Best lens for wildlife photography?

[flatula...@deadspam.com]

DSLR - possibly Nikon D600 - planning a trip to Falkland Island to see
wildlife and also the scenery.

Maybe 70-200 with a magnifying ring on hand as well, or something else?

As usual, polite thanks in advance for the replies.

[Savageduck]

If you can afford the D600 fine. However you will get more reach with
an APS-C DSLR.
The Nikkor 70-200mm AFII is a great lens with a great $$$$ price, again
if you can afford it, fine. However the 70-200mm is not a do it all
lens.

Consider that you will probably need a walk-around lens with a wider
range for those scenic shots, for FF consider the Nikkor AF-S 16-35mm
f/4G VR, or the new 24-120mm f/4G VR. There is also the surprisingly
good value and performer, the Nikkor AF-S VR f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED.

Just remember with the D600 + 70-200mm you are looking at around $4500.
For that you can get a D7100 + an 18-105mm kit lens + Nikkor AF-S VR
f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED + an AF-S DX 10-24mm all for around $3100 and an extra
$1400 to spend on the trip, perhaps a spare battery and extra SDHC
cards and a decent bag.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Frank S]

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2013050819012829267-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...

A 70-200 with a 2x extender will be nice for snapshots; if you want
seriously good product, 400mm will be the minimum for real wild
wild-life. If you have time before your safari, think about renting the
body and lenses you'll consider. It'll be better to look at some trial
images and be disappointed or elated than to have a pocketful of
best-I-could-do to lament over.

At the end, if you think your efforts will result in saleable stuff,
spare no expense; if it's for your own enjoyment, relax and enjoy the
experience, and take a little extra time and equipment to memorialize
your enjoyment.

--
Frank ess

[Savageduck]

On 2013-05-08 19:48:28 -0700, "Frank S" <fshe...@san.rr.com> said:

>
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
> news:2013050819012829267-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> On 2013-05-08 18:22:30 -0700, <flatula...@deadspam.com> said:
>>
>>> DSLR - possibly Nikon D600 - planning a trip to Falkland Island to see
>>> wildlife and also the scenery.
>>>
>>> Maybe 70-200 with a magnifying ring on hand as well, or something else?
>>>
>>> As usual, polite thanks in advance for the replies.
>>
>> If you can afford the D600 fine. However you will get more reach with
>> an APS-C DSLR.
>> The Nikkor 70-200mm AFII is a great lens with a great $$$$ price, again
>> if you can afford it, fine. However the 70-200mm is not a do it all
>> lens.
>>
>> Consider that you will probably need a walk-around lens with a wider
>> range for those scenic shots, for FF consider the Nikkor AF-S 16-35mm
>> f/4G VR, or the new 24-120mm f/4G VR. There is also the surprisingly
>> good value and performer, the Nikkor AF-S VR f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED.
>>
>> Just remember with the D600 + 70-200mm you are looking at around $4500.
>> For that you can get a D7100 + an 18-105mm kit lens + Nikkor AF-S VR
>> f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED + an AF-S DX 10-24mm all for around $3100 and an extra
>> $1400 to spend on the trip, perhaps a spare battery and extra SDHC
>> cards and a decent bag.
>>
>>
>
> A 70-200 with a 2x extender will be nice for snapshots;

Actually the 1.7X will give you better results.

> if you want seriously good product, 400mm will be the minimum for real
> wild wild-life. If you have time before your safari, think about
> renting the body and lenses you'll consider. It'll be better to look at
> some trial images and be disappointed or elated than to have a
> pocketful of best-I-could-do to lament over.

I agree a 400mm or 500mm would be great, and I would only rent those
lenses, I would also consider renting an extra FF body for some events.
However, we don't know of the OP's travel arrangements to The
Falklands, whether it will be via plane or a cruise of some type. We
don't know if this is going to be a trip specifically for a photo shoot
or a vacation with photography as incidental to the trip. So consider
the extra weight and bulk of a 400mm or 500mm lens to add to general
and landscape shooting requirements.

From the point of view of a vacationer who has not done this type of
photography before and from what he has said, has not even bought the
DSRR yet (I assume he has yet to buy the D600 + 70-200mm and he is
asking advice), I would thing he might be better off buying less
expensive kit at this point on his DSLR wildlife photography learning
curve. Then he could consider the transition to FF from APS-C.

