April 24, 2014, 01:41:45 PM

Author Topic: 24-840mm zoom  (Read 13360 times)

unfocused

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1769
    • View Profile
    • Unfocused: A photo website
Re: 24-840mm zoom
« Reply #15 on: October 06, 2010, 11:36:44 PM »
Sorry for the added post, I should have mentioned this earlier. Go to the Forum topic on the SX30 and G12 announcement. There are some images and videos posted there using the SX30. Impressed the heck out of me.
pictures sharp. life not so much. www.unfocusedmg.com

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 24-840mm zoom
« Reply #15 on: October 06, 2010, 11:36:44 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • *******
  • Posts: 12853
    • View Profile
Re: 24-840mm zoom
« Reply #16 on: October 07, 2010, 06:05:32 AM »
Thanks, unfocused - a good summary and great advice!

There is a saying that "the best camera is the camera you have with you." You can't take pictures if you don't carry the camera around with you. If you're likely to view a DSLR as a hassle and a burden, then you are much better off with a "point-and-shoot."


So very true!  Even though I don't view carrying a big camera and a bag full of lenses as a hassle, I have an S95 for times when that's just not practical.  I think the G12 is convenient compared to a dSLR, but the S95 is truly a pocketable camera (and has the same sensor as in the G12).  The G12 does more closely duplicate the manual controllability of a dSLR, though, as well as having a little more zoom range.

An exposure that requires f5.6 at 1/125 of a second, is going to be the same no matter what camera and what format you are using.


True, of course.  Sorry for misleading...

I do not have the technical knowledge that some others on this forum have, but from what I have read here it sounds as though a small format camera will have greater apparent depth of field (the distance at which various objects will be in focus) at comparable f-stops. You might think that is an advantage, but it can be a disadvantage as well. Sometimes you want to separate the main subject from the background and that becomes harder with a small sensor and the greater apparent depth of field.


I think this is something that few people outside of photographers appreciate.  I have pictures of my toddler in my office, and colleagues ask if they were professionally taken.  I'm not a pro photographer by any stretch, but the narrow depth of field (DoF) you can achieve with a wide aperture on a dSLR is a look you cannot get as easily with a fixed-zoom-lens camera (sounds better than P&S, doesn't it?).  I say not easily because although you cannot get that effect in-camera, if you have good Photoshop skills you can do a reasonable job at isolating the subject with layers and blur filters.  At a zoo, for example, shooting close to a wire mesh enclosure with a wide aperture on a dSLR gives a narrow enough DoF to blur out the wires, as in this example of an injured eagle in at a science museum:


EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

richy

  • Guest
Re: 24-840mm zoom
« Reply #17 on: October 08, 2010, 09:31:16 AM »
wow great topic!
Firsly a couple of points :) a 28-300 with 2x tc to get to 600mm would be f11 no? and couldnt auto focus on any canon body? Its not the sharpest of lenses to begin with :) It would be bordering on pinhole photography like that ! Would be funny to see the results.
Also on dof / ap / sensor size. Not sure its exactly a marketing ploy, for a given resolution of sensor a 2.8 p&s lens will put the same number of photons on a given area of sensor as a 2.8 dslr lens. The dof would be much deeper but the actual light would be correct in relation to a 35mm or crop lens. Put simple we could both take the same picture at 2.8 and get the same shutter speeds for the same iso. I routinely use my 50 1.4 at 2.8 on a 5d2 to meter for my 110 2.8 mf lens / camera, but the mf lens at 2.8 gives about the same dof as the 50 1.4 at 1.4. Simples :(
As for a monster lens, it would be such a dog. Sigma make a 200-500 2.8, its quality wide open is suspect and it weights the same as a clydesdale horse that just ate a cow, but the horse is smaller. 2.8 zooms dont do well above 4x mag, f4's tend to top out at 5x mag and over that you tend to be in the realm of variable max apat like the 100-400 or 70-300. Not sure why, I hate physics and maths scares me. It also costs about 28k
Not sure as a photographer if Im anal about f2.8 lol I tend to use f4 zooms as canon make some great ones. I have primes for low light (50 1.4 and 300 2.8) and a 70-200 2.8. Why are they used? sometimes for thin dof to isolate a subject or for very dark conditions or when a fast shutter speed is needed. Trust me we dont buy them and lug them about for giggles or an ego boost. The 70-200 is a killer portrait lens as is the 300 , something I just cant get with something like a 70-300.
Nikon make a popular 200-400 which is a quality lens, but again its huge and expensive.
If the image quality was there I would go for a 24-500 f4 and live with the cost and weight but I just cant see them making a lens work at such a high magnification. The siggy 50-500 isnt known for prime like color / contrast and saturation. Its an amazing lens but only considering its versatility.
I settle for carrying two cams and a bunch of lenses, easiest way to do it :) Plus if canon made a single lens that negated the need for you to buy 5 other lenses you know it would cost a fortune for that alone. I just want a sharp 100-400, making it f4 would be even better, i'd be ok with a 200-400 f4 is for 1500-2000. i can dream!
As for a step up camera, dont discount film or an elderly dslr such as a 10d or 20d or some of the rebels. I shot a wedding with 20ds not too long ago due to loaning my primary cameras to a fellow tog whose cameras had busted and I got a call from a bride at the last minute desperate for a shooter. Its not that newer cams arent better, just that the older ones are as good as they were when they were new which was good enough to make money then. keh is a decent place in the us, mifsuds is for the uk for used gear.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2010, 09:46:58 AM by richy »

lovemaker82

  • Guest
Re: 24-840mm zoom
« Reply #18 on: October 14, 2010, 12:07:20 PM »
neuroanatomis and unfocused,

thank you very much for your thorough inputs :=)

lovemaker82

  • Guest
Re: 24-840mm zoom
« Reply #19 on: November 22, 2010, 06:00:37 PM »
I decided to get Nikon D3100  :)

bopie

  • Guest
Re: 24-840mm zoom
« Reply #20 on: November 22, 2010, 08:49:04 PM »
I want a Canon 10-5000mm F1.2 L IS USM

 :D

epsiloneri

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 346
    • View Profile
Re: 24-840mm zoom
« Reply #21 on: November 23, 2010, 03:01:03 AM »
I want a Canon 10-5000mm F1.2 L IS USM

In principle, you could build such a lens. Unfortunately it would have to be >4m in diameter.

The longest lens I've used was a 123000mm f/15 IS prime :P It wasn't either very portable, though (and didn't have an EF mount). The longest lens I've connected to an EF camera was an 11000mm f/11 prime. Biggest IQ limitation was the atmosphere. I probably don't have to add that those lenses dwarf even an EOS 1Ds mkIII.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 24-840mm zoom
« Reply #21 on: November 23, 2010, 03:01:03 AM »

Jan

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
Re: 24-840mm zoom
« Reply #22 on: November 23, 2010, 06:08:31 PM »
I decided to get Nikon D3100  :)
Good choice! :)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 24-840mm zoom
« Reply #22 on: November 23, 2010, 06:08:31 PM »