Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community
mommykim

I just ordered my first DSLR camera!

Recommended Posts

I think you’re misunderstanding the concept of zoom.

Yes, they make 18-300 lenses. Such a lens will give you the same focal lengths that you currently have — you currently have 18-55 and 70-300. If you got a 18-300, it would be the exact same thing but in 1 lens. So it would just mean changing lenses less often. (Also a generally inferior lens in terms of image quality)

 

A prime lens is a 1 focal length. It does not zoom in, it does not zoom out. There are telephoto primes, that can be used for wildlife, etc. There are normal and wide angle primes too. I took the following 2 pictures with very different prime lenses:

 

The owl

Disney Dream and Aqua Duck

 

Prime lenses have superior image quality and far better low light abilities than zoom lenses, generally speaking.

 

In regard to macro lenses, you’re better off with a true dedicated macro lens than the clip on types.

 

This was taken with the Nikon 105mm macro.

untitled (11 of 13).jpg

 

Someone on another thread wrote:

Since cameras like the Nikon D3200 & D3400 have changeable lenses they don't typically quote an "X" number in the magnification - because of the fact one can use many different zoom lenses. Cameras like the SX720 have a non-changeable, fixed range lens so it's easy to give the 40X zoom magnification number. If you want to figure out what the "X" number is on a changeable zoom lens divide the large number by the small in the millimeters quoted. A lens that is listed as 18-200mm would have a magnification of 11.1X. That doesn't sound like much magnification but it's actually quite a bit. A 70-300mm zoom would only have 4.3X magnification.



That is why I was suggesting 18-300 because I thought that would get me 16.7x zoom.

I guess I don't understand pretty much any of it. I really need to start reading.





My Panasonic macro zoom is OK but I have a clip-on macro lens for my iPhone 6 that gave me pretty good pictures of tiny snowflakes (not much bigger than a pinhead). I would post pictures but I don't know how.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like I have a lot of reading to do before I understand all this. It also seems like p&s are not that bad. If it does what I want (a lot of zoom and extreme close up) I would be happy. My p&s does both OK, I'd just like it to be better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone on another thread wrote:

Since cameras like the Nikon D3200 & D3400 have changeable lenses they don't typically quote an "X" number in the magnification - because of the fact one can use many different zoom lenses. Cameras like the SX720 have a non-changeable, fixed range lens so it's easy to give the 40X zoom magnification number. If you want to figure out what the "X" number is on a changeable zoom lens divide the large number by the small in the millimeters quoted. A lens that is listed as 18-200mm would have a magnification of 11.1X. That doesn't sound like much magnification but it's actually quite a bit. A 70-300mm zoom would only have 4.3X magnification.



That is why I was suggesting 18-300 because I thought that would get me 16.7x zoom.

I guess I don't understand pretty much any of it. I really need to start reading.





My Panasonic macro zoom is OK but I have a clip-on macro lens for my iPhone 6 that gave me pretty good pictures of tiny snowflakes (not much bigger than a pinhead). I would post pictures but I don't know how.

 

The “x” is just the range.

Let me compare it to the weather.

 

 

If I said... on Monday, the high temperate is going to be 3 Times the low temperature—- that means the high is going to be 3x the low temperature.

 

 

And then I said, on Tuesday, it’s going to be 40 degrees...

 

 

Which day is warmer, Monday or Tuesday? See.... the “x” doesn’t actually tell you which day is warmer, just tells you how much variability there is.

 

 

Now let’s try it again:

Monday, the low temperature will be 10 degrees and the high will be 30 degrees. So it’s a 3x day.

 

 

On Tuesday, the low temperature will be 20 and the high temperate will be 40. So Tuesday is a 2x day.

 

 

But hold on — Monday is 3x. Tuesday is 2x... but Monday is the warmer day!

 

 

See—- X just shows you how much range you’re getting. It doesn’t actually show how high or how low.

 

 

In this hypothetical, temperature = focal length. Degrees = mm.

A high focal length — like 200mm or 500mm is a long telephoto for shooting things far away. A small focal length, like 10mm or 15mm, is for shooting at very very wide angles.

 

 

The “x” is totally irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in my superzoom P&S days, I had to explain that many times to people...I had a camera that had a '12x' zoom range...and someone would comment that theirs was better for distant subjects because they had a 15x. Mine was a wide equivalent of 36mm. Theirs had a wide equivalent of 24mm. I routinely had to explain that their '15x' had to be multiplied by the wide equivalent of their lens (24mm) to give them the equivalent focal length at the telephoto end, which was 360mm, whereas my '12x' was multiplied to my wide equivalent of 36mm, which was 432mm. So many people who buy P&S cameras rely on that 'x' number without considering just what it's 'X'ing!

 

So many other factors to consider too - P&S cameras with long equivalent telephoto reach have tiny sensors that allow them to apply a big 'crop factor' to seem to get more reach from a small lens - consider that a typical superzoom with a 1/2.4" sensor has a 6x crop factor, so that '36-432mm' equivalent lens is actually only a 6mm to 72mm lens. Sensor size can contribute to image quality, low light ability, fine detail rendering, etc. Then one must consider the MP of the sensor...and the ability to crop tighter with a larger sensor and still maintain good quality and detail. And the lens itself can differ greatly in quality. And so on. DSLRs are vastly more CAPABLE than the P&S superzooms, but being modular, they're also more expensive and require the right lenses to achieve best results in different scenarios. Consider too that not all photographers NEED the maximum capability in every situation - maybe you don't shoot things 200 feet away very often, or you don't shoot in low light that often. And maybe all you need is a photo that will look good when you pull it up on a computer screen or tablet to show friends - rather than printing poster-sized prints to hang on a wall. Often, the additional quality a larger sensor, better lens, or more megapixels can deliver are never exploited by that photographer - it's wasted ability and just not needed. Which is why phone cameras can often meet the full requirements of many people, even if a DSLR has the ability to do better in a lot of situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My P&S is

24-720 mm F3.3-6.4 Zoom Lens. Is that realistic to get something like that (or better) for the Nikon? I like to zoom and will most likely not take off my current 70-300mm lens very often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/20054/af-s-nikkor-600mm-f%252f4e-fl-ed-vr.html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-Overview

 

That's the Nikon 600mm. It's $13,000 and about 8.5 lbs. It's not "realistic" for most people but I guess it's all relative.

 

Try wide angle though. You may learn to like it. I like to have a balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/20054/af-s-nikkor-600mm-f%252f4e-fl-ed-vr.html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-Overview

 

That's the Nikon 600mm. It's $13,000 and about 8.5 lbs. It's not "realistic" for most people but I guess it's all relative.

 

Try wide angle though. You may learn to like it. I like to have a balance.

 

Lol.... but technically... if she is trying to get 720mm effective reach on aps-c, she doesn’t need 600mm.

The Nikon 200-500/5.6 would get there, and it’s fairly affordable as far as lensss go.

 

Although I’ll say to OP, there is no replacement for foot zoom. In most cases, it’s best to get as close as possible to your subject with your feet and not rely on a lens to do all that work.

 

Justin who posted in this thread, uses very long lenses because he does a lot of birding. But outside of birding, few people really need anything longer than 300mm often. (In fact, I own 6 lenses and don’t have a single lens longer than 200mm).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, I went and looked at the EXIF data for all the photos I took on my most recent cruise. Out of more than 500 images, well over 400 were in the range of what I would call wide angle to normal. By this I mean that they were in the range of about 12mm to 40mm on my crop sensor DSLR. Of the ones that were in the normal to slight telephoto range (i.e. 40 to about 70mm), a good portion of these were people pictures or portraits. Very, very few were longer than 70mm. As stated about by Havoc, I try to zoom with my feet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My P&S is

24-720 mm F3.3-6.4 Zoom Lens. Is that realistic to get something like that (or better) for the Nikon? I like to zoom and will most likely not take off my current 70-300mm lens very often.

 

 

 

I have a 18-400mm lens. I just upgraded from an 16-300 mm lens, and I also have a crop sensor. That “extra” 100 mm does virtually nothing for me. I took some test shots and I probably could have achieved more by walking two steps. Sometimes I may want it (going on wildlife trips there’s never too much zoom) but you may not feel that extra bit as much as you might think. You’d also want to remember that some of that p&s zoom range could be digital zoom, which is worthless in my mind (I’d rather crop on the computer than the phone).

 

Also, while I love to zoom, I’ve found with this camera that I love to wide angle more. The stunning wide angle shots are why I haven’t gone back to a p&s. I would for weight reasons, but I also have an 8-16mm lens that is amazing. And now I’m doing night photography so the ability to set more features is making it even harder to go back.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/20054/af-s-nikkor-600mm-f%252f4e-fl-ed-vr.html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-Overview

 

That's the Nikon 600mm. It's $13,000 and about 8.5 lbs. It's not "realistic" for most people but I guess it's all relative.

 

Try wide angle though. You may learn to like it. I like to have a balance.

 

Lol.... but technically... if she is trying to get 720mm effective reach on aps-c, she doesn’t need 600mm.

The Nikon 200-500/5.6 would get there, and it’s fairly affordable as far as lensss go.

 

Although I’ll say to OP, there is no replacement for foot zoom. In most cases, it’s best to get as close as possible to your subject with your feet and not rely on a lens to do all that work.

 

Justin who posted in this thread, uses very long lenses because he does a lot of birding. But outside of birding, few people really need anything longer than 300mm often. (In fact, I own 6 lenses and don’t have a single lens longer than 200mm).

 

When I'm home I do a lot of zooming because it's usually birds or wildlife out in the backyard. Would wide angle really help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I'm home I do a lot of zooming because it's usually birds or wildlife out in the backyard. Would wide angle really help?

 

Telephoto is for birds... but unless your backyard is 20 acres, 300mm should be plenty for birding. You still need to use your feet to get as close as the birds allow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telephoto is for birds... but unless your backyard is 20 acres, 300mm should be plenty for birding. You still need to use your feet to get as close as the birds allow.

 

I guess I'm used to my P&S 24-720 mm F3.3-6.4Zoom Lens. The 300mm doesn't bring them nearly as close.

The Xitphoto 22x High Definition AF Telephoto Lens that I can get put on my 18-55mm lens doesn't seem to bring them very close either. Do they make telephoto lenses to put on the 70-300mm lens?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm used to my P&S 24-720 mm F3.3-6.4Zoom Lens. The 300mm doesn't bring them nearly as close.

The Xitphoto 22x High Definition AF Telephoto Lens that I can get put on my 18-55mm lens doesn't seem to bring them very close either. Do they make telephoto lenses to put on the 70-300mm lens?

 

 

 

I don’t understand the question. The 70-300 is a telephoto lens. You don’t put things on it.

What are you trying to take pictures of and how far are you?

When I shoot birds, I try to get within 10-20 feet, and 300mm is typically fine, sometimes with some cropping.

 

 

For example, this image would be 140mm on your camera:

 

Hungry Cedar Waxwing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I guess I'm used to my P&S 24-720 mm F3.3-6.4Zoom Lens. The 300mm doesn't bring them nearly as close.

The Xitphoto 22x High Definition AF Telephoto Lens that I can get put on my 18-55mm lens doesn't seem to bring them very close either. Do they make telephoto lenses to put on the 70-300mm lens?

 

 

 

Check the lettering on the tele-extender you have. I suspect it says 2.2x, not 22X. These adapters are sold as an inexpensive alternative to buying a longer zoom and introduce a lot of color fringing (prismatic colors on high contrast edges) and some distortion. They define "you get what you pay for" in the photographic world.

 

A lot of those frame-filling bird shots you may see in magazines and here are taken from a fair distance and the original image is cropped to fill the frame. On a modern high-resolution camera, taking a fairly small area of an image shot through a quality lens can produce a better image than a frame-filling image shot through the same lens with a cheap tele-extender. Think prescription lenses vs. $3 reading glasses.

 

p2742428224-4.jpg

 

p2742428221-4.jpg

 

Take some time to take a class (or teach yourself) image editing and you will find the end results will be worth the effort.

 

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don’t understand the question. The 70-300 is a telephoto lens. You don’t put things on it.

What are you trying to take pictures of and how far are you?

When I shoot birds, I try to get within 10-20 feet, and 300mm is typically fine, sometimes with some cropping.

 

 

For example, this image would be 140mm on your camera:

 

Hungry Cedar Waxwing

 

I can put the Xitphoto 2.2x High Definition AF Telephoto Lens on my 18-55mm lens. I just wondered if there was something like that that could be put on the 70-300mm. It sounds like a no to that question. I am probably 20 or so feet away from the birds in general but sometimes a lot farther if I'm taking pictures of ducks or herons in our pond (they scare easily).



I don't know how to crop yet. I haven't gotten too far in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Check the lettering on the tele-extender you have. I suspect it says 2.2x, not 22X. These adapters are sold as an inexpensive alternative to buying a longer zoom and introduce a lot of color fringing (prismatic colors on high contrast edges) and some distortion. They define "you get what you pay for" in the photographic world.

 

A lot of those frame-filling bird shots you may see in magazines and here are taken from a fair distance and the original image is cropped to fill the frame. On a modern high-resolution camera, taking a fairly small area of an image shot through a quality lens can produce a better image than a frame-filling image shot through the same lens with a cheap tele-extender. Think prescription lenses vs. $3 reading glasses.

 

p2742428224-4.jpg

 

p2742428221-4.jpg

 

Take some time to take a class (or teach yourself) image editing and you will find the end results will be worth the effort.

 

Dave

 

Yes, you are correct. It is 2.2x. Yes I do need to learn how to crop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, you are correct. It is 2.2x. Yes I do need to learn how to crop.

 

Ok, you should be able to put the 2.2x on the 70-300, but it will likely result in poor quality and loss of auto focus. You’re better off just cropping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can put the Xitphoto 2.2x High Definition AF Telephoto Lens on my 18-55mm lens. I just wondered if there was something like that that could be put on the 70-300mm. It sounds like a no to that question. I am probably 20 or so feet away from the birds in general but sometimes a lot farther if I'm taking pictures of ducks or herons in our pond (they scare easily).



I don't know how to crop yet. I haven't gotten too far in my book.

 

There IS something you could use with a 300mm lens to extend the reach - but it's a little different with DSLRs than with the P&S cameras. With P&S cameras that are fixed-lens, you screw on a teleextender to the end of the lens which magnifies the view. These don't usually work very well with DSLRs and interchangeable lenses. However, there are 'teleconverters' that are designed for DSLRs - they actually attach directly to the camera mount, then the lens attaches to them. They are placed between the lens and camera, and typically come in 1.4x and 2x magnification options. So a 1.4x teleconverter attached, your 70-300mm lens becomes a 98mm to 420mm optical reach lens. With an APS-C DSLR body, this gives you an equivalent framing of 630mm...and then you can crop as well.

 

 

However, when using teleconverters on DSLRs, you have to take into consideration that these types of adapters are 'lossy', aka they steal some light from the lens. When attaching a 1.4x teleconverter to a 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 lens, the maximum aperture goes down by 1 stop of light, so rather than F5.6 at the long end, you're getting an F8 aperture...you need more light or higher ISO when shooting with teleconverters. In daylight conditions, this might not matter...in low light, it could impact your results. Also, not all lenses work well with teleconverters - they tend to work best with higher-end lenses and faster aperture lenses - a cheap consumer zoom lens may struggle to focus a bit when used with a teleconverter.

 

 

With my mirrorless APS-C camera, I shoot with a 70-300mm lens often, and also shoot with a 100-400mm lens. The 70-300mm lens I use won't accept a teleconverter, but the 100-400mm lens will. When I attach a 1.4x teleconverter to my 100-400mm lens, it becomes a 140 - 560mm lens. Since I'm using it on an APS-C sensor camera, I'm seeing the equivalent framing and crop of a 210 - 840mm lens on a full-frame camera...which is giving me very good reach similar to what those superzoom P&S cameras get - but with a significantly higher quality lens and sensor. As an avid wildlife photographer, I accept that I need to carry a bigger lens and heavier weight around, and these long lenses are far from cheap! It's still much smaller and lighter than full-frame DSLRs and the larger DSLR lenses I used to use, so for me, it's a compact system, but far larger than average amateur photographers might want to lug around. Getting into wildlife photography can get expensive - and for small gains in overall image quality that sometimes is only noticeable when doing heavy crops or printing large...so I still would recommend good P&S type superzoom cameras as an all-in-one solution for people just looking to occasionally snap a bird or wildlife and mostly just viewing on a computer or phone. You'd be hard-pressed to notice much difference between a photo taken with a P&S superzoom and a high-end full-frame DSLR and very expensive telephoto lens if viewing a photo taken in bright afternoon light displayed at 800x600 pixels on a laptop! But crop those shots 50%, take the photo in a dark forest, and print that photo at 3 feet by 5 feet, and the difference will be massive. Each person needs to decide just how much they need and how much they're willing to compromise - either on the IQ side, or on the weight/size/price side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, you should be able to put the 2.2x on the 70-300, but it will likely result in poor quality and loss of auto focus. You’re better off just cropping.

 

It only fits on the 18-55mm lens. I learned today that I can do instant in-camera cropping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There IS something you could use with a 300mm lens to extend the reach - but it's a little different with DSLRs than with the P&S cameras. With P&S cameras that are fixed-lens, you screw on a teleextender to the end of the lens which magnifies the view. These don't usually work very well with DSLRs and interchangeable lenses. However, there are 'teleconverters' that are designed for DSLRs - they actually attach directly to the camera mount, then the lens attaches to them. They are placed between the lens and camera, and typically come in 1.4x and 2x magnification options. So a 1.4x teleconverter attached, your 70-300mm lens becomes a 98mm to 420mm optical reach lens. With an APS-C DSLR body, this gives you an equivalent framing of 630mm...and then you can crop as well.

 

 

However, when using teleconverters on DSLRs, you have to take into consideration that these types of adapters are 'lossy', aka they steal some light from the lens. When attaching a 1.4x teleconverter to a 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 lens, the maximum aperture goes down by 1 stop of light, so rather than F5.6 at the long end, you're getting an F8 aperture...you need more light or higher ISO when shooting with teleconverters. In daylight conditions, this might not matter...in low light, it could impact your results. Also, not all lenses work well with teleconverters - they tend to work best with higher-end lenses and faster aperture lenses - a cheap consumer zoom lens may struggle to focus a bit when used with a teleconverter.

 

 

With my mirrorless APS-C camera, I shoot with a 70-300mm lens often, and also shoot with a 100-400mm lens. The 70-300mm lens I use won't accept a teleconverter, but the 100-400mm lens will. When I attach a 1.4x teleconverter to my 100-400mm lens, it becomes a 140 - 560mm lens. Since I'm using it on an APS-C sensor camera, I'm seeing the equivalent framing and crop of a 210 - 840mm lens on a full-frame camera...which is giving me very good reach similar to what those superzoom P&S cameras get - but with a significantly higher quality lens and sensor. As an avid wildlife photographer, I accept that I need to carry a bigger lens and heavier weight around, and these long lenses are far from cheap! It's still much smaller and lighter than full-frame DSLRs and the larger DSLR lenses I used to use, so for me, it's a compact system, but far larger than average amateur photographers might want to lug around. Getting into wildlife photography can get expensive - and for small gains in overall image quality that sometimes is only noticeable when doing heavy crops or printing large...so I still would recommend good P&S type superzoom cameras as an all-in-one solution for people just looking to occasionally snap a bird or wildlife and mostly just viewing on a computer or phone. You'd be hard-pressed to notice much difference between a photo taken with a P&S superzoom and a high-end full-frame DSLR and very expensive telephoto lens if viewing a photo taken in bright afternoon light displayed at 800x600 pixels on a laptop! But crop those shots 50%, take the photo in a dark forest, and print that photo at 3 feet by 5 feet, and the difference will be massive. Each person needs to decide just how much they need and how much they're willing to compromise - either on the IQ side, or on the weight/size/price side.

 

Thanks, I will look into a teleconverter. I will also try cropping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cropping can still yield pretty decent, sharp results if you have a decent lens and your focus is solid - even when something looks 'far away' and tiny, with cropping, you can usually fill the frame and still get some nice details and results. But cropping will be more dependent on good focus and good atmospheric conditions.

 

Most bird and wildlife shooters crop at least a little bit, mostly for composition. It's almost impossible with a moving subject to 'frame' the shot you want with perfect 'thirds' framing and perfect horizontal lines - you're more busy trying to pan the camera to stay on the subject and achieve focus. So much of that cropping may just be 10-25% to rotate the shot a bit, crop so the subject isn't directly in the center, etc. But often you have room to crop much more aggressively if you need to. Here's an example - this first shot is a crop - the original was 6000x4000 pixels, and I cropped it to 4500x3000:

135EFDDE79F04BE196BCEECD7A232F43.jpg

 

As you can see, the bird is still far away and small in the frame. I was testing and demonstrating a camera's ability to track the subject as it came closer, so I wasn't trying to crop in any tighter. But then I also did a very close crop - what's known as a '100% crop', or in other words, this is the photo blown up to 100% viewable on a screen, then taking a 1200x800 crop out of that, with no additional processing - you're looking at the photo at a pixel-for-pixel representation, not blown up larger or reduced to fit on a screen. I wouldn't try to post a print cropped this much - again, the purpose was just to show a focus system's tracking ability, but it still gives you an idea of how cropping can bring you in a lot tighter to a small subject:

4F5CD6B7A8B24EA6A17D4E1C221814C9.jpg

 

Another similar example - first, the wider shot:

BB5161FDEC61491082C23633F437ECFE.jpg

 

Then a 100% pixel-for-pixel crop from the original, aka just 1400x934 out of the original 6000x4000 pixels - taken at around 170mm equivalent:

7DFCF8F6D27E4AAA9B42BE9B4A4D4195.jpg

 

With some additional clean up, a little sharpening, etc, even with a mega-crop the results can be acceptable for viewing on a screen, small prints, posting online, etc. In order to get that close optically- I would have had to go from a 170mm equivalent to about a 700mm equivalent lens.

But how good the lens is will be a big factor. I've got some cheap lenses that won't look so hot if I cropped 100%...other lenses that cost a pretty penny can resolve tremendously fine detail even when cropped 100%. It's not always the case, because there can be lenses that punch above their weight and vice versa, but generally, you get what you pay for. A consumer lens with a cheap 2.2x screw-on extender won't be very good at 100% crops. A $3,000 high-end prime or telephoto for a DSLR likely will be excellent even viewing at 100% crop. IF you have a good exposure, good light, good focus, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cropping can still yield pretty decent, sharp results if you have a decent lens and your focus is solid - even when something looks 'far away' and tiny, with cropping, you can usually fill the frame and still get some nice details and results. But cropping will be more dependent on good focus and good atmospheric conditions.

 

Most bird and wildlife shooters crop at least a little bit, mostly for composition. It's almost impossible with a moving subject to 'frame' the shot you want with perfect 'thirds' framing and perfect horizontal lines - you're more busy trying to pan the camera to stay on the subject and achieve focus. So much of that cropping may just be 10-25% to rotate the shot a bit, crop so the subject isn't directly in the center, etc. But often you have room to crop much more aggressively if you need to. Here's an example - this first shot is a crop - the original was 6000x4000 pixels, and I cropped it to 4500x3000:

135EFDDE79F04BE196BCEECD7A232F43.jpg

 

As you can see, the bird is still far away and small in the frame. I was testing and demonstrating a camera's ability to track the subject as it came closer, so I wasn't trying to crop in any tighter. But then I also did a very close crop - what's known as a '100% crop', or in other words, this is the photo blown up to 100% viewable on a screen, then taking a 1200x800 crop out of that, with no additional processing - you're looking at the photo at a pixel-for-pixel representation, not blown up larger or reduced to fit on a screen. I wouldn't try to post a print cropped this much - again, the purpose was just to show a focus system's tracking ability, but it still gives you an idea of how cropping can bring you in a lot tighter to a small subject:

4F5CD6B7A8B24EA6A17D4E1C221814C9.jpg

 

Another similar example - first, the wider shot:

BB5161FDEC61491082C23633F437ECFE.jpg

 

Then a 100% pixel-for-pixel crop from the original, aka just 1400x934 out of the original 6000x4000 pixels - taken at around 170mm equivalent:

7DFCF8F6D27E4AAA9B42BE9B4A4D4195.jpg

 

With some additional clean up, a little sharpening, etc, even with a mega-crop the results can be acceptable for viewing on a screen, small prints, posting online, etc. In order to get that close optically- I would have had to go from a 170mm equivalent to about a 700mm equivalent lens.

But how good the lens is will be a big factor. I've got some cheap lenses that won't look so hot if I cropped 100%...other lenses that cost a pretty penny can resolve tremendously fine detail even when cropped 100%. It's not always the case, because there can be lenses that punch above their weight and vice versa, but generally, you get what you pay for. A consumer lens with a cheap 2.2x screw-on extender won't be very good at 100% crops. A $3,000 high-end prime or telephoto for a DSLR likely will be excellent even viewing at 100% crop. IF you have a good exposure, good light, good focus, etc.

 

Beautiful pictures (also the ones from Disney Animal Kingdom)! What kind of birds are they? I'm guessing you shoot on manual? I have a long way to go before I even try that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A final word about the Tamron 18-400mm. It seemed like a good Idea at first - but it is heavy to carry around all day. The quality of its images is not great. Probably OK for travel i.e. cruising, but not for great images.

It also failed me on several occasions; sent it back for repair and had to send it back again. I'm still waiting to get it back. Bring two lenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beautiful pictures (also the ones from Disney Animal Kingdom)! What kind of birds are they? I'm guessing you shoot on manual? I have a long way to go before I even try that.

 

Thank you - the first large bird is a wood stork, and the second is a cattle egret - the cattle egrets are normally dull colored, mostly white with pale yellow bills, but during mating season they become much more colorful like that one.

 

When birding, I mostly shoot in Shutter Priority - and let the camera handle the exposure which can change a little too quickly to comfortably try to keep up with - a bird flying from a shadow to bright light and back again over the time span of just a few seconds...so letting the camera handle aperture and setting Auto ISO to a comfortable range, lets me worry about framing, panning, focusing, and the right shutter speed.

 

BTW - there are a lot of cheap and free programs out there that will let you crop - even Apple and Windows computers' basic editing software will usually allow cropping. When viewing photos on your computer, look for 'edit' as one of the buttons and that will get you to the basic crop controls. My main advice to remember is: do not save over your original photo - always save an edited or cropped photo as a new name, or in a different folder, so your originals are still untouched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you - the first large bird is a wood stork, and the second is a cattle egret - the cattle egrets are normally dull colored, mostly white with pale yellow bills, but during mating season they become much more colorful like that one.

 

When birding, I mostly shoot in Shutter Priority - and let the camera handle the exposure which can change a little too quickly to comfortably try to keep up with - a bird flying from a shadow to bright light and back again over the time span of just a few seconds...so letting the camera handle aperture and setting Auto ISO to a comfortable range, lets me worry about framing, panning, focusing, and the right shutter speed.

 

BTW - there are a lot of cheap and free programs out there that will let you crop - even Apple and Windows computers' basic editing software will usually allow cropping. When viewing photos on your computer, look for 'edit' as one of the buttons and that will get you to the basic crop controls. My main advice to remember is: do not save over your original photo - always save an edited or cropped photo as a new name, or in a different folder, so your originals are still untouched.

 

Thanks for all your help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • Q&A: Cruise Insurance w/ Steve Dasseos of the TripInsuranceStore.com June 2020
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Member Cruise Reviews
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...