> At the end, if you think your efforts will result in saleable stuff,
> spare no expense; if it's for your own enjoyment, relax and enjoy the
> experience, and take a little extra time and equipment to memorialize
> your enjoyment.

I believe he could do quite well with a lesser DSLR Say a D300S or a
D7100 on his trip rather than the D600.
Here is a D300S shot using an 80-400mm VR @ 200mm.
<
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Shared%20Images/USENET%20SHARE/DNC1000_HDR-Ac2w.jpg
>




--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

That
>
was not the shot I intended to link to, here you go:
<
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Shared%20Images/USENET%20SHARE/DNC_7613w.jpg
>

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Martin Brown]

At the risk of being contentious and accepting here that you will have
to live with softer focus and donut shaped out of focus highlights a
mirror lens is not a bad compromise for wild life photography where size
and weight are important factors. I do have traditional long lenses too
but sometimes their large physical size gets in the way.

>
> From the point of view of a vacationer who has not done this type of
> photography before and from what he has said, has not even bought the
> DSRR yet (I assume he has yet to buy the D600 + 70-200mm and he is
> asking advice), I would thing he might be better off buying less
> expensive kit at this point on his DSLR wildlife photography learning
> curve. Then he could consider the transition to FF from APS-C.

Possibly the most important advice is take a camera and lenses with you
that you already know inside out and a spare body. Reading the manual in
driving rain whilst some rare bird makes its getaway is not good. Same
with weddings...

>> At the end, if you think your efforts will result in saleable stuff,
>> spare no expense; if it's for your own enjoyment, relax and enjoy the
>> experience, and take a little extra time and equipment to memorialize
>> your enjoyment.
>
> I believe he could do quite well with a lesser DSLR Say a D300S or a
> D7100 on his trip rather than the D600.
> Here is a D300S shot using an 80-400mm VR @ 200mm.
> <
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Shared%20Images/USENET%20SHARE/DNC1000_HDR-Ac2w.jpg

The kit used is generally secondary to knowing where to go and framing
the scene - assuming a certain minimum standard of gear. A really good
tripod is essential when using long lenses and a means to fire the
shutter without physically touching the camera (something I think modern
cameras lacking traditional cable releases are not so good at).

My old Pentax istD would sometimes forget to autofocus when triggered by
its remote control - a rather irritating fault.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Ghost-Rider]

Le 09/05/2013 03:22, flatula...@deadspam.com a ï¿œcrit :

Hello, I'm new here.
If weight, bulk and the bore and risks of having to change lens is
important, you might consider an APSC with a super-zoom.
I used to do everything with a D90 with the 18-200. I have shifted to
the D7000 with the 18-300 and it is perfect for travelling, scenery or
wild life, including close-ups with one or two MCON35 Olympus close-ups
lenses screwed on it.
The quality is there and allows reframing, I never change lens, have no
problem with dust, I always have the right lens on the body and a
limited weight hanging on my shoulder.
Examples available if you like.

[flatula...@deadspam.com]

On Wed, 8 May 2013 20:50:29 -0700 Savageduck wrote:-

>> Here is a D300S shot using an 80-400mm VR @ 200mm.
>> <
>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Shared%20Images/USENET%20SHARE/DNC1000_HDR-Ac2w.jpg
>
>That
>>
>was not the shot I intended to link to, here you go:
><
>https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Shared%20Images/USENET%20SHARE/DNC_7613w.jpg
>>

LOL!

Still nice but I liked the first one better!

[flatula...@deadspam.com]

On Wed, 8 May 2013 20:47:22 -0700 Savageduck wrote:-

>Here is a D300S shot using an 80-400mm VR @ 200mm.
><
>https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Shared%20Images/USENET%20SHARE/DNC1000_HDR-Ac2w.jpg

Very nice!

