Taken with Nikon Fieldscope 82/D80. Uncropped, but reduced to 25% of
original size for posting. I applied usm to the bird only with amount=
100%, radius= 1 pixel (after reducing the size) and that is the only
post-processing:
Re: Good looking Cardinal at 1000mm (1500mm equiv)
"M-M" <nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote in message
news:nospam.m-m-1E9EBB.21580720052007@newsread.uslec.net...
> Taken with Nikon Fieldscope 82/D80. Uncropped, but reduced to 25% of
> original size for posting. I applied usm to the bird only with amount=
> 100%, radius= 1 pixel (after reducing the size) and that is the only
> post-processing:
>
> http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_4161w.jpg
>
> --
> m-m
Re: Good looking Cardinal at 1000mm (1500mm equiv)
On May 20, 9:58 pm, M-M <nospam....@ny.more> wrote:
> Taken with Nikon Fieldscope 82/D80. Uncropped, but reduced to 25% of
> original size for posting. I applied usm to the bird only with amount=
> 100%, radius= 1 pixel (after reducing the size) and that is the only
> post-processing:
>
> http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_4161w.jpg
>
> --
> m-m
Re: Good looking Cardinal at 1000mm (1500mm equiv)
On May 20, 10:12 pm, "Annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
> "M-M" <nospam....@ny.more> wrote in message
>
> news:nospam.m-m-1E9EBB.21580720052007@newsread.uslec.net...
>
> > Taken with Nikon Fieldscope 82/D80. Uncropped, but reduced to 25% of
> > original size for posting. I applied usm to the bird only with amount=
> > 100%, radius= 1 pixel (after reducing the size) and that is the only
> > post-processing:
>
> >http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_4161w.jpg
>
> > --
> > m-m
>
> You should try a real lens. Much sharper.
I love when people toss off comments about lenses. Which Nikon would
he use, the $15,000 1200mm model that weighs as much as a field gun?
Although those lenses with the large front elements (fast lenses) are
capable of theoretically higher resolution, they are also more
susceptable to heat waves that can ruin a shot. The actual resolution
of such a lens is often limited to less than half of what it would be
capable of in a perfect environment. All it would have gained him is
some speed and the ability to use a lower ISO speed.
Re: Good looking Cardinal at 1000mm (1500mm equiv)
On May 20, 5:31 pm, Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 20, 10:12 pm, "Annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > "M-M" <nospam....@ny.more> wrote in message
>
> >news:nospam.m-m-1E9EBB.21580720052007@newsread.uslec.net...
>
> > > Taken with Nikon Fieldscope 82/D80. Uncropped, but reduced to 25% of
> > > original size for posting. I applied usm to the bird only with amount=
> > > 100%, radius= 1 pixel (after reducing the size) and that is the only
> > > post-processing:
>
> > >http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_4161w.jpg
>
> > > --
> > > m-m
>
> > You should try a real lens. Much sharper.
>
> I love when people toss off comments about lenses. Which Nikon would
> he use, the $15,000 1200mm model that weighs as much as a field gun?
> Although those lenses with the large front elements (fast lenses) are
> capable of theoretically higher resolution, they are also more
> susceptable to heat waves that can ruin a shot. The actual resolution
> of such a lens is often limited to less than half of what it would be
> capable of in a perfect environment. All it would have gained him is
> some speed and the ability to use a lower ISO speed.
Even with 4X down sizing the image looks soft. By down sizing by a
factor of 4 the image is more like one taken with a 250mm lens, not a
1000mm. The long focal length does not do that much good when the
resulting image is so soft that is has to be resized just to get it to
look sort of sharp.
This is an image taken with a 300mm lens, but a 100% crop http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/78950011
Since this is not down sized my magnification is actually a bit more
then the shoot using the 1000mm lens. The D80 has pixels that are
about 5% smaller so it has a small gain there, but that leaves a
4x reduced image at the same magnification as what I would get with a
lens that has a FL of 1000*1.05/4, or 263mm. And I shoot with the
300mm hand held, I think I much prefer my 300mm. At if I need a bit
more reach I can add a 1.4X TC, which I plan to do.
I am not saying that the photo of the cardinal is real bad, but no
where near as good as what 1000mm should be able of producing and I
don't believe even as good as what a good 300mm lens can produce. I
would say it is about a match of what a really good 200mm lens could
capture.
Re: Good looking Cardinal at 1000mm (1500mm equiv)
In article <1179731245.839472.320470@36g2000prm.googlegroups. com>,
Scott W <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Even with 4X down sizing the image looks soft. By down sizing by a
> factor of 4 the image is more like one taken with a 250mm lens, not a
> 1000mm. The long focal length does not do that much good when the
> resulting image is so soft that is has to be resized just to get it to
> look sort of sharp.
>
> This is an image taken with a 300mm lens, but a 100% crop
> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/78950011
That photo would print out at 2.4 inches wide @300ppi. And the colors
are a bit washed out. You do lose a lot when you crop so much- for one
you are not metering on just that one cropped area as the camera exposes
for a wider area of the scene. And you have to be close to the subject.
A good spotting scope will lose no colors and enable a print size of
8.5x13 at 300ppi. Yes, you do lose aperture- I am limited to f/13. But
the thing is very small and compact, and you would end up with the same
aperture by stacking TC's.
