«

How does pixel density influence the resolution at super telephoto?
For example: Is it better to buy a:

1. Nikon 8800 with a teleconverter
2.Olympus e300 2x crop factor
3.Canon 350d 1.5 or 1.6 crop factor
4.Panasonic FZ20 with a 2.8/420mm x teleconverter?
5.7mpix consumer camera disassembled and lens replaced with a 35mm slr lens

Lens options:
1.Opteka/Exakta/Samiyang/Vivitar/whatever 650-1300mm f/8-f16 lens (1300mm
f/8 EFL Olympus) (teleconverter???) 250 Eur
2.100-400 f/5.6 with 1.4x teleconverter 500 Eur
3.80-200 f/2.8 Tamron or Tokina with a 3x Kenko teleconverter 600 Eur + 250
Eur
4.600 mm f/8 mirror
5.50-500mm f/6.3 Sigma with 2x and 1.4x teleconverters
6. A diy project of makeing the lens myself from components (found a front
lens 17cm diameter)
7. A telescope with an adapter 6 inch 1200 f/8 refractor 500 Eur + adapter

My goal is to get an image similar to the one from 20x50 binoculars or
better.
50mm lens is normal 1x, then 1000mm is 20x normal???

Thanks in advance.

I would recommend a straight-jacket.

".::SuperBLUE::." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:d08ml9$kcf$(E-Mail Removed)...
> How does pixel density influence the resolution at super telephoto?
> For example: Is it better to buy a:
>
> 1. Nikon 8800 with a teleconverter
> 2.Olympus e300 2x crop factor
> 3.Canon 350d 1.5 or 1.6 crop factor
> 4.Panasonic FZ20 with a 2.8/420mm x teleconverter?
> 5.7mpix consumer camera disassembled and lens replaced with a 35mm slr lens
>
> Lens options:
> 1.Opteka/Exakta/Samiyang/Vivitar/whatever 650-1300mm f/8-f16 lens (1300mm
> f/8 EFL Olympus) (teleconverter???) 250 Eur
> 2.100-400 f/5.6 with 1.4x teleconverter 500 Eur
> 3.80-200 f/2.8 Tamron or Tokina with a 3x Kenko teleconverter 600 Eur + 250
> Eur
> 4.600 mm f/8 mirror
> 5.50-500mm f/6.3 Sigma with 2x and 1.4x teleconverters
> 6. A diy project of makeing the lens myself from components (found a front
> lens 17cm diameter)
> 7. A telescope with an adapter 6 inch 1200 f/8 refractor 500 Eur + adapter
>
> My goal is to get an image similar to the one from 20x50 binoculars or
> better.
> 50mm lens is normal 1x, then 1000mm is 20x normal???
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:LKRVd.149206$0u.83889@fed1read04...
> I would recommend a straight-jacket.
It is a fast way out of thi story.

..::SuperBLUE::. wrote:
> How does pixel density influence the resolution at super telephoto?
> For example: Is it better to buy a:
>
> 1. Nikon 8800 with a teleconverter
> 2.Olympus e300 2x crop factor
> 3.Canon 350d 1.5 or 1.6 crop factor
> 4.Panasonic FZ20 with a 2.8/420mm x teleconverter?
> 5.7mpix consumer camera disassembled and lens replaced with a 35mm slr lens
>
> Lens options:
> 1.Opteka/Exakta/Samiyang/Vivitar/whatever 650-1300mm f/8-f16 lens (1300mm
> f/8 EFL Olympus) (teleconverter???) 250 Eur
> 2.100-400 f/5.6 with 1.4x teleconverter 500 Eur
> 3.80-200 f/2.8 Tamron or Tokina with a 3x Kenko teleconverter 600 Eur + 250
> Eur
> 4.600 mm f/8 mirror
> 5.50-500mm f/6.3 Sigma with 2x and 1.4x teleconverters
> 6. A diy project of makeing the lens myself from components (found a front
> lens 17cm diameter)
> 7. A telescope with an adapter 6 inch 1200 f/8 refractor 500 Eur + adapter
>
> My goal is to get an image similar to the one from 20x50 binoculars or
> better.
> 50mm lens is normal 1x, then 1000mm is 20x normal???
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>

Your best bet (image quality/dollar, might be to take the picture
through your 20 X 50 binoculars or through a spotting scope.
The technique is called digiscoping. You can google on it to see how
others have approached the problem. To get started see:
http://www.southwestbirders.com/digiscope.htm
Bob Williams

At the limit, everything else being perfect, the resolution of an image
will be proportional to the number of pixels.

Certainly the quality of a lens is a major factor in addition to the
number of pixels.

Other factors include accuracy of focus, mechanical stability, length of
exposure and tripod use (under user control), flare performance with
high contrast scenes, etc. So it is very hard to make too sweeping a
statement. However, my philosphy is that more pixels are never bad.
One can downsample (average) as much as you want, but it is hard to
upsample (increase number of pixels) very far.


..::SuperBLUE::. wrote:

> How does pixel density influence the resolution at super telephoto?
> For example: Is it better to buy a:
>
> 1. Nikon 8800 with a teleconverter
> 2.Olympus e300 2x crop factor
> 3.Canon 350d 1.5 or 1.6 crop factor
> 4.Panasonic FZ20 with a 2.8/420mm x teleconverter?
> 5.7mpix consumer camera disassembled and lens replaced with a 35mm slr lens
>
> Lens options:
> 1.Opteka/Exakta/Samiyang/Vivitar/whatever 650-1300mm f/8-f16 lens (1300mm
> f/8 EFL Olympus) (teleconverter???) 250 Eur
> 2.100-400 f/5.6 with 1.4x teleconverter 500 Eur
> 3.80-200 f/2.8 Tamron or Tokina with a 3x Kenko teleconverter 600 Eur + 250
> Eur
> 4.600 mm f/8 mirror
> 5.50-500mm f/6.3 Sigma with 2x and 1.4x teleconverters
> 6. A diy project of makeing the lens myself from components (found a front
> lens 17cm diameter)
> 7. A telescope with an adapter 6 inch 1200 f/8 refractor 500 Eur + adapter
>
> My goal is to get an image similar to the one from 20x50 binoculars or
> better.
> 50mm lens is normal 1x, then 1000mm is 20x normal???
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>

> Your best bet (image quality/dollar, might be to take the picture
> through your 20 X 50 binoculars or through a spotting scope.
> The technique is called digiscoping. You can google on it to see how
> others have approached the problem. To get started see:
> http://www.southwestbirders.com/digiscope.htm
> Bob Williams
I have seen that and i am considering similar options. I found it for the
first time on Carl Zeiss www. Also there is www.scopetronix.com for the
various combinations of digicams or slr cameras with adapters and scopes.
Thanks for the link.