Lens suggestions and/or advice

[north-north-west]

If 50mm can be cropped for sharper 12 degrees FOV, there would not be 200mm telephoto lenses out on the market.

Tripods make a big difference.

Is this theoretical to you, or do you have extensive experience shooting handheld with various lenses in the bush? Because my experience matches with wildlight's comments. Given the difference in average lens speeds, lengths and balance, a cropped image from my 60mm macro generally gives a better result than the same FOV shot from the 200mm when handheld in identical conditions.

[GPSGuided]

Tripods make a big difference.

Is this theoretical to you, or do you have extensive experience shooting handheld with various lenses in the bush? Because my experience matches with wildlight's comments. Given the difference in average lens speeds, lengths and balance, a cropped image from my 60mm macro generally gives a better result than the same FOV shot from the 200mm when handheld in identical conditions.

Yes, that's well known that the tripod will make the biggest improvement to sharpness. At the end of the day, the suggested 1/focal length is but a practical recommendation, one that generally allows the blur to fall within the given resolution. Going to a shorter shutter speed or improve the mounting will further improve the IQ.

As said, it's a physical fact. I don't know how you shoot your photos, but to crop the photo to exactly the same FOV to that of a 200mm, one can't get away from well established optical physics. Of course, many parameters come into play here, including the quality of the lens. It's a known fact that the 50-60mm normal lens is a very efficient lens design with significantly better IQ than a cheapish consumer zoom or telephoto (slow, prone to flare, poor resolution etc). But there's no way it can match a quality 200mm telephoto or zoom when cropped to exactly the same size when all else are equal. As said, if such is the case, there would be no market for 200mm telephoto lenses. Yes, I know this based on both science and through my experiences. Going against scientific principles is always an up hill struggle.

[wildlight]

Tripods make a big difference.
But there's no way it can match a quality 200mm telephoto or zoom when cropped to exactly the same size when all else are equal.

The above quote is the clincher. "When all else is equal".

I believe, that the circumstance we are discussing, is not a scenario of all else being equal. At the forefront of my mind, as I contribute to this discussion is the fact that like it or lump it, achieving a stable stance, (holding a camera and lens for a slower shutter speed) is not quite as easy with the longer lens as with the shorter baby. So if you had to pull the central 25% of the frame out of a high quality Pro DSLR file and rig was held stable during the capture (50mm, 60mm as per north-north-west), you are definitely better off than having the extra pixels (the full frame capture) you made with the 200mm lens that wobbled.

Just to clarify on the tripod / monopod:

Man, they make a difference, so does pre-releasing the mirror for slow captures.

As to the point of 200mm not being made / sold / needed if 50mm part-crops were so good… what can I say?! The one item that changes all that, is that some users of 200mm lenses don't hang by their toenails in twilight trying to hand hold, and thus, when tripod mounted- or shot at faster speeds- they're the "money" words here- when "tripod mounted"or shot at "faster speeds", the full frame "shot-as-you-wanted-it" image from the 200mm WILL outperform the 25% crop from the 50 or 60mm in the same circumstance.

To my recollection, this derailment has concerned itself with trying to get everything possible out of a 200mm when the operator is shooting low light, slow shutter speed in clumsy terrain (the good stuff!!) and can choose between hanging the 200mm off the body or shooting through a 50mm and cropping. The shorter lens will be easier- in almost all cases- to hand hold at slow speeds in awkward sites. At the end of the day (good choice of words) using the shorter lens in THOSE conditions will increase your likelihood of getting a better shot. The short lens won't suffer from "bad shooting circumstance" as much as the 200mm will.

Hopefully this clarifies it for all. Like I've said from the start- run some field tests and see.

Cheers

WildLight

[GPSGuided]

As a pro, given a decent telephoto lens, wouldn't you be promoting the use of tripods as well as many other techniques that would reduce the motion blur? Out in the bush, there are rocks, trees, hiking poles and a whole host of 'support' one can use to significantly reduce movements. Handheld is not the only option out there even in the most demanding circumstance. Further, if one was carrying a current generation high end dSLR, up-rating the ISO would also shorten the required shutter speed. Both of these would lead to far better IQ than a 4x crop (Note: Your d810's 36MP would come down to 2.25MP when a 50mm image is cropped down to 200mm POV!). Of course, if one's work is just for low resolution web production, then who cares about the crop. For anyone wanting the highest IQ, the only reasonable rationales for sticking to a 50mm + crop is not wanting to carry the weight of extra quality telephoto lenses and a quality tripod, or one is willing to compromise than work on good basic photo techniques. Sorry, a 50mm lens does not a 200mm lens make. Each to their own I guess.

[wildlight]

Remember GPS Guided, we have hopped in on a thread where someone asked which lens we would recommend from the choices given. What you say about tripods and other techniques is 110% correct. However, somewhere in all my posts, I mentioned that those items are almost never located where you need them at the time you need them.

I am please that you wrote "handheld is not the only option"- again you are correct in that. But to be fair to the OP, I was trying to put it into her context, and simply recommend the best lens from the choices given, then somehow this 200mm came into it…

I fully endorse carrying a lightweight pro tripod or at least a monopod OR one of those trail pix pro gadgets, which has held my D810 with heavy prime.

The bulk of these posts have been about increasing the odds of a better quality "less blurred" image, based on lens choice. I don't recall the OP asking about tripods, certainly not in the thread title.

