Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (
More info?)
"Graham Holden" <look@bottom.of.post> wrote in message
news:0o7ba19pkegfoem9dp54vmbujvap9tq28j@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:55:16 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:46:29 GMT, "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>I've been planning to buy a 1.4x Tele-extender for my Film+Digital Nikon
> >>system (N90+D70) for some time and just before I pulled the trigger on
it, I
> >>started to wonder if a 1.4x is worth all that much. I mean, wouldn't I
get
> >>almost as good quality results by enlarging the pictures that much more?
It
> >>now seems to me that 2x is a better -- i.e. more cost effective --
purchase,
> >>the extra stop be damned.
> >>
> >>What do you think?
> >>
> >> TIA
> >> Norm
> >
> >Kind of a toss-up. You'll get more edge of field degradation with the
> >2x, given that both are similar optical designs, but then you are able
> >to get closer with the 2x meaning smaller enlarging or printing.
> >The only true drawback would be the drop in illumination due to the
> >extra telephoto length of the 2x.
> >-Rich
>
> I've not used either convertor, only own D70, but bear in mind that the
> D70's auto-focus system will probably stop working sooner (at f/5.6) than
> the N90's (I don't know when, but the impression I have is that the N90 is
> a more "professional" body?).
Yeah. With the Nikon 70-300 f/4-5.6 ED lens, the D70 (but not the N90)
often has trouble focusing at the 300mm end -- just zooming in to around
250, focusing, and zooming back out works but so does manual focusing and it
isn't (IMHO) any slower or less accurate. Given that I've already lost the
AF at 300 mm, I can't see that losing it when either converter is in place
is any great loss and even the 1.4x would lose at almost any focal length
past 125-150mm anyway on the D70. The other long lens I have is a manual
focus 500mm Mirror whose use isn't affected by these considerations.
Depending on the sort of photos you're
> taking, and the lens(es) you want to attach the convertor to, this _may_
> make the 1.4x + enlarging better. Of course, if you're doing everything
> manually, it probably makes no difference.
>
Any extender provides better printed enlargements than just increasing the
magnification from the "negative" to the print.
BUT ... I've been making most of my 4x6 sample and test-prints at 300 dpi
because I don't really see any great difference between 300 and 400 dpi.
Since the D70 has 3000 pixels (the long way), that's a 10:1 ratio I have to
play with in making enlargement so an 8x10 would have the same (printed)
resolution as my 4x6 do. Certainly limiting the enlargement to 5x7, I
haven't lost anything by enlarging by, say, and extra 50% rather than using
a 1.4x converter. And certainly any really critical pictures are taken with
the N90 on either ISO 64 slide film or ISO 100 negative so going to 8x10
from a, say, half-frame usually isn't that much of a compromise.
Since the vast majority of my pictures are either nature/macro shots of
flowers and insects or the grandkids, either converter is irrelevant. But I
like to do some bird photography and an occasional distant landscape for
which both the 300mm zoom or the 500mm mirror are inadequate. I also do
some sports photography, but only as a spectator, and there I need all of
the lens I can get but since it's almost always in daylight (my choice),
lens speed isn't a major factor.
In a perfect world, we'd all own f/1.0 zoom lenses that cover the 12-1200mm
range and weigh about 4 oz. Oh, yeah, and they'd cost $99 at Wal-Mart!
But this is the real world and I have only a limited budget for photo
equipment since travel is so expensive and equipment is bulky and heavy. I
think that I'm willing to suffer the extra f-stop of light loss for the
extra extension of the focal length but there's still that damned daemon in
the back of my head that says, "If you'd only have bought ..."
BTW, Generally my philosophy is that film is the cheapest thing I have and
that the right lens is worth its weight in gold compared to the cost of
going back to take another shot. But at ~25 pounds, my 35mm Nikon-crammed
backpack is getting heavier with each thing I add to it and the ~15 pound
bag with the Bronica isn't any lighter since it also mandates that I carry
an additional tripod adequate to the camera.
Norm
/www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-06-03-triteleia&PG=2&PIC=6>
8mdnW8tZ-T1XTjfRVn-tA@speakeasy.net...
Facebook
Twitter