[PeterN]

If your budget permits, I would consider a D800, which, will give you a
much better cropped image, than any smaller sensor camera, plus you will
have the advantage of being able to use a wide angle lens.
The test shot below was shot with my D800, using the 70-200 lens with a
1.7 extender. I was about 150 yards away. The image on the left is full
frame, the one of the right is a crop of that FF image.
<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC6570.jpg>

If you want on all purpose lens, then think about the 28-300. While it
is not as sharp as the 70-200, it weighs a lot less and gives a wider
angle of view.
Here is an image I shot from about 50 yds with the 28-300mm, also cropped.
<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/shtopem%20from%20floppin.jpg>


--
PeterN

[me]

On Thu, 9 May 2013 11:22:30 +1000, <flatula...@deadspam.com>
wrote:

It would help to have the problem bounded a bit more. Size?, weight?
$$? Other lenses you intend to have as well. How do you intend to
handle the wide end, or you don't care below 70mm?
I have the 18-200mm VRII, 1st gen 70-200mm f/2.8 VR (with 1.x and 2x)
and 1st gen 200-400mm f/4 VR (with 1.4x and 2x).
on a D70, D200 and D300 all handheld and I carry all around quite a
bit.

[Wally]

On Thu, 9 May 2013 11:22:30 +1000, <flatula...@deadspam.com>
wrote:

Serious wildlife photography is a demanding art. If high quality
nature photography is your goal, the most important thing is to get
some solid experience first before setting out on this trip.

I use a Canon 7D and 100-400mm lens. The lens is very compact and
easily goes into a briefcase together with the camera body, laptop,
extra couple of lenses and backup body. This is a big advantage for
travel. The 400mm gives the equivalent of a 600mm lens on a full frame
35mm camera. The lens is versatile and very sharp at the long end (but
samples vary, so test it if you buy it).

In the Nikon line, use a DX body and the 200-400mm lens. The 200-400mm
is much bigger (and much more expensive) than the Canon 100-400, and
with its bulk and weight you will need to consider how to safely get
the lens to its destination. I would NOT put it into checked luggage.

You won't need a tripod for either of these rigs, and I would avoid a
tripod anyway so you have mobility (unless you are shooting static
subjects like a bird on a nest).

For top results, you will need a full frame camera, but then you will
also need a proportionally longer lens -- and a tripod, because you
won't be able to hand-hold this. Getting such fancy gear to the
Falkands and back will be a challenge.

Most likely you were not thinking of such pro gear, and might be well
satisfied with something simpler, such as a 70-200mm lens optionally
with an extender, or maybe the new Canon 70-300mm (the one with the
white body), or the old version Canon 70-300mm, which is cheap and
pretty sharp, and even better when stopped down.

Or you could go down another level and use a point-and-shoot with a
20x zoom lens.

Wally

[flatula...@deadspam.com]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 12:51:12 -0400 PeterN wrote:-

>Here is an image I shot from about 50 yds with the 28-300mm, also
>cropped.
><https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/shtopem%20from%20floppin.jpg>

LOL! Some real wildlife!

[PeterN]

Actual she and her boyfriend were very nice people. We quite a nice
conversation.

--
PeterN

[gordo]

"PeterN" wrote in message
news:518d9eb6$0$10817$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...

See the latest copy of Outdoor Photographer for advice on lenses for
shooting wildlife.

Gordo

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-08 19:48:28 -0700, "Frank S" <fshe...@san.rr.com> said:

>> A 70-200 with a 2x extender will be nice for snapshots;

> Actually the 1.7X will give you better results.

Actually no extender will give you even better results. :-)

140-400 is probably already on the rather short side for
wildlife, so the slight decrease in image quality will be less
important than getting more pixels actually showing the subject.

A high-pixelcount crop camera will complement it well: more
pixels in a smaller view angle, so you get more reach.

-Wolfgang

[Wally]

Well, is this true? Will you get better IQ by cropping than by use of
extenders?

One can obtain the same field of view by applying a 2x (or 1.7 or
1.4x) extender to your favorite tele, or by omitting the extender and
just cropping the image.

Which image will look the best? Have credible tests been done?

W

[me]

It is highly dependent on the quality of the lens and the TC.

[M-M]

In article <6oaap8lbi2m546ogl...@4ax.com>,

Wally <Wa...@luxx.com> wrote:

> Well, is this true? Will you get better IQ by cropping than by use of
> extenders?
>
> One can obtain the same field of view by applying a 2x (or 1.7 or
> 1.4x) extender to your favorite tele, or by omitting the extender and
> just cropping the image.
>
> Which image will look the best? Have credible tests been done?

Extenders will cause a decrease in aperture.
An uncropped photo is exposed for the frame. When you crop out a
portion, the exposure is likely to be off.

