Popphoto rant

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Siddhartha Jain, Jan 17, 2005.

  1. Just started my Popular Photography subscription. The magazine's plain
    lousy. Its full of advertisments and the articles aren't worth
    anything. No indepth testing reports or insightful articles!! dpreview
    does a more thorough job anyday.

    Very disappointed!!

    Infact, one of the articles about teleconverters didn't look right to
    me. The "Editors" opine that on a dSLR (as compared to a film SLR) the
    teleconverter will magnify any shake or blur. I don't understand how
    can the affect of shake be more magnified on a dSLR than on a 35mm
    full-frame film camera? The 1.6x crop factor affects the angle of view
    and not the magnification. Right? So the affect of camera shake should
    be the same given that you blow up a sub-35mm dSLR and 35mm film shot
    in the same proportion. Right?

    - Siddhartha
    Siddhartha Jain, Jan 17, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Siddhartha Jain

    BobS Guest

    With a 1.6 "crop factor" a typical 70-200mm lens becomes a 112-320mm. Now
    add your 2x teleconverter and you have 224-640mm lens. Now add the f stop
    loss due to the teleconverter and the slower speed you'll be shooting at -
    plus manual focus at the extreme end and camera shake is a real concern.

    Bob S.
    BobS, Jan 17, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Siddhartha Jain

    Mark² Guest

    No. Not angle of view.... FIELD of view.
    While the 1.6 crop factor does not REALLY change the true focal length, it
    does effect shake when you consider that you'll be enlarging more in order
    to achieve the same print sizes. ANy time you enlarge, you are hightening
    the blur/shake factors. So... Yes. -In effect, DSLRs DO in fact increase
    the chance that you'll see camera-motion blur, meaning technologies like
    Canon's IS become more important/useful.

    But as for your comments about the magazine in gereral...
    -Pop photo is basically a catalogue...with a few articals thrown in so that
    it can pretend to be a magazine.
    The publisher does NOT CARE one little bit that many of its advertisers are
    KNOWN scam shops, so ignore the Pop Photo "Check-rated" BS. It is just
    If you want to look at ads, stick to B&H and Adorama. They are quite
    Most of the others are crap.
    I'd send them their bill without payment and cancel...or if you've already
    paid...request cancelation and refund.
    The magazine is essentially worthless.
    See above.
    Mark², Jan 17, 2005
  4. Siddhartha Jain

    Bob Salomon Guest

    May as well add that the rule of thumb is the slowest shutter speed for
    hand held use is the reciprocal of the longest focal length. So for a 70
    to 200mm the slowest hand held speed for the typical shooter is 1/200th.

    Using the tele converter on the 70 to 200 with the 1.6x factor the lens
    is equal to a 224-640mm so the slowest hand held speed becomes 1/640th
    so yes the editors are right. Hand held vibration or vibration
    transmitted by a tripod that is not sturdy enough is greater (or
    magnified) on the DSLR with the same lens and converter. On 35mm using
    that lens and the 2z the slowest speed would be 1/400.

    Note that the above hand held speeds are given for the longest focal
    length. Naturally they would be slower at wider settings.

    Perhaps the OP was reading magnified as increasing size rather then be
    greater in effect.
    Bob Salomon, Jan 17, 2005
  5. Siddhartha Jain

    Frank ess Guest

    My logic with regard to the magnified shake question is like this:
    There is a physical distance an image must be moved on the sensitive
    plane in order for you to consider it blurred. The physical motion of
    the camera necessary for sufficient image motion is smaller for smaller

    Frank ess, Jan 17, 2005
  6. Gee, popphoto nothing more than a front for merchandising? Gosh!
    Seriously, I'm sorry you got burned. I would recommend, in future,
    something like "Peterson's Photographic." They ALL push stuff, but
    Peterson's has more meat on the bones, as does "Shutterbug." If it's any
    comfort to you, most of us found this out the hard way. When I was a kid,
    my dad got the mag every month and it was a pretty decent tech mag, but we
    both seem to have grown up.
    Speaking of deteriorating standards: is anybody aware that "Cosmopolitan"
    used to be a LITERARY magazine????? I have ancient copies to prove it!
    Found them in an antique store.
    Nancy C Kenfield, Jan 17, 2005
  7. Siddhartha Jain

    sid derra Guest

    did you not check out the mag before you subscribet to it? i got a 3 yr
    subscription for 10.49 off ebay and am totally happy with it. keeps me
    updated at least - and i think i have an own opinion to a point where i can
    disagree with parts of the zine w/o freaking out.

    sid derra, Jan 17, 2005
  8. Siddhartha Jain

    Alan Meyer Guest

    I think the conclusion in the last sentence is right, but I'd state
    the premise a bit differently.

