Professional Web Applications Themes

pixel density - Photography

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. #1

    Default pixel density

    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::. Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: pixel density

    ".::SuperBLUE::." <hr> wrote in message
    news:d08mo2$kcm$htnet.hr
    | 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.

    It seems to me that "pixel density" is a digital construct so the lenses don't play in this,
    the MP resolution of the dSLR will and how the digital representation is rendered on the
    computer.

    --
    Dave





    David Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: pixel density

    > It seems to me that "pixel density" is a digital construct so the lenses
    don't play in this, 
    rendered on the 

    Ok, how can you compare a prosumer Nikon 8800 with a dslr if no lenses are
    mentioned?
    Price range is also important. I dont have 7000 euros for a sigma 800 f/5.6
    :(((


    .::SuperBLUE::. Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: pixel density

    ..::SuperBLUE::. wrote:



    Zoom with a 2-3X teleconverter is going to look really bad. With smaller
    sensors, the optical quality of the lens is MUCH more critical. Something
    that was just so-so on 35mm, will probably look like crap on a 1.6-2.0X
    factor sensor camera.
    --

    Stacey
    Stacey Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: pixel density

    Does sigma 50-500mm f/6.3 with 2x tc look like crap?
    Where is the limit where "crap" starts to happen?


    .::SuperBLUE::. Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: pixel density

    ..::SuperBLUE::. wrote:
     

    Well it's a SUPER wide range zoom with a 2X converter, probably not a good
    one so yea, I bet it will be pretty bad.

     

    ?? If you want decent quality with a TC, especially a cheap one, stick with
    prime lenses. I had OK luck years ago with a 400mm tokina with a 2X
    converter, wasn't great but was usable.

    --

    Stacey
    Stacey Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: pixel density



    ..::SuperBLUE::. wrote: 

    I'd agree that 1000mm is about 20x for a normal 35mm film format but the
    issue is more about field of view. What is the field of view for the
    20x50 binoculars you are trying to emulate?

    I consider a normal lens to be 1.4x the longest dimension of the image
    area. For 35mm that is 36 x 1.4 = 50.4mm as normal. For 4/3 it would be
    25.2mm. A 500mm lens on a 4/3 sensor is about 20x but the field of view
    may not be similar enough to a wide angle binocular for you needs.
    Experiment or research...

    -Guy

    Guy Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: pixel density

    In message <net>,
    Stacey <com> wrote:
     

    That depends on the lens. Some can just barely deliver what the sensor
    can resolve, some fail to meet that, and others can be magnified 2 to 3
    times, and still have pixel-to-pixel contrast that is respectable. The
    spacing of the pixels is more relevant than the number.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <komm> 
    JPS@no.komm Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: pixel density

    In message <d09032$p50$htnet.hr>,
    ".::SuperBLUE::." <hr> wrote:
     

    I had one of these for two weeks before returning it. It was not
    TC-able at all, IMO. At 500mm, the lens was already more limiting than
    the sensor. All 2x500mm shots were very soft, regardless of stopping
    down or using extreme shutter speeds. I would consider this lens a good
    50-375mm zoom, with some extra empty magnification up to "500mm". I
    really liked the ability to do scenics and birds with the same lens, but
    it is *heavy*. I'm much happier with the Canon 100-400; it's 2/3 the
    weight, has IS, and can use a 1.4x or even a 2x if stopped down a bit in
    very bright light (no AF, though).
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <komm> 
    JPS@no.komm Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: pixel density

    In message <net>,
    Stacey <com> wrote:
     

    You have to realize that a 2x will use up a lot of light. You need to
    halve the exposure time, for the same image stability, and you need 2
    stops more to get the same exposure.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <komm> 
    JPS@no.komm Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: pixel density

    On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 komm wrote:
     

    One stop.

    KeS
    Kevin_Stevens@hotmail.com Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: pixel density

    In article <chefhrq-jvgu.arg>,
    <com> wrote: 
    >
    >One stop.[/ref]

    Nope - two stops. A 1.4x costs you one stop.

    John Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: pixel density

    In message
    <chefhrq-jvgu.arg>,
    com wrote:
     
    >
    >One stop.[/ref]

    A 2x doubles the width and the height of the focused image center,
    increasing the area 4x, which is a 2-stop loss of light.

    You may also need to stop down the lens beyond this to maintain local
    contrast; depending on the conditions, a 2x will generally cost you
    anywhere from 2 to 5 stops of light, if used optimally. I generally
    only do it when I am shooting in direct sunlight, or under a light haze.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <komm> 
    JPS@no.komm Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: pixel density

    ..::SuperBLUE::. wrote: 
    slr lens 
    (1300mm 
    + 250 
    front 
    adapter 
    or 

    Auto focus speed or manual focus feasibility are also important. Canon
    300D might be affordable to you. For AF, you need f/5.6 or better.
    Affordable good lenses include 400/5.6, 300/4, and 200/2.8. All 3 has
    the same physical lens openning of about 70mm. So with tele converters,
    they can be effectively the same as 400/5.6, (300/4 + 1.4x or 200/2.8 +
    2x), to keep AF. With the 1.6x cropping of 300D, it is equivalent to
    640/5.6. If 43mm is 1x (the diagonal of the 36x24 frame), 640mm is
    about 15x, close to your 20x binocular.

    If you want more reach than the 15x, you can stack on more TC, 400/5.6
    + 1.4x, 300/4 + 2x, or 200/2.8 + 3x (2x + 1.4x). The result will be
    smaller than f/5.6 so you would lose AF on 300D. You can block some
    lens electric contacts to fool the camera about TC to retain AF, or use
    some 3rd party TC that does not transfer those contacts.

    If MF is OK for you, then 600/8 mirror is OK.

    bj286@scn.org Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Total Ink Density
    By Kiwi_Dave@adobeforums.com in forum Adobe Acrobat Macintosh
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: April 19th, 08:45 PM
  2. Ink Density
    By Farrah_Bauer@adobeforums.com in forum Adobe Indesign Windows
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 10th, 05:39 PM
  3. Which is best Pixel Dimension or Resolution Pixel/inch?
    By Brian in forum Macromedia Fireworks
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 25th, 03:42 PM
  4. Graduated Neutral Density
    By Daniel Blackburn in forum Adobe Photoshop Elements
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: August 8th, 02:43 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139