Just on your point of the 36MP file reducing when cropped- we used to make billboard images from the first 6MP SLRs and thought we'd reached nirvana when that technology hit way back then. Those cameras cost nearly as much as a house. Now look how far it's all come. Of course it's wrong to assume- but taking a wild guess, I would imagine that the OP is not looking for massive enlargements- so it's with that in mind that my recommendations are right on the money.

Maybe we need to do a field trip- even somewhere basic like a park in failing light, you'll soon understand what I mean. I've tried to explain it a number of different ways here, and it's not getting across.

My whole contribution to this thread has been about whether or not you're better off risking losing image clarity (shake etc) by trying to hand hold a long lens at slow shutter speeds, or stand a better chance of a higher quality capture, by hand holding a shorter lens, then cropping the file later. All those pixels in a full-sized file aren't worth a razoo, if the image is really blurry, as it would be trying to hand hold 1/30 or 1/15 with a 200mm lens.. I'd rather interpolate a smaller file, round off with a high-pass sharpening (only if needed- and that's very rare)- than start of with a shaky 36MB file. Blur is blur- and detail is not restored through sharpening, regardless of what you read on the internet, from the keyboards of weekend warriors.

And just to set the record straight- all my shots are captured using camera support(s) which I carry with me. Often just a monopod, but any water-based shooting means tripod comes along.

I am going up Bogong tomorrow, and taking a new type of tripod which is 850gm and converts from a tripod to a monopod on request. (bits unscrew and re-join to become a tall monopod instead of a medium tripod).

Of course I promote the use of proper camera supports.

As a pro, I want to spend the least amount of time possible configuring supports, that's why a tripod is great. But carrying the sucker… not every person who takes a camera on a hike is keen / crazy enough to carry a tripod as well. Those people will generally accept a little blur from shake, as par for the course.

My advice has been directed at those people, to give them the greatest chance of successfully bringing a shot home which they can work with. If you're carryig a tripod, then what's an extra kilo and a bit to drop a 200mm less into your pack? Might as well have on there with you- because THEN you are giving that 200mm the means with which to obliterate the 50mm crop. That means is called "rock steady support".

Megapixels matter far less, than a host of other things. Megapixels sell equipment. Often the first question amateurs ask me is "how many meg is that body / back whatever".

Once I launch into a different level of discussion, their eyes just glaze over…

cheers
WildLight

[GPSGuided]

Wow! It was just a question on whether a 50mm can be substitute for a 200mm FOV. Cutting resolution from 36MP to 2.25MP sure won't see the blurs as it's all just pixels. There's no equivalence nor a substitute. That's all.

As for someone on a more consumer level 16MP sensor, the 4X crop will take things down to 1MP. Not sure if it's no blur or not able to see the blur but pixels.

So in conclusion, claiming a 50mm is less prone to camera movement blur at 200mm range crop just make no sense.

[wildlight]

So in conclusion, claiming a 50mm is less prone to camera movement blur at 200mm range crop just make no sense.

You're right GPSGuided, following physics and logic, you are 100% correct. In a practical sense however, individual nuances create unique, lens-specific and situation specific outcomes. These wouldn't be presented in papers online, let alone forums **normally** because there are too many variables in those nuances.

I would go so far as to suggest the only definitive answer to this is to conduct a practical test in clumsy shooting circumstance, which resemble most of **our** failing light, awkward terrain sites.

When I get back from this trip, I'll try 1/30 on 50mm and also on something like 135 or 200mm and post the results somewhere. I'll figure out a way of getting the raw files to you, so you can take a pure look at what the chip captured, and draw your conclusions from there.

I'm more than happy to admit wrong, if the testing proves so. I would encourage you to conduct your own tests, too.

**actually I have a mate who is a bit of a zen master… and could probably hand hold for a full half second with no issues whatsoever- he'd be the exception**

Cheers

WildLight

[GPSGuided]

When I get back from this trip, I'll try 1/30 on 50mm and also on something like 135 or 200mm and post the results somewhere. I'll figure out a way of getting the raw files to you, so you can take a pure look at what the chip captured, and draw your conclusions from there.

I'm more than happy to admit wrong, if the testing proves so. I would encourage you to conduct your own tests, too.

It's not a matter of who is right or wrong but to give fair advice with scientific basis to others.

I've already done the test. Firstly, an image shot with a 200mm lens is significantly better than shot with a 50mm lens and then cropped down to the same FOV. That's crop from say 36MP down to 2.25MP, 24MP down to 1.5MP or 16MP down to 1MP images. No comparison.

As for testing at 1/30s shutter speed. Well, let's just say that it's just plain silly to try to handhold a 200mm lens at that speed or a 50mm that's going get cropped down to the same 200mm FOV. Any shooter would seek solutions, whether additional support or up-rating the ISO. As for shooting a 50mm lens at 1/30 and then crop down to 200mm POV. As indicated above and basic known physics, it's just pixels hiding the same blur. Physics of optics, can't get around it. Sorry. To achieve the same "effect" with a 200mm lens, just down sample to the same MP image.

Beta-blockers are good to improve one's handheld ability, along with training. Similar for marksmen.

[Hiking Noob]

This may sound silly to some but I have found using a two second timer helps me with handheld slower shutter speed shots, I also find it easier when I am unfit as my arms don't move with my pulse. With no stabilisation I can get a decently sharp photo to about 1/40th but that is at 28mm, I'd be useless with a 200mm, I had a play with a 1DS Mk3 with a macro lens on it and I had enough trouble with that but I guess that was more the shallow depth of field.