• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Ask me your photography questions!

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,434
84
91
Are those 2X magnifiers worth it? I have a 75-300mm lens for my 35mm eos which will work on my new 20D. I like to take pictures of my daughters playing sports and sometimes the 300mm is not enough.

Is it accurate to say the the 300mm with a eos rebel will actually be around 400mm with a digital camera?

 

fuzzybabybunny

Moderator<br>Digital & Video Cameras
Moderator
Jan 2, 2006
10,455
33
91
Originally posted by: rudder
Are those 2X magnifiers worth it? I have a 75-300mm lens for my 35mm eos which will work on my new 20D. I like to take pictures of my daughters playing sports and sometimes the 300mm is not enough.

Is it accurate to say the the 300mm with a eos rebel will actually be around 400mm with a digital camera?
2X teleconverters are only worth it if you have an already excellent lens to mount them on and have a body that can still focus with the resultant loss of two stops of light, provided you care about autofocus.

2X teleconverters will reduce the light reaching your camera by two stops. For example, a f/2.8 lens will now effectively be an f/5.6 lens. That lens stopped down to f/4 will effectively be at f/8. This can impact your camera's ability to autofocus.

Autofocus:

For example, EOS 20D, XT, and 30D bodies can retain autofocus down to f/5.6. Beyond that, like f/6.3, f/8, they will not be able to autofocus or they will have extreme trouble autofocusing because there is not enough available light. 1D and 1Ds bodies can autofocus down to f/8.

So if you've got an f/4 lens that autofocuses just fine on your Rebel XT, when you slap on a 2X teleconverter if effectively because an f/8 lens, and it will no longer be able to autofocus on the XT. If you had a 1Ds series camera you would be fine.

Brightness:

In addition to autofocus issues, you're also obviously making the lens darker, meaning you'll need to shoot with longer shutter speeds/have a steadier grip/have a more stationary subject. The image through your viewfinder will also be dimmer, which can make manual focusing difficult.

Quality:

If you buy a pro-level teleconverter with excellent glass, the extra glass by itself that you add to the light path will not degrade your image too much. What really degrades your images is the lens that you stack the t-con onto. What t-cons do is effectively magnify the image that's already coming from your master lens, optical impurities and all. This means that if your master lens does not produce sharp images to begin with, the t-con will only be magnifying those unsharp images further, resulting in really unsharp images.

Thus it is only advisable to use 2x t-cons on excellent primes or excellent zooms. Used on a 75-300mm in your case would produce dissappointing results, as well as disable autofocus and require much longer shutter speeds. This is bad for sports ;)

A 300mm will have the equivalent field of view of a 300mm x 1.6 = 480mm lens. The 1.6x comes from the Rebel's 1.6x sensor crop factor.
 

montanafan

Diamond Member
Nov 7, 1999
3,551
2
71
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Originally posted by: Madwand1
Originally posted by: DurocShark
Um, no. You can borrow one though. But don't spend money on the cheapest lenses unless someone you know already has it and can vouch for it.
Will someone who has a 50 f/1.8 come and visit me and introduce herself?
The 50mm f/1.8 is only $50 used. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

Madwand1, I use the Canon 50mm f/1.8 to shoot indoor sports with a Digital Rebel. You can shoot wide open with it for sports, if that's what you're wanting to do. The AF is quite slow with a fast moving sport like basketball, but once you've gotten used to it and if you don't mind using manual focus on certain types of shots, it's a great lens for indoor sports.

Here are a couple of basketball shots I took with it on the Rebel. These were at ISO 1600, f/1.8, and shutter 1/1000th.

Canon 50mm f/1.8 A

Canon 50mm f/1.8 B

You can judge for youself.

 

montanafan

Diamond Member
Nov 7, 1999
3,551
2
71
Originally posted by: rudder
Are those 2X magnifiers worth it? I have a 75-300mm lens for my 35mm eos which will work on my new 20D. I like to take pictures of my daughters playing sports and sometimes the 300mm is not enough.

Is it accurate to say the the 300mm with a eos rebel will actually be around 400mm with a digital camera?

rudder, I shoot a lot sports and I agree with what fuzzy is telling you, but if your daughters are playing a sport like soccer on a sunny day, you can get decent shots with a good 75-300mm and a teleconverter. I'd recommend a 1.4x or even a 1.7x rather than a 2x, but the 2x would work.

I took these shots last week without flash, only the field lighting, with a Digital Rebel, and a Canon 75-300mm lens on top of a ProMaster 1.7x teleconverter. There are problems with AF when using a teleconverter and I shoot using manual focus a lot with one, but these were all shot using autofocus. They're not perfect, but they should show you that you can shoot sports with a TC, and they would be better with good available light.

Photo 1
Photo 2
Photo 3
Photo 4

Edit: I just remembered that the last two photos posted here were taken near the end of the game when I did a little experimenting and put the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 on the teleconverter. I double checked the efix and that was the case. You're not really supposed to use a TC with that size lens, but I wanted to see if it might work all the way out at 70mm and it did okay.
 

foghorn67

Lifer
Jan 3, 2006
11,883
50
91
Originally posted by: montanafan
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Originally posted by: Madwand1
Originally posted by: DurocShark
Um, no. You can borrow one though. But don't spend money on the cheapest lenses unless someone you know already has it and can vouch for it.
Will someone who has a 50 f/1.8 come and visit me and introduce herself?
The 50mm f/1.8 is only $50 used. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

Madwand1, I use the Canon 50mm f/1.8 to shoot indoor sports with a Digital Rebel. You can shoot wide open with it for sports, if that's what you're wanting to do. The AF is quite slow with a fast moving sport like basketball, but once you've gotten used to it and if you don't mind using manual focus on certain types of shots, it's a great lens for indoor sports.

Here are a couple of basketball shots I took with it on the Rebel. These were at ISO 1600, f/1.8, and shutter 1/1000th.

Canon 50mm f/1.8 A

Canon 50mm f/1.8 B

You can judge for youself.
Do I detect a hint of Noise Ninja?
Nice shots.
 

foghorn67

Lifer
Jan 3, 2006
11,883
50
91
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Originally posted by: cHeeZeFacTory
I'm deciding between the Pentax K100d and the Nikon D50. Which one has better out of the box performance? I'll be using it for a vacation to thailand & hong kong in december. I plan to bring only one lens. I will be going w/ a few friends, so I don't want to be holding them up by trying to change lenses everywhere I go.

Right now, I'm leaning towards the Pentax, since it has the shake reduction. Only thing that turns me off about the pentax is the battery, which doesn't uses rechargeable lithiums.
I'd probably lean towards the Pentax too. The image stabilization would be great for on-the-go shooting with a somewhat slow zoom lens.

As for battery, just get yourself 8 rechargable AAs, a good charger, and you should be good. A bit heavier, but battery life should still be excellent.

After reading through a review, it seems that the Pentax doesn't have a very good burst mode (buffer fills up after only three shots). This may be something you want to factor into your decision.
I only got the RebelXt to get on the upgrade path to the 30d/5d, whatever is out there in the near future.
My dad wants a new camera. I am only going to recommend the Pentax k100d. He'll have fun with all the k-mount lenses out there. It will be like the 70's all over again for him.
 

montanafan

Diamond Member
Nov 7, 1999
3,551
2
71
foghorn67, not a hint of Noise Ninja, but quite a bit of Neat Image. :) The Digital Rebel produces quite a bit of noise at ISO 1600 under even the best of conditions. I'm just using the demo right now, but I believe I'll buy the Home+ edition.
 

foghorn67

Lifer
Jan 3, 2006
11,883
50
91
Originally posted by: montanafan
foghorn67, not a hint of Noise Ninja, but quite a bit of Neat Image. :) The Digital Rebel produces quite a bit of noise at ISO 1600 under even the best of conditions. I'm just using the demo right now, but I believe I'll buy the Home+ edition.
i like both products, really nice features. I'm sure you will love Neat Image as much as I love Noise Ninja.
 

fuzzybabybunny

Moderator<br>Digital & Video Cameras
Moderator
Jan 2, 2006
10,455
33
91
OMG muffins!!!

Has anyone ever tried stereo photography?

Example:

http://static.flickr.com/26/63207964_dc0d8bc38f_o.jpg

Just stare at the image cross-eyed and it should pop into 3D.

This stuff is way cool, but I honestly don't see many truly great examples of these things. I can only imagine what pictures like http://fuzzybabybunny.smugmug.com/photos/68222582-L.jpg or http://fuzzybabybunny.smugmug.com/photos/79124332-L.jpg would look in 3D. Next time I'm out West I'm going to try to experiment with this.
 

foghorn67

Lifer
Jan 3, 2006
11,883
50
91
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
OMG muffins!!!

Has anyone ever tried stereo photography?

Example:

http://static.flickr.com/26/63207964_dc0d8bc38f_o.jpg

Just stare at the image cross-eyed and it should pop into 3D.

This stuff is way cool, but I honestly don't see many truly great examples of these things. I can only imagine what pictures like http://fuzzybabybunny.smugmug.com/photos/68222582-L.jpg or http://fuzzybabybunny.smugmug.com/photos/79124332-L.jpg would look in 3D. Next time I'm out West I'm going to try to experiment with this.
not working for me. I might be stuck cross eyed.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
OMG muffins!!!

Has anyone ever tried stereo photography?

Example:

http://static.flickr.com/26/63207964_dc0d8bc38f_o.jpg

Just stare at the image cross-eyed and it should pop into 3D.

