@John, those are very good. Now I am wondering if I need to get another attachment for my camera bag so I can carry my TC's with me
@John, those are very good. Now I am wondering if I need to get another attachment for my camera bag so I can carry my TC's with me
Sure...why not?Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
If I plan to go out and shoot small things from far away, I'll take the 100-400mm on the 7D. The 70-200 II + 2x is a good substitute if it's wet outside - that was the case for the Eastern Towhee (I was out with Bill W. on a drizzly morning when I took that one). But if I'm not planning to shoot birds, I'll usually take the 5DII + 70-200 II in a Lowepro Toploader 75 AW, with the 24-105mm in a Lens Case 1W on the side. In that case, I often put the 2x TC in the outside pocket of the Toploader, just in case. The wattled crane was shot on a trip to a zoo with my daughters.
@HDNitehawk I think I wasn't being clear on where I got the factor of two. Let's assume that both my 70-200 and a 100-400 can resolve a feature (at whatever definition you like) at 2 pixels being lenses of relatively the same cost. Obviously 200 mm is going to frame differently than 400 mm - a factor of two for an infinite target (I'm being lazy). I could crop my 200 mm image to have the same boundary as the 400 mm image - but would have 1/4 the pixels (half in each direction). To match pixel counts I can double each pixel in the 200 mm crop shot in both directions. Doing so I double my blur from 2 pixels to 4. So even though both lenses might have 2 pixel resolution to start, the detail on the object that can be resolved will be half the size with the 400 mm frame than at 200 mm. That's where I got the idealized factor of 2x.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote