Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is 555mm Good Enough  
User currently offlineBT From Canada, joined Feb 2005, 92 posts, RR: 3
Posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3294 times:

Well, I have a fujifilm finepix s5100, great starter camera in my opinion, and I just found out that there is a lens for my camera that can extended my zooming capability. It can go from a 355mm equivalent to a 555mm equivalent.

Is a 555mm lens good enough for those closeups?


13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineNewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 29
Reply 1, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3271 times:

That should be more than enough. Even 355mm is a lot of zoom.

Harry



Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9644 posts, RR: 68
Reply 2, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3264 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Zoom is overrated!

User currently offlineC133 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 225 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3219 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Blur becomes a major issue with long focal lengths. Don't ask how I know....


Fine: Tax for doing wrong. Tax: Fine for doing well.
User currently offlineGPHOTO From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 831 posts, RR: 25
Reply 4, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3195 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

BT,

The extra distance you'll get will come with a loss of quality, maybe small, but it will be there. How small depends on the quality of the teleconverter and a good one will cost as much as a new camera (the one for the FZ-20 costs as much as the camera itself). Other factors such as atmospheric distortions mean that going much above what you already have is often pointless as it just magnifies these distortions - remember the more air you look through (i.e. the farther away you are) the lower the quality of the picture.

You would be better advised saving the money for a better quality camera (may I recommend the FZ-20  Wink/being sarcastic? If you really want to go for longer range without compromising quality, you will ideally need a good quality lens and camera combo, such as offered by DSLRs and their more expensive lenses rather than the Fuji (or other point-and-shoots).

Anyone have experience with teleconverters on Fuji's and Panasonics?

Best regards,

Jim



Erm, is this thing on?
User currently offlineThom@s From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 11953 posts, RR: 46
Reply 5, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3160 times:

The FZ 20 is equivalent to 423mm (or something like that) and is plenty zoom in my oppinion. Only experience I have with the zoom tells me that it's surprisingly steady on full tele, much thanks to the image stabilizer. On digital zoom it is of course crap...  Smile

Thom@s



"If guns don't kill people, people kill people - does that mean toasters don't toast toast, toast toast toast?"
User currently offlineLHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1343 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3113 times:

Well i have over 200 photos in the DB and almost 50% of those were taken with the Fuji S7000 with a 1.5 teleconverter added. If you fancy a look just look on my profile and link to the photo's

I can only talk about the S7000 and i can confirm that its a great starter camera. You can start on auto and once you get better you can start to move to the manual modes. The FUJI 1.5 teleconverter had very little effect on quality. And it adds alot more zoom. Well worth the money !!!! There are some other non fuji converters but i have been told the quality is terrible.

I have now moved onto a 20D but i am very greatfull for the foot on the ladder my little S7000 gave me  Big thumbs up

Simon C



Canon 1D Mk III,Canon 20D+17-40 L f4.0,70-200 L IS USM f2.8,400 L USM f5.6,135 mm L f2.0, 50 mm f1.8,1.4 x II extender
User currently offlineGPHOTO From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 831 posts, RR: 25
Reply 7, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3069 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Simon:

I specifically had you in mind when I asked the question about those with experience of teleconverters. I couldn't remember your Username, so I had to go fishing - and caught you  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

BT:

I can vouch for the fact that Simon's Fuji S7000 pics were very good, so the Fuji teleconvertor should be ok quality-wise (check it does fit your camera though). Seems very reasonably priced too (about £100 in the UK).

Best regards,

Jim



Erm, is this thing on?
User currently offlineGPHOTO From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 831 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3051 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Thom@s wrote:

"The FZ 20 is equivalent to 423mm (or something like that) and is plenty zoom in my oppinion. Only experience I have with the zoom tells me that it's surprisingly steady on full tele, much thanks to the image stabilizer. On digital zoom it is of course crap... "

Yes, the digital zoom isn't very useful for producing Airliners.net standard photos, but as it gives a whacking 48x stabilised zoom, its good enough for picking up registrations on distant aircraft which is nice for the spotters out there - leave your binoculars at home!

Best regards,

Jim



Erm, is this thing on?
User currently offlineBT From Canada, joined Feb 2005, 92 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3020 times:

Thanks for all your info...

User currently offlineRadarbeam From Canada, joined Mar 2002, 1310 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3002 times:

555mm enough, umm gee I don't know ...Just be careful not to have your feet showing up on the photo.  Big grin

User currently offlineThom@s From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 11953 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2992 times:

GPHOTO, that's true. Also if one is looking to make small images, like 500 x ??? pixels, then the digital zoom works well.

I took a closeup of the moon the other day. Nice to see the details in the craters etc...  Smile Love the camera...

Thom@s



"If guns don't kill people, people kill people - does that mean toasters don't toast toast, toast toast toast?"
User currently offlineContinental From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5519 posts, RR: 18
Reply 12, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2928 times:

"Zoom is overrated!"

So is being ridiculously far away from the aircraft.


User currently offlineThom@s From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 11953 posts, RR: 46
Reply 13, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2914 times:

Continental,  Big thumbs up

Thom@s



"If guns don't kill people, people kill people - does that mean toasters don't toast toast, toast toast toast?"
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Is This Good Enough For The Db? posted Thu Jul 27 2006 18:03:34 by Pavvyben
Is This A Good Enough Motive? posted Fri Feb 17 2006 00:03:30 by AirKas1
Is This Good Enough posted Sat Jun 25 2005 22:34:40 by Jdk
Using A Small Digital Camera? Is It Good Enough? posted Sun Jun 5 2005 20:59:06 by An225
Is 555mm Good Enough posted Tue Feb 8 2005 04:00:19 by BT
Should I Upgrade My Camera...or Is It Good Enough? posted Sun Sep 28 2003 04:56:03 by Syncmaster
Is This Good Enough To Re-upload? posted Thu Feb 6 2003 18:57:05 by Craigy
Microtek ScanMaker 4800: Is It Good Enough? posted Mon Feb 18 2002 22:46:26 by Mon330
Is This Image Good Enough ... posted Wed Aug 16 2006 14:02:09 by AussieAviator
A Quick "is This Photo Good Enough" Question... posted Sat Aug 5 2006 18:35:32 by Chris78cpr