--
m-m
Photo Gallery:
http://www.mhmyers.com

[me]

Only if you choose to do so. There are center-wieghted and spot
exposure modes for these situations.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

M-M <nospa...@ny.more> wrote:
> In article <6oaap8lbi2m546ogl...@4ax.com>,
> Wally <Wa...@luxx.com> wrote:

>> Well, is this true? Will you get better IQ by cropping than by use of
>> extenders?

>> One can obtain the same field of view by applying a 2x (or 1.7 or
>> 1.4x) extender to your favorite tele, or by omitting the extender and
>> just cropping the image.

>> Which image will look the best? Have credible tests been done?

> Extenders will cause a decrease in aperture.

The ones for DSLRs, which come between lens and sensor, do,
but there are some that don't --- they're added to the front of
the lens and often found for consumer video and point'n'shoot
cameras.

> An uncropped photo is exposed for the frame. When you crop out a
> portion, the exposure is likely to be off.

You're not talking sense in either sentence.

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Wally <Wa...@luxx.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 21:25:14 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

>>Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>> On 2013-05-08 19:48:28 -0700, "Frank S" <fshe...@san.rr.com> said:

>>>> A 70-200 with a 2x extender will be nice for snapshots;

>>> Actually the 1.7X will give you better results.

>>Actually no extender will give you even better results. :-)

>>140-400 is probably already on the rather short side for
>>wildlife, so the slight decrease in image quality will be less
>>important than getting more pixels actually showing the subject.

>>A high-pixelcount crop camera will complement it well: more
>>pixels in a smaller view angle, so you get more reach.

> Well, is this true? Will you get better IQ by cropping than by use of
> extenders?

Completely different topic.

A weaker extender does degrade the image less, hence no
extender == best image. But also (obviously) less pixels of
subject and more pixels of 'air' round the subject.

If you want the same framing and you cannot choose "use
a longer lens", then --- as far as I can tell --- on high
quality lenses and high quality extenders the extender does
win against cropping.

> One can obtain the same field of view by applying a 2x (or 1.7 or
> 1.4x) extender to your favorite tele, or by omitting the extender and
> just cropping the image.

> Which image will look the best? Have credible tests been done?

See for example
http://www.traumflieger.de/objektivtest/telekonverter/telekonverter_check_Teil2.php
(German, but the images speak for themselves)

Different ~1.4x converters and lines resolution (Center):
http://www.traumflieger.de/desktop/telekonverter/aufloesung1.jpg
Now, if you enlarge the "no extender" images by ~1.4, what
happens to the line count?

And another one:
http://www.traumflieger.de/desktop/telekonverter/interpol1.jpg

And another one, using Canon's Mark III TCs:
http://www.traumflieger.de/desktop/telekonverter/tk_canon3_tableau_interpolation.jpg

-Wolfgang

[M-M]

In article <rbel6a-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>,

Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:

> > An uncropped photo is exposed for the frame. When you crop out a
> > portion, the exposure is likely to be off.
>
> You're not talking sense in either sentence.

I'll try to rephrase it.

When a camera auto-exposes a photo, it takes the entire frame into
account. If you crop out a portion, it would not be the same exposure as
if you zoomed in on that portion and exposed for it.

At least _I_ understand what I'm saying. :)

[Savageduck]

That depends on the camera you are using and the metering you have
available and have selected. With my D300S, and usually all DSLR & many
fuller featured compact cameras, will give you the option of full
matrix metering, spot metering, & center weighted metering with the
ability to adjust the center weight spot size.

...and even if you have the problem you proposed, it is easily fixed in
post processing.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article
<nospam.m-m-7C715...@cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com>,

M-M <nospa...@ny.more> wrote:

> > > An uncropped photo is exposed for the frame. When you crop out a
> > > portion, the exposure is likely to be off.
> >
> > You're not talking sense in either sentence.
>
> I'll try to rephrase it.
>
> When a camera auto-exposes a photo, it takes the entire frame into
> account.

not necessarily, depending on metering mode, and it may not matter at
all, depending on the scene.

> If you crop out a portion, it would not be the same exposure as
> if you zoomed in on that portion and exposed for it.

it *might* not be the same, and if it is different it probably won't be
different enough to matter. it depends on a lot of things.

what matters is if the subject is exposed properly.

