Reading mode: Light Dark

Wide Converter or Tele?

Go to last post
nyer82

nyer82

Senior Member
Messages
1,613
Reaction score
16
Location
County, City and State of, NY, US
This is really comparing apples to oranges but which one do you think is more useful and would be used more often if you could only get one.

Without a wide-angle, it is possible to stitch the photos together to get a wider view, although this isn't the easiest thing to do, and works better with a tripod.

I guess I have to ask myself what do I wish I could do more, get more of the scene in the photo?, or zoom up on people and animals without them seeing.

So which would you rather have if it was just 1.
 
teleconverter, by far.

The panorama setting and a tripod at least gives you the wide landscape ability without a wide converter. There's no other camera "trick" I'm aware of that substitutes for the tele-zoom that the converter will give you - and for wildlife, I need that extra zoom "reach".
 
There is no set rules. You can always do panoramas for wide but you must have a very good program to stitch (I recommend Panorama Factory). Tele converter is nice also but it has limited uses, have to take it off for normal shooting 'cause the converter tube will seem like you're in a tunnel.
 
So much will depend on what your favorite subjects are, as well as your favorite shooting locations.

If I had to choose one first, I'd choose tel-extender for wildlife photography and extended-range macro photography. When using a tel-extender with a close-up lens you can get nice tight shots of butterflies from a yard or more away without scaring them.

Tel-extender Strengths: Wildlife, Extended-range Macros, Sporting Events, Stage Performances, Candid Photography, Sunsets, News Events (where you can't get close to what's happening), ...

Wide-Angle Strengths: Indoor Shots, Panoramas, Parties, Mountainous Vistas, Large Group Photos, Sunsets, Architectural Skylines (if using low-distortion lens or barrel correcting software), Reducing camera-shake problems, ...

Think along those lines of your favorite subjects and most often visited locations. It should be easier to choose.

A more extended list of strengths and weaknesses for both would be interesting.
 
I'd rather have wide. I rarely take pictures at the extreme tele end, while I often push open against the wide end. Pano mode is impracticable for me.
 
I used the digital zoom 2.3x to simulate the tele-converter, with obviously not the best results, but just to get a feel for what I'd get with a tele but much better detail. I think I'd really like the close zoom-ups especially from my apartment.

It's a good idea for anyone thinking of getting one to try the digital zoom teleconverter to just get a feel for it. I'm actually surprised at the quality of it. Obviously there'd be much more detail in an optical one tho.
 
Kind of a dumb question, IMHO. It totally depends on the kind of pictures you take. You can get by in a pinch without either by stitching (for wide angle) or cropping (for telephoto).

For me personally I'd gladly forgo range at the telephoto end to get a wider angle. But it's just as valid for someone else to wanting more range at the telephoto end. There's no "right" answer.
 
why is it a dumb question? I just want to know everyone's opinion and why they favor one or think they personally would get more use out of one or the other. Of course there is no right answer.
 
... and I find myself using the tele 90% and the wide only 10% of the time for the kind of pics that I take. I have gotten a bit of flare with the wide but never with the tele (neither one takes a lenshood). My advice: go with the tele and stitch for those ultrawide shots! :)
 
I had both and returned both. Then, I wound up obtaining the tele again and currently like using it. With both, it became too much like carrying a DSLR kit, of which I own one, instead of the reasons I bought G7 in the first place for ease and portability. Without owning DSLR, I'd own both adapters just for the coverage.
--
5D and G7
Happy together.
 
nyer82 said:
why is it a dumb question? I just want to know everyone's opinion
and why they favor one or think they personally would get more use
out of one or the other. Of course there is no right answer.
Click to expand...
Well, it's kind of like asking "what's better, rock or classical music?" Of course you're going to get different opinions. But how much sway should they hold for you? Isn't it just something you have to discover for yourself?
 
I don't see much point in spending a lot of money on extra things for an S3 when a Rebel is so cheap.
 
Sean Nelson said:
nyer82 said:
why is it a dumb question? I just want to know everyone's opinion
and why they favor one or think they personally would get more use
out of one or the other. Of course there is no right answer.
Click to expand...
Well, it's kind of like asking "what's better, rock or classical
music?" Of course you're going to get different opinions. But
how much sway should they hold for you? Isn't it just something
you have to discover for yourself?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. This has got to be one of the silliest questions ever asked. It's like asking 'what's better: a baseball glove, or a bicycle!!!'
 
I'm going for the tele I think because I'm pretty decent at stitching together 2 or 3 photos taken in portrait orientation. I get pretty good results with lots of detail.

There really isn't a way to duplicate the effects of the telephoto that would get you more detail or going closer which is usually less possible than moving a little backwards.
 


this picture was stitched from 3 portrait shots, with ptgui. it's pretty much in the same 4:3 aspect as a normal photo... I think it'd be a decent subsitute for a wide lens.
 
abcdelight said:
I don't see much point in spending a lot of money on extra things
for an S3 when a Rebel is so cheap.
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm not spending for a S3 but a G7 ;-)

I understand the point of a DSLR being better and the lens that you can still use with other SLR but the big thing with a camera like the G7 is the size and price. There is no way you could get a Rebel with the reach of the G7 (let alone the S3) for the same price as these camera. Also, a rebel will be much larger so I wouldn't carry it everywhere like I do with the G7. It's true that a G7 with a tele + wide converter is almost as big as carrying a DSLR, you could compare a Rebel (body only) to the size of some P&S but the big difference is that you CAN carry the « G7 body » alone and still take picture with it.

In the end, it's about having the smallest package you can AND the option of more.

p.s. I could be convince to carry an Olympus e410 with a prime close to 28mm, that would probably be small enough but I would loose the G7 reach.

--
Stephan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephanecurzi/
http://www.projetsurbain.com/photographie/

 
I agree with every bit of Stephan's comment. A G7 is much more versatile in terms of size than a DSLR. Don't wanna carry lots of photo junk? Just carry the G7 alone and you still have a decent camera thats more than half the size/ WITHOUT having to buy 2 cameras. Like Stephen said you can't take apart a DSLR to make it smaller.

But if you want special abilities, you're able to carry that around too. Ie lenses, filters, flashes etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top