sensor size and telephoto

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by .::SuperBLUE::., Mar 4, 2005.

  1. 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.
     
    .::SuperBLUE::., Mar 4, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. .::SuperBLUE::.

    Mark² Guest

    I would recommend a straight-jacket.

    ".::SuperBLUE::." <> wrote in message
    news:d08ml9$kcf$...
    > 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, Mar 4, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "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::., Mar 4, 2005
    #3
  4. .::SuperBLUE::.

    Bob Williams Guest

    ..::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
     
    Bob Williams, Mar 4, 2005
    #4
  5. 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.
    >
    >
     
    Don Stauffer in Minneapolis, Mar 4, 2005
    #5
  6. > 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.
     
    .::SuperBLUE::., Mar 5, 2005
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    304
    Ken Tough
    Dec 8, 2004
  2. Don Wiss
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    340
    The Other Guy
    Jan 10, 2009
  3. Jimmy Smith

    100mm telephoto vs telephoto macro

    Jimmy Smith, Jun 22, 2004, in forum: Digital Cameras
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    231
    Skip M
    Jun 23, 2004
  4. ftran999
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    327
    Randy Berbaum
    Feb 22, 2007
  5. stu7

    pixels / pixel size / sensor size

    stu7, Apr 25, 2012, in forum: Digital Cameras
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    209
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Apr 30, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page