Canon SX50 Digital Teleconverter Experiment
Jan 12, 2015 06:43:43 #
melismus
Loc: Chesapeake Bay Country
JimH123 wrote:
Correcting a typo. The last sentence should be "I would not use that one"
That's not a typo; it's a brain fart. :roll:
Jan 12, 2015 06:58:09 #
wlgoode wrote:
The digital enlargement is a common feature in those type cameras, it is the same effect as cropping.
OMG another DSLR displaying bigotry against bridge and super zooms... gulmp.... but I agree that it is better to take the whole photo and do your work of coping in the computer program. If needed use a top of the line upsizer like Benvista Zoom.
Jan 12, 2015 08:22:27 #
Jackinthebox wrote:
Can anyone tell me if this works on an SX40hs?
I have a SX40hs. It has 4x digital zoom. I don't think it works as well as the SX50 does from looking at these shots. I have got some very nice shots at 2.5x digital with the SX40
Jan 12, 2015 08:30:24 #
johneccles wrote:
Hi Jim, interesting experiment, image quality is only acceptable though when zoomed in, something appears to happen to the grass !! although the shed does suffer that much.
John
John
Hi John,
The wispy nature of the tall grass is a much tougher situation for the interpolation process. This might be something like a bicubic resizing process, and the grass is not entirely predicable where each pixel is going to be.
Jan 12, 2015 08:35:25 #
coot wrote:
I have a SX40hs. It has 4x digital zoom. I don't think it works as well as the SX50 does from looking at these shots. I have got some very nice shots at 2.5x digital with the SX40
Stay away from the 4X digital zoom. It is a pure crop of the center. If the camera has a dedicated 1.5X and a dedicated 2.0X, then you have it.
I just ggogled and the SX40 does have the digital teleconverter. Just don't use the "standard" digital zoom.
Jan 12, 2015 08:48:29 #
The big camera guys laugh at us, but they don't know what these little cheap cameras can do. There are so many settings it will blow your mind. I had the 50 and now the 60. I use to use Canon D 5 Mark II with the pro lens and didn't get any better pictures for 13 x 19 enlargements. Thanks for sharing.
Jan 12, 2015 08:51:28 #
JimH123 wrote:
Hi John,
The wispy nature of the tall grass is a much tougher situation for the interpolation process. This might be something like a bicubic resizing process, and the grass is not entirely predicable where each pixel is going to be.
The wispy nature of the tall grass is a much tougher situation for the interpolation process. This might be something like a bicubic resizing process, and the grass is not entirely predicable where each pixel is going to be.
It would look better with a FF dslr and a Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM Lens for about $15000.00 Ooops still some mm short.
Jan 12, 2015 10:03:08 #
[quote=JimH123]I just bought the Canon SX50 and one of the things to try out was the Digital Teleconverter. It can only be done using JPEG and allows a 1.5X or a 2.0X multiplier factor to be used. Like a digital zoom, it only uses the center pixels and then takes it one step father and uses an algorithm to compute what each missing pixel should be to get back to the original number of pixels. Not as good as pure optical zoom, but I wanted to see how well it could actually do. My Sony Camera have this also and it is called "Clear Image Zoom". Don't know which implementation is better.
The 1st shot is at 1200mm FL of a shed over a mile away on the other side of a canyon. This shot was taken in RAW. Actually was 3 shots and I used HDR SW in post processing.
I then changed to JPEG, and turned on the 1.5X multiplier. (1800mm equiv.)
And the the 2.0X multiplier for the 3rd image. (2400mm equiv.)
In all 3 cases, the number of reported pixels is 4000 x 3000.[/
You explained the Tele converter perfectly. I seem to be using it, 80% of the time. And it enables you to get pictures that you wouldn't otherwise get able to get at great distances. I also use it for macro shots as it enables you to be further away and get excellent pictures. Purists may complain that it's not perfect, but it meets many of my needs in my overall nature photography!
The 1st shot is at 1200mm FL of a shed over a mile away on the other side of a canyon. This shot was taken in RAW. Actually was 3 shots and I used HDR SW in post processing.
I then changed to JPEG, and turned on the 1.5X multiplier. (1800mm equiv.)
And the the 2.0X multiplier for the 3rd image. (2400mm equiv.)
In all 3 cases, the number of reported pixels is 4000 x 3000.[/
You explained the Tele converter perfectly. I seem to be using it, 80% of the time. And it enables you to get pictures that you wouldn't otherwise get able to get at great distances. I also use it for macro shots as it enables you to be further away and get excellent pictures. Purists may complain that it's not perfect, but it meets many of my needs in my overall nature photography!
Jan 12, 2015 10:06:18 #
I used the 1.5x quite a bit first few months I had the camera. Enjoy!
Jan 12, 2015 10:57:58 #
JimH123 wrote:
Hi John,
The wispy nature of the tall grass is a much tougher situation for the interpolation process. This might be something like a bicubic resizing process, and the grass is not entirely predicable where each pixel is going to be.
The wispy nature of the tall grass is a much tougher situation for the interpolation process. This might be something like a bicubic resizing process, and the grass is not entirely predicable where each pixel is going to be.
My memory gets a little flaky at times but I'm pretty sure I've seen that shed used here before as a test subject long before your "join" date, like maybe a couple of years ago. Were you a member previously and used that shed for a similar test or am I just enjoying a little misplaced deja vu?
Jan 12, 2015 11:15:24 #
gessman wrote:
My memory gets a little flaky at times but I'm pretty sure I've seen that shed used here before as a test subject long before your "join" date, like maybe a couple of years ago. Were you a member previously and used that shed for a similar test or am I just enjoying a little misplaced deja vu?
Yes, that shed is a favorite target when I am testing.
Jan 12, 2015 11:18:42 #
imagemeister wrote:
Here is a shot done with Sony A3000 and Nikkor 300 4.5 ED IF W/1.7X CIZ - not definitive - but may give you some idea
Here is another non-definitve comparison..........
Bottom line, the Sony CIZ is plenty good for me ! - just dial it in -- no fumbling with a TC, removing lens, loosing light, loosing DOF, buying software, buying a bigger computer, learning the software, using more memory cards, ECT. - well you get the idea !
Jan 12, 2015 11:25:37 #
dpullum wrote:
OMG another DSLR displaying bigotry against bridge and super zooms... gulmp.... but I agree that it is better to take the whole photo and do your work of coping in the computer program. If needed use a top of the line upsizer like Benvista Zoom.
Have you done a direct comparison ? - Have seen a direct comparison??........with the Sony CIZ?
Jan 12, 2015 12:53:05 #
SilverthorneRuth
Loc: Silverthorne, Colorado
JimH123 wrote:
Take a look. Hit "Menu", go to