[M-M]

In article <2013052008260428635-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> > When a camera auto-exposes a photo, it takes the entire frame into
> > account. If you crop out a portion, it would not be the same exposure as
> > if you zoomed in on that portion and exposed for it.
> >
> > At least _I_ understand what I'm saying. :)
>
> That depends on the camera you are using and the metering you have
> available and have selected. With my D300S, and usually all DSLR & many
> fuller featured compact cameras, will give you the option of full
> matrix metering, spot metering, & center weighted metering with the
> ability to adjust the center weight spot size.
>
> ...and even if you have the problem you proposed, it is easily fixed in
> post processing.

I guess if you know the exact part you want to crop out, you can weight
or spot meter for it, but it is still largely a guess. It is not the
same as matrix metering the entire frame.

And post-processing a poor exposure is not "easily fixed", in my
experience. Overexposed areas can not be compensated for, and
underexposed areas are often grainy.

[nospam]

In article
<nospam.m-m-87EC8...@cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com>,

M-M <nospa...@ny.more> wrote:

> > > When a camera auto-exposes a photo, it takes the entire frame into
> > > account. If you crop out a portion, it would not be the same exposure as
> > > if you zoomed in on that portion and exposed for it.
> > >
> > > At least _I_ understand what I'm saying. :)
> >
> > That depends on the camera you are using and the metering you have
> > available and have selected. With my D300S, and usually all DSLR & many
> > fuller featured compact cameras, will give you the option of full
> > matrix metering, spot metering, & center weighted metering with the
> > ability to adjust the center weight spot size.
> >
> > ...and even if you have the problem you proposed, it is easily fixed in
> > post processing.
>
> I guess if you know the exact part you want to crop out, you can weight
> or spot meter for it, but it is still largely a guess. It is not the
> same as matrix metering the entire frame.

matrix metering will favour the subject, which is generally somewhere
towards the center. cropping won't make much of a difference, if any.

> And post-processing a poor exposure is not "easily fixed", in my
> experience. Overexposed areas can not be compensated for, and
> underexposed areas are often grainy.

the difference is not going to be all that much, probably no more than
1 stop, if that much, and likely less than 1/2 stop. that's trivial to
fix, with no noticeably effect.

[Wally]

Old-fashioned exposure thinking, IMHO.

In the old days you guessed or calculated the exposure as best you
could, and perhaps bracketed, because you wouldn't find out whether
you were close enough until the processed film came back.

Now you just look at the LCD and if there are blinkies, adjust and
shoot again.

W

[Savageduck]

On 2013-05-20 08:58:45 -0700, M-M <nospa...@ny.more> said:

> In article <2013052008260428635-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>>> When a camera auto-exposes a photo, it takes the entire frame into
>>> account. If you crop out a portion, it would not be the same exposure as
>>> if you zoomed in on that portion and exposed for it.
>>>
>>> At least _I_ understand what I'm saying. :)
>>
>> That depends on the camera you are using and the metering you have
>> available and have selected. With my D300S, and usually all DSLR & many
>> fuller featured compact cameras, will give you the option of full
>> matrix metering, spot metering, & center weighted metering with the
>> ability to adjust the center weight spot size.
>>
>> ...and even if you have the problem you proposed, it is easily fixed in
>> post processing.
>
>
> I guess if you know the exact part you want to crop out, you can weight
> or spot meter for it, but it is still largely a guess. It is not the
> same as matrix metering the entire frame.

Think this through.
If I have a subject which I have focused on, and either spot, or center
weight metered, cropping is not going to effect the exposure of the
subject target area. You might have other areas of this image which are
effected by correct metering on the target/subject.

If I use matrix metering for the entire frame, my capture result for
the whole frame is going to be a mean exposure applied to the entire
image. Even if I select an off center area for cropping that calculated
mean exposure is not going to change because I cropped.

Also, with Nikon DSLRs, Center weight metering is a "focused" version
of matrix metering, not a bigger "spot".

> And post-processing a poor exposure is not "easily fixed", in my
> experience. Overexposed areas can not be compensated for, and
> underexposed areas are often grainy.

If you shoot RAW, you certainly have the ability to easily fix many
exposure issues. If you have blown highlights you have bigger issues
than metering problems and it might be time to revisit your shooting
techniques.
Deep shadows are one thing and are not necessarily undesirable. Having
underexposed parts of a desired target/subject is a good indication
that matrix metering was a poor choice. However, if shot in RAW even
that can be rescued without too many noise issues.

Also, different editing software is going to give you different ability
to make these fixes in post.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.20 11:58 , M-M wrote:

> And post-processing a poor exposure is not "easily fixed", in my
> experience. Overexposed areas can not be compensated for, and
> underexposed areas are often grainy.

Within a stop over or a couple under you can save a digital photo
however. Slide film? Faggetaboutit.


--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
-Pierre Berton

[PeterN]

On 5/20/2013 1:08 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2013.05.20 11:58 , M-M wrote:
>
>> And post-processing a poor exposure is not "easily fixed", in my
>> experience. Overexposed areas can not be compensated for, and
>> underexposed areas are often grainy.
>
> Within a stop over or a couple under you can save a digital photo
> however. Slide film? Faggetaboutit.
>

the word is pronounced furgedaboudit



--
PeterN

[PeterN]

WARNING: CHECK YOUR CARDIOLOGY BEFORE READING THIS:

I agree completely with nospam, with this and another post in this thread.

--
PeterN

[PeterN]

Does that apply if you use upgrade pricing?


--
PeterN

[Eric Stevens]

Some very fast lens changes going on there if the watch time is to be
believed.

>And another one, using Canon's Mark III TCs:
> http://www.traumflieger.de/desktop/telekonverter/tk_canon3_tableau_interpolation.jpg
>
>-Wolfgang

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Paul J Gans]

Fuhgedaboudit.

--
--- Paul J. Gans, posting from Brooklyn

[PeterN]

You must be from either Bensonhoist, or Greenpernt. I loined it in
Flatbush.

--
PeterN

[M-M]

In article <gijkp8hatn0b9p0mm...@4ax.com>,

Wally <Wa...@luxx.com> wrote:

> Now you just look at the LCD and if there are blinkies, adjust and
> shoot again.

Yea, just tell that animal or bird to go back to what he was doing.

[Alan Browne]

Depends if you're in Boston, Brooklyn or The Bronx.

As to a hundred other places? Faggetaboutit.

[Paul J Gans]

Actually I was born in Cheekago, but I've lived in Noo Yawk
for the last 51 years, currently in Fort Greene.

What that means is that I shop at B&H and Adorama in poysen.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

M-M <nospa...@ny.more> wrote:
> In article <rbel6a-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>,
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:

>> > An uncropped photo is exposed for the frame. When you crop out a
>> > portion, the exposure is likely to be off.

>> You're not talking sense in either sentence.

> I'll try to rephrase it.

That won't help.

> When a camera auto-exposes a photo, it takes the entire frame into
> account. If you crop out a portion, it would not be the same exposure as
> if you zoomed in on that portion and exposed for it.

What you're saying sounds reasonable, but is wrong.

> At least _I_ understand what I'm saying. :)

I didn't say I didn't understand you ...

Let's start with "An uncropped photo is exposed for the frame."
This is obviously easily wrong if one uses the M(aster) mode
(including manual ISO) --- maybe with test shots, maybe with
guessing, maybe with a handheld meter.

This can also be argued wrong if you use a significant amount
of light from flash --- there you underexpose (the ambient
light) and set the flash (in conjunction with the aperture
and flash-object distance) to the right value. ETTL (version
I) was tied too tightly to the focus point(s) used --- it
basically ignored much of the rest of the frame. With direct
flash and a lens reporting the distance ETTL I and II would
set the flash power according to the distance and aperture and
mostly ignore the returning light of the measuring flash ---
basically, ignoring most of the frame again.


Let's go on to "When a camera auto-exposes a photo, it takes
the entire frame into account". Please look up partial and
spot metering. Only the centre is being used (smaller if
spot, larger if partial, at least with Canon), the rest of
the frame doesn't even count.

Further, even with centre weighted average mode the border
counts for very little, so framing the image such that
it's border is reduced often causes very little change ---
not enough to be relevant and often not enough to choose
a different amount of light to fall on the sensor (i.e. an
equivalent ISO/exposure/aperture triple).


Worse, with matrix the camera decides where to use and where
to ignore the frame's brightness, and in fact can detect
"it's sunshine outside" from a comparatively small part of
the frame and then may use a "sunny 16" or "sunny 8" rule, no
matter what the rest of the frame is. (Of course it can also
detect backlit subjects and then make them be exposed right,
not the larger backlit area. So a change in framing may or
may not have the same amount of light on the sensor.