This stuff is way cool, but I honestly don't see many truly great examples of these things. I can only imagine what pictures like http://fuzzybabybunny.smugmug.com/photos/68222582-L.jpg or http://fuzzybabybunny.smugmug.com/photos/79124332-L.jpg would look in 3D. Next time I'm out West I'm going to try to experiment with this.
Ouch, that hurt my eyes. Didn't see the effect, and now you're going to have to answer to my optometrist when I go in for my PRK surgery follow-up on Monday! ;)
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
cool thread, FBB.

I just got the 50mm f1.8 Canon, and I'm looking forward to shooting some nice pics of future newphew :)
 

fuzzybabybunny

Moderator<br>Digital & Video Cameras
Moderator
Jan 2, 2006
10,455
33
91
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
OMG muffins!!!

Has anyone ever tried stereo photography?

Example:

http://static.flickr.com/26/63207964_dc0d8bc38f_o.jpg

Just stare at the image cross-eyed and it should pop into 3D.

This stuff is way cool, but I honestly don't see many truly great examples of these things. I can only imagine what pictures like http://fuzzybabybunny.smugmug.com/photos/68222582-L.jpg or http://fuzzybabybunny.smugmug.com/photos/79124332-L.jpg would look in 3D. Next time I'm out West I'm going to try to experiment with this.
Ouch, that hurt my eyes. Didn't see the effect, and now you're going to have to answer to my optometrist when I go in for my PRK surgery follow-up on Monday! ;)
Wahhh!!!

I don't think my "cross your eyes" instructions were all that great :( I had just assumed that everyone already knew how to do something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy#Crossed-eye_viewing

Please retry it. It jumps out :)

 

hpkeeper

Diamond Member
Jun 30, 2000
4,036
0
0
Originally posted by: blurredvision
Which internet company makes the best prints from digital at a nice cost?

;) Thought you'd get a typical question, didn't ya?
mpix.com
 

DLeRium

Lifer
Feb 19, 2001
20,158
20
81
Looking for lens recommendations. I'm ready to dive into DSLRs, but Im looking to maybe start with a Rebel XT? I dunno. Money is definitely an issue, and I don't want to be spending that much just yet. I want to start slowly...
 

tfinch2

Lifer
Feb 3, 2004
22,114
1
0
Originally posted by: DLeRium
Looking for lens recommendations. I'm ready to dive into DSLRs, but Im looking to maybe start with a Rebel XT? I dunno. Money is definitely an issue, and I don't want to be spending that much just yet. I want to start slowly...
There's no point in starting slowly in lenses. You're going to end up getting pissed with crappy lenses, selling them, and spending even more than you really needed to in order to get a decent lens. I'm not saying go out and spend a couple of grand on L glass, but don't buy cheap crap.
 

FilmCamera

Senior member
Nov 12, 2006
959
1
0
I also recommend mpix.com as they have excellent prices and quality prints. I use them quite often.
 

fuzzybabybunny

Moderator<br>Digital & Video Cameras
Moderator
Jan 2, 2006
10,455
33
91
Originally posted by: tfinch2
Originally posted by: DLeRium
Looking for lens recommendations. I'm ready to dive into DSLRs, but Im looking to maybe start with a Rebel XT? I dunno. Money is definitely an issue, and I don't want to be spending that much just yet. I want to start slowly...
There's no point in starting slowly in lenses. You're going to end up getting pissed with crappy lenses, selling them, and spending even more than you really needed to in order to get a decent lens. I'm not saying go out and spend a couple of grand on L glass, but don't buy cheap crap.
Agreed. If you want to start slowly, get a single, but good, piece of glass. It'll probably be around $300-$400.
 

Madwand1

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2006
3,309
0
76
Originally posted by: DLeRium
Looking for lens recommendations. I'm ready to dive into DSLRs, but Im looking to maybe start with a Rebel XT? I dunno. Money is definitely an issue, and I don't want to be spending that much just yet. I want to start slowly...
Can you afford the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8? Would it be just a month or so away with no pressing need in the meanwhile? If so, then that (or something else similar) would advisable. Don't create a collection of cheap lenses that nobody else wants either.

If something like the Tamron would be out of the question, then get consider the kit lens. It's very inexpensive, so you wouldn't lose much with a future upgrade, and would get good photographic value in the meanwhile. Some of the kit's flaws can be reduced in post-processing, and by shooting at f/8 or higher for example. Most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the results of the kit and an expensive lens at f/8 or higher.

Alternatively, consider the 50 f/1.8. The main problem here is that on a cropped DSLR, the field of view is somewhat narrow, and this lens works as a "portrait" lens, but not as a general-purpose wide/group-shot lens. Optically, this lens is essentially a reference; it'll outperform many many lenses, and match or exceed some "L" lenses. The 50 f/1.8 is more of a "keeper" than the kit.

There's a lot more to photography than being able to zoom from super wide to super telephoto, and giving up that notion at the onset is a good way to get into SLR photograph on a budget; building a worthwhile lens collection.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY