Thom article and the 200-400mm

Started May 20, 2008 | Discussions thread
Anastigmat Forum Pro • Posts: 12,664
Re: Thom article and the 200-400mm

Thom Hogan wrote:

I should point out that one of the reasons why some pros went to
Canon bodies for sports was that they were using pixels for zooming.

NOT! The switch occurred way before digital. It happened during the film era.

The 1DII versus D2h was a perfect example of that. With a D2h and a
200-400mm zoom I could have 4mp 300mm equivalent and 4mp 600mm
equivalent images. With a 1DII I could shoot with a 300mm lens and
have 8mp 390mm equivalent or a cropped 4mp 550mm equivalent. The
Canon lens was faster by a stop (good), not a zoom (good), and less
expensive (good). Add that to a camera that didn't have near IR
problems and was arguably slightly better at high ISO values and it
all comes out Canon. These days the tables have turned, and we're
back to debating the 200-400mm. Though on a D3, we're losing some
reach we used to have.

-- hide signature --

Thom Hogan

The D3 is indeed a very attractive option for the sports shooter, mainly because it is full frame and it is low in noise. The 1DMKIII is pretty good at high ISO settings too, but the 1.3x crop sensor makes it less of a good value than the D3 at a similar price. Canon said that the 1.3x crop sensor was invented because it offered an advantage against the 1.5x crop sensors that were used in sports models at that time. The larger sensor gave Canon an advantage. Now Nikon has turned the table, and gained the upper hand by offering a full frame. A larger sensor is better because smaller sensors means a tighter crop, which means what would have been a great photograph could be worthless because part of the action happened outside of the frame.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow