600mm L DO patented with 5.6 max. aperture
- Thread starter xps
- Start date
I know what I am saying is absolutely obvious and well known but it is missing in this discussion. The way you make telephotos smaller, in effect, is to use small sensors with the same number of megapixels as FF and use the crop factor. The Canon G3 X with a 20.2 mpixel crop factor of 2.7 and a 220mm lens is equivalent in terms of resolution to about 600mm on a 1Dx. But, you lose out with diffraction limitation, noise etc with a small sensor.
A 300mm f/2.8 on a 7DII has about 1.6x greater resolution than on a 20 mpixel FF. If you put on a speed booster that concentrated the light by 1.6x in both height and width, you would have about the same amount of light falling on each pixel of the 7DII as on a 20 mpixel FF sensor, but the lens would now be a 190mm f/1.75. Now that is an awesome lens for a crop. You get as good signal to noise from each pixel as with the FF and you lower the effects of diffraction.
A 300mm f/2.8 on a 7DII has about 1.6x greater resolution than on a 20 mpixel FF. If you put on a speed booster that concentrated the light by 1.6x in both height and width, you would have about the same amount of light falling on each pixel of the 7DII as on a 20 mpixel FF sensor, but the lens would now be a 190mm f/1.75. Now that is an awesome lens for a crop. You get as good signal to noise from each pixel as with the FF and you lower the effects of diffraction.
Upvote
0
If someone made a 1.6x Telecompressor for EF to EF-S mount, then yes, that would be possible. As far as I know, all recent telecompressors have been made by metabones, are 1.4x, and don't mount on EF-S. So a 300/2.8 would work out to be a 215/2 lens, and would not work with any EF-S bodies.AlanF said:
Having said that, if it did exist, the resulting combination would be larger than FF and there are more optical elements there to worsen the situation. You'd lose out on transmission, flare and sharpness to name a few, and with the reliance on reducing the image circle yet more, even more enlargement is required to reach the same viewing sizes. The end result would not be as good, although to be fair the feature set of the 7D mk II is great for the price (AF spread, FPS etc).
You could just buy an off the shelf 200/2 and a 7D mk II if a 300/2.8 and 1D X is out of your budget?
Upvote
0
The point is that we wish to be shooting at the lowest ISO, our desired shutter speed, and our desired aperture, but most often we can not because there just isn't enough light to do it, so we have to make compromises. The big reason for fast glass is that it allows us more freedom in our choices. Quite often we need to keep the shutter speed high to freeze action and adding light is not practical, so that leaves us with ISO and aperture as the only variables left to play with..... and if your lens has limited aperture range, then ISO is the one to take the hit......rs said:
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
OOPS!!!!!
I wrote it wrong! I meant to say ISO!
I went back and edited my post!
The point is that we wish to be shooting at the lowest ISO, our desired shutter speed, and our desired aperture, but most often we can not because there just isn't enough light to do it, so we have to make compromises. The big reason for fast glass is that it allows us more freedom in our choices. Quite often we need to keep the shutter speed high to freeze action and adding light is not practical, so that leaves us with ISO and aperture as the only variables left to play with..... and if your lens has limited aperture range, then ISO is the one to take the hit......
but getting back to topic.....
600mm DO F5.6.....
This should be a more affordable way to hit 600mm than the 600F4.... It would be shorter, lighter and almost as good optically. Would it sell? I don't know.... it sort of falls between price ranges.... it would be too expensive for most people, but the "money is no object" crowd would probably continue with the 600F4....
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
I don't understand your argument. I carry around spindle from lathe every day, if you ever carried one, you know they're not light, they can take off your toes if you drop one.
But I still don't enjoy carrying around heavy and bulky full frame DSLR and heavy lenses, it has nothing to do with any inability to do so, I can carry around a heavy camera and heavy L lenses, I don't want to. I don't want to take a 1500g kit with me everywhere I go just to have some extra reach.
If you see a benefit from a full frame camera and large tele lenses, carry one around by all means. Me, I have nothing to prove I'll carry the lightest kit I can find that suits my needs. Switching to a crop camera with a few EF-S lenses gives me the same range and, to me, indistinguishable quality for about 1/4th the weight. The ISO difference is negligible.
Upvote
0
To my way of thinking, when quality is the greatest concern, go FF. If portability (and affordability) are your biggest concern, go crop....Nininini said:
If you want to "go crop" and are not concerned with maintaining compatibility with FF bodies, have you looked at the Olympus micro 4//3 cameras? They are surprisingly good and unless you want the kick-ass AF system of the 7D2, they might be your best bet for a crop system....
Upvote
0
Nininini said:
The longest EF-S lens is the 55-250. Place that on your crop, so your 250mm is comparable to a 400mm on a FF. Yes that weight is a lot less compared to a 600, even if it might be a DO 5.6, on a FF camera.
But you think you can get from the crop and the 55-250 an "indistinguishable quality for about 1/4th the weight" ?
No way that the quality will be comparable.. And if that all doesn't matter why don't you take the G3X, 1" sensor, 0.75kg, 24-600 zoom
Upvote
0
FEBS said:
The difference between a 1" sensor and APS-C is very very noticeable. The difference between full frame and APS-C is hard to tell under most conditions.
Can you tell the difference in darker scenes at ISO 3200, yes. Can you tell the difference at 100-800 ISO? Unless you pixel peep, no. How many times do I shoot at very high ISO? Rarely.
But I can tell the difference between weight and my wallet can tell the difference too.
Upvote
0
Don Haines said:
I have rented a mirrorless before, I find it hard to look through an EVF and feel connected to the scene. I use a 70D right now.
It has the option to have 3x digital lossless zoom in video @1080P (it will select the center pixels).
(T6S and T6I have this option too)
My 55-250mm STM becomes a 400mm equivalent at 1.6 crop factor, with 3x lossless digital zoom, it's a 1200mm lens for video. At 1200mm you can start to see the heat waves crop up, it's superzoom territory, but at a crazy f/5.6, letting in much more light than bridge cameras. If I wanted that in full frame format, I'd be lugging around a massive kit.
Upvote
0
Nininini said:
Don't knock the G3 X, it delivers great results when you know how to use it. The 55-250mm STM is a fantastic lens, not just for the money but also in shear optical quality. Canon has become expert at making lenses of this range of focal length. The G3 X lens goes up to 220mm f/5.6 and looks just as good optically. Using the 1" sensor of the G3 X is like using the centre of an APS-C, with 1.7x greater resolution.
Upvote
0
Nininini said:
Proportionally, the difference is pretty much identical.
FF is 36x24mm, totalling 864mm2.
Canon APS-C is 22.3x14.9, totalling 332mm2. That's 38% of FF area.
A 1" sensor is 13.2x8.8mm, totalling 116mm2. That's 35% of Canon APS-C.
If you can't appreciate the difference between FF and APS-C, I struggle to see how the difference between APS-C and 1" is so very very noticeable to you.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Nininini said:
The problem with your original point is that there's no evidence that the FF dSLR market is 'dying'. MILC sales aren't growing, dSLR sales have been falling, and both Canon and Nikon have stated sales of FF models remain strong. You're not the only one in these forums – or in this thread – to believe that their own opinions trump reality.
As for your other points, if you're happy with the reach from EF-S lenses, the IQ from a crop sensor, and find the ISO difference 'negligible', good for you. Everyone has different needs and standards – for many people, an iPhone camera delivers all the quality them want.
I frequently shoot in low light with distant subjects requiring a fast shutter speed. Can you recommend a small, light crop body kit that will give me a negligible difference in quality when shooting at 840mm f/5.6 at 1/2000 s and ISO 6400? I'd be happy to carry something lighter...
Upvote
0
Nininini said:
The difference between a crop with most of the ef-s lenses, for sure the 55-250 and a FF with L glass like 100-400 II is very noticeable.
But hey, you are right. Price and weight are completely different. Just as is Quality, and this was the point you did make over here, that for quality reasons, everyone is changing from FF to APS-C. And that's were I don't agree.
And to be honest, I shoot a lot more of action above 800ISO then 800 or lower. I just need the shutterspeed, even with lens wide open.
Upvote
0
Nininini said:
If you crop a 1.6x crop sensor to the central 3.0x crop of that, it totals a 4.8x crop. That results in using an area of the projected image the same as a 1/1.8" sensor compact camera. The lens might be letting in more light than a typical compact, but far from all of that is being captured. If you do want to quote it in terms of FF equivalence, it's like a 1200/27 lens.
Upvote
0