The advantage is you can get things at full-frame that you would not be
able to get otherwise. You want to see a 100% crop from the spotting
scope? Here is the reflection of my house in a robin's eyeball:
Re: Good looking Cardinal at 1000mm (1500mm equiv)
On May 21, 3:07 am, Scott W <biph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 20, 5:31 pm, Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 20, 10:12 pm, "Annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > "M-M" <nospam....@ny.more> wrote in message
>
> > >news:nospam.m-m-1E9EBB.21580720052007@newsread.uslec.net...
>
> > > > Taken with Nikon Fieldscope 82/D80. Uncropped, but reduced to 25% of
> > > > original size for posting. I applied usm to the bird only with amount=
> > > > 100%, radius= 1 pixel (after reducing the size) and that is the only
> > > > post-processing:
>
> > > >http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_4161w.jpg
>
> > > > --
> > > > m-m
>
> > > You should try a real lens. Much sharper.
>
> > I love when people toss off comments about lenses. Which Nikon would
> > he use, the $15,000 1200mm model that weighs as much as a field gun?
> > Although those lenses with the large front elements (fast lenses) are
> > capable of theoretically higher resolution, they are also more
> > susceptable to heat waves that can ruin a shot. The actual resolution
> > of such a lens is often limited to less than half of what it would be
> > capable of in a perfect environment. All it would have gained him is
> > some speed and the ability to use a lower ISO speed.
>
> Even with 4X down sizing the image looks soft. By down sizing by a
> factor of 4 the image is more like one taken with a 250mm lens, not a
> 1000mm. The long focal length does not do that much good when the
> resulting image is so soft that is has to be resized just to get it to
> look sort of sharp.
>
> This is an image taken with a 300mm lens, but a 100% crophttp://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/78950011
> Since this is not down sized my magnification is actually a bit more
> then the shoot using the 1000mm lens. The D80 has pixels that are
> about 5% smaller so it has a small gain there, but that leaves a
> 4x reduced image at the same magnification as what I would get with a
> lens that has a FL of 1000*1.05/4, or 263mm. And I shoot with the
> 300mm hand held, I think I much prefer my 300mm. At if I need a bit
> more reach I can add a 1.4X TC, which I plan to do.
>
> I am not saying that the photo of the cardinal is real bad, but no
> where near as good as what 1000mm should be able of producing and I
> don't believe even as good as what a good 300mm lens can produce. I
> would say it is about a match of what a really good 200mm lens could
> capture.
>
> Scott
There are various factors that can effect sharpness and resolution,
but for a 1000mm lens to not be able to resolve at least as well as a
300mm lens on a shot taken from the same distance (all things being
equal), something would be wrong. But, since the shots were taken
under different circumstances, there is no way to really compare them
except to say yours was sharper, without any specifics. Your shot
fills over a 1100 pixels vertically, which means that with a 300mm
lens and the Rebel, you were about 18ft from the bird, roughly. His
shot was at a 1500mm equivalent and the bird fills about 4/5 of the
frame height. Assuming the birds were roughly the same size, his bird
was about 30ft from his lens.
Although increasing the lens focal length equivalent by over 3x should
result in more detailed image than yours, we know from experience that
is not always how long telephotos work. Distance = distortion from
heat waves and camera shake. 1500mm really means you need 2000 of a
second for a sharp shot, ideally over 3000th of a second. Even on a
solid tripod, such a focal length can be unsteady to shoot. I'd
really like to see both combos shot at the same subject,
from the same distance.
Re: Good looking Cardinal at 1000mm (1500mm equiv)
On May 21, 2:29 am, M-M <nospam....@ny.more> wrote:
> In article <1179731245.839472.320...@36g2000prm.googlegroups. com>,
> Scott W <biph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Even with 4X down sizing the image looks soft. By down sizing by a
> > factor of 4 the image is more like one taken with a 250mm lens, not a
> > 1000mm. The long focal length does not do that much good when the
> > resulting image is so soft that is has to be resized just to get it to
> > look sort of sharp.
>
> > This is an image taken with a 300mm lens, but a 100% crop
> >http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/78950011
>
> That photo would print out at 2.4 inches wide @300ppi. And the colors
> are a bit washed out. You do lose a lot when you crop so much- for one
> you are not metering on just that one cropped area as the camera exposes
> for a wider area of the scene. And you have to be close to the subject.
>
> A good spotting scope will lose no colors and enable a print size of
> 8.5x13 at 300ppi. Yes, you do lose aperture- I am limited to f/13. But
> the thing is very small and compact, and you would end up with the same
> aperture by stacking TC's.
>
> The advantage is you can get things at full-frame that you would not be
> able to get otherwise. You want to see a 100% crop from the spotting
> scope? Here is the reflection of my house in a robin's eyeball:
>
> http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSCN1389crop.jpg
That one is sharper then your Cardinal shot, but still it needs to be
down sampled by about 2X do get it to look really sharp.
If you are happy using the Spotting scope great, but I think most
people are going to perfer using a real camera lens.
Re: Good looking Cardinal at 1000mm (1500mm equiv)
In article <1179768811.446986.32030@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.c om>,
Rich <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd
> really like to see both combos shot at the same subject,
> from the same distance.
I just happen to have that comparison for you. Actually there is no
comparison, but you decide. The first shot is of a hummingbird approx 40
feet away taken with a 70-300ED Nikon lens and cropped 100%. The second
is of the same subject taken at 1000mm but cropped only 25%:
Good looking Cardinal at 1000mm (1500mm equiv) 
Linear Mode
