan 18, 2005
  2. zak
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    437
  3. MAX
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    872
    Bogey
    Dec 18, 2003
  4. Guest
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    564
  5. Devvie Nuis
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    3,340
Loading...

Share This Page