    The "physical distance an image must be moved" to consider it
    blurred depends on the size of the pixels. If there are 2,000 pixels
    fit across a 10 mm width sensor, each pixel is .005 mm across.
    On a sensor with the same number of pixels that's 20 mm wide,
    each pixel is .01 mm across. It would seem to me that the
    perceived blur for the same physical motion would be greater
    for the smaller sensor.

    Alan Meyer, Jan 17, 2005
  9. Siddhartha Jain

    JPS Guest

    In message <whTGd.28935$>,
    Perhaps, but the increased need in relative shutter speed is not any
    greater for a 1.6x crop camera than a full frame, when using the TC, so
    the article makes an incorrect assertion, if the OP is paraphrasing it
    JPS, Jan 17, 2005

  10. They are all pretty thin on content but I currently subscribe to POP,
    Outdoor Photographer and Digital Photo Pro.
    Dave R knows who, Jan 17, 2005
  11. Siddhartha Jain

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    No; unless the editors said that the same lens with the same TC will
    require a faster shutter speed with the 1.6x crop, which is not what the
    OP implied. The OP implied that the editors said that putting a 2x
    converter on a digital will require more of a shutter speed adjustment
    than with full-frame film (less than half the exposure time).

    It's one of those things that doesn't need to be said, and only is said
    because someone was looking at it the wrong way.
    JPS, Jan 17, 2005
  12. Siddhartha Jain

    Mark² Guest

    It is different to the extent that eventual enlargement (prints) will be a
    greater ratio of enlargement compared with full-size sensor shots, and will
    therefore reveal more evidence of movement.
    Mark², Jan 17, 2005
  13. Siddhartha Jain

    JPS Guest

    In message <[email protected]>,
    That is an obvious "given". What the paraphrase of the article implies
    is that you have to compensate more when you take your lens off of a
    DSLR with a crop factor, and stick a converter in-between, which is
    nonsense. You double the denominator for a 2x TC, regardless of the
    crop or lack thereof. It is a typical magazine profundity created by an
    illusory starting point (you weren't using the proper shutter speed
    before you attached the converter).
    JPS, Jan 17, 2005
  14. Siddhartha Jain

    ZONED! Guest

    Excellent question if you had not asked, I was ready to.
    ZONED!, Jan 17, 2005
  15. Siddhartha Jain

    Tony Guest

    Just remember your subscription will never run out either. I subscribed
    for a year back in the 90s and am still getting the magazine.
    Tony, Jan 18, 2005
  16. Siddhartha Jain

    Mark² Guest

    Obvious to you and I, perhaps, but not to folks who tend to ask these
    Mark², Jan 18, 2005
  17. Siddhartha Jain

    JPS Guest

    In message <[email protected]>,
    .... but let's get everything in a logical perspective.

    If you're going to use a 1.6x-crop DSLR, then the denominator of the
    longest shutter speed needs to be multiplied by 1.6x what it would be
    for 35mm film. If you're going to use a 2x TC with either, you have to
    double those numbers. The way the article stated (or was paraphrased),
    it sounded like some special thing happens with digital and/or crops
    that changes the basic principal. There is no need for such confusion.
    JPS, Jan 18, 2005
  18. Mine's an international subscription. Costs $20 including shipping for
    a year :(

    - Siddhartha
    Siddhartha Jain, Jan 18, 2005
  19. Siddhartha Jain

    Mark² Guest

    Yes. I see what you're focussing on there. I was talking more to the basic
    question of whether camera shake can be more evident a problem when using a
    smaller sensor vs. film. The apparent point about the 2x TC is indeed
    silly...if that's what they were saying.
    Mark², Jan 18, 2005
  20. Siddhartha Jain

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Substitute the name of most photo mags and the above would still apply.
    I'm surprised that someone who knows about dpreview would subscribe to
    Pop Photo. Didn't you buy a test issue at the newstand first??

    Phil Wheeler, Jan 18, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.