So: no, the camera does *not* take the entire frame into
account in most cases.


Let's look at "If you crop out a portion, it would not be the

same exposure as if you zoomed in on that portion and exposed

for it." Now, the obvious counter example is the evenly lit
brick wall filling the frame. Zoom in and the exposure stays
the same. OK, you said "the exposure is likely to be off",
not "always off".

Now, see above: with M(aster) mode, assuming you know what
you do, and with spot and partial mode (again assuming you know
what you do) the exposure on the main subjects will be right
--- even if you crop severely and let only those subjects in.
With center weighted average mode, cutting off the borders
doesn't make an appreciable different --- you'd have to
cut much and that much needs to be either very dark or very
bright compared to the rest of the image to make a difference.
With matrix it only matters if the camera thinks the zoomed
in frame means a different subject or switches from/to backlit
subject mode or does/does not switch to "full sunlight" mode.

In short: if you don't crop lots, even with full auto exposure
settings the esposure is likely to be right for the cropped
image. If you intend to crop much and don't trust the matrix
mode, M or spot or partial mode will see you through.


In fact, some cameras have/had other metering moded: average
(not centre weighted), in which case the whole frame would be
important, or multi-spot, or they replace the 'centre
weighted average' with a 'active focus point weighted average',
on the general idea you probably want that what you focus on
to be important in the image.

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Fagottaboutit.

-Wolfgang

--
see http://tinyurl.com/Fagottaboutit

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 01:07:51 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

>>And another one:
>> http://www.traumflieger.de/desktop/telekonverter/interpol1.jpg

> Some very fast lens changes going on there if the watch time is to be
> believed.

Either that, or they shoot only once per month or the clock
isn't advancing at all.
Do you have Ockham's razor ready?

-Wolfgang

[M-M]

That was a great detailed reply- I appreciate it and I hope others can
also.

But getting back to the OP, we were discussing wildlife photography
(where a flash would be useless), and the best (long) lens to use. Wally
said to use a tele-extender or just crop it. My point was that these can
not take the place of glass and aperture.

Sure, if the subject is in the center of the frame and you have a good
enough sensor, you can crop with little consequence as you suggest, and
I agree.

I once read that there is but one use for digital zoom, and that is to
get a better exposure than by cropping. I have tried it and it is true.
Take a photo and enlarge it 2X. Then take the same photo at 2X digital
zoom. The result is the same except the one taken with digital zoom is
very likely to be better exposed.

(Incidentally, I have found one more use for digital zoom and that is to
aid in manual focus. It comes in handy for astrophotography. But that is
another subject.)

Also, to the poster who suggested that the difference might be only one
or maybe 2 stops- I believe todays cameras work in fractions of f-stops.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it is no longer just 1/125, 1/60, 1/30,
1/15... but there are many stops in between and the same with the
aperture.

--
m-m
Photo Gallery:
http://www.mhmyers.com

In article <h80t6a-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>,

[nospam]

In article
<nospam.m-m-D60B1...@cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com>,

M-M <nospa...@ny.more> wrote:

> I once read that there is but one use for digital zoom, and that is to
> get a better exposure than by cropping. I have tried it and it is true.
> Take a photo and enlarge it 2X. Then take the same photo at 2X digital
> zoom. The result is the same except the one taken with digital zoom is
> very likely to be better exposed.

it's very likely that any difference will be completely insignificant,
if there's any difference at all.

> (Incidentally, I have found one more use for digital zoom and that is to
> aid in manual focus. It comes in handy for astrophotography. But that is
> another subject.)
>
> Also, to the poster who suggested that the difference might be only one
> or maybe 2 stops- I believe todays cameras work in fractions of f-stops.
> Correct me if I am wrong, but it is no longer just 1/125, 1/60, 1/30,
> 1/15... but there are many stops in between and the same with the
> aperture.

the difference is likely to be under 1 stop, probably under 1/2 stop.

and yes, cameras can shoot at any shutter speed, f/stop and iso
combination you want. that's been the case for *years*.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

M-M <nospa...@ny.more> wrote:
> That was a great detailed reply- I appreciate it and I hope others can
> also.

Please don't top post and add the full quote to the bottom.
Intersperse your comments with the original text, shortening
where appropriate and possibly indicating it by '[...]' or
'[... describes his holiday ...]' instead of quoting big chunks
(in this example a detailed report about his holiday yadda
yadda yadda) you're not answering to.

> But getting back to the OP, we were discussing wildlife photography
> (where a flash would be useless),

Again wrong.

The only way you can freeze or half-freeze a humming bird's
wings in flight is using flash. Normal compact flash on low
power settings (higher power settings mean a longer flash
duration!) or you could use special high speed flashes.

You could also google for "better beamer". It's a tool
sometimes used for wildlife, even if the flash only lifts
the shadows.

> and the best (long) lens to use. Wally
> said to use a tele-extender or just crop it. My point was that these can
> not take the place of glass and aperture.

Of course, I'd say "buy the 1200mm f/5.6 if you need the
range", but they're really rare and you can expect prices
above 100,000 USD. Since selling one's children into slavery
is illegal *and* doesn't fetch that much money ...

... you might either rob a couple banks and spend 25 years in
prison or make do with a somewhat shorter lens. Looking at
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup
the cheapest long lens would be the EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
(which needs a high end body to focus with a 1.4x TC at an
effective f/8) or the EF 300mm f/4L IS USM + an 1.4x TC.

Anything faster or longer gets really expensive really fast.
(And remember you have to carry the weight with you, which
may be a pretty hard limtation.) So a TC, especially if you
do have fast glass that can take it, can be a good compromise.

> Sure, if the subject is in the center of the frame and you have a good
> enough sensor, you can crop with little consequence as you suggest, and
> I agree.

? I suggested that you prefer a TC over cropping.

> I once read that there is but one use for digital zoom, and that is to
> get a better exposure than by cropping. I have tried it and it is true.

See previous post why this is wrong, at least when the
photographer knows what he is doing.

Additionally, there is a 41 MPix mobile phone --- here "digital
zoom" actually means "do not scale down as much, crop more
of the border instead", as they don't output 41 MPix photos.
Other cameras act similarly when using reduced pixel count
output at the tele end.

> Take a photo and enlarge it 2X. Then take the same photo at 2X digital
> zoom. The result is the same except the one taken with digital zoom is
> very likely to be better exposed.

See previous post why s/likely/rarely/, unless you're
shooting edge cases and don't know how to properly use your
camera.

> (Incidentally, I have found one more use for digital zoom and that is to
> aid in manual focus. It comes in handy for astrophotography. But that is
> another subject.)

Incidentally, for that you use lifeview and the focussing
loupe button.

> Also, to the poster who suggested that the difference might be only one
> or maybe 2 stops- I believe todays cameras work in fractions of f-stops.
> Correct me if I am wrong, but it is no longer just 1/125, 1/60, 1/30,
> 1/15... but there are many stops in between and the same with the
> aperture.

You can switch many cameras to full, 1/2 or 1/3rd stops.
That's zero, 1 or 2 settings between 1/125 and 1/60.

-Wolfgang

[Ron]

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
news:esl17a-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...

M-M <nospa...@ny.more> wrote:
> That was a great detailed reply- I appreciate it and I hope others can
> also.

<snip>

Of course, I'd say "buy the 1200mm f/5.6 if you need the
range", but they're really rare and you can expect prices
above 100,000 USD. Since selling one's children into slavery
is illegal *and* doesn't fetch that much money ...

++++++
And then there is the cost of a tripod and head capable of holding the lens.
Also the cost of hiring two men and a strong boy to carry it all around for
you! ;-)
Ron
++++++

<snip>

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Ron <RonR...@aol.com> wrote:
> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message

> Of course, I'd say "buy the 1200mm f/5.6 if you need the
> range", but they're really rare and you can expect prices
> above 100,000 USD. Since selling one's children into slavery
> is illegal *and* doesn't fetch that much money ...

> ++++++
> And then there is the cost of a tripod and head capable of holding the lens.
> Also the cost of hiring two men and a strong boy to carry it all around for
> you! ;-)

> ++++++

That's like saying "I buy a learjet and then the cost of
supplying the on-board bar with a bottle of cheap champagne
or two for all the cross-atlantic flights is something one
must not forget to factor in."

-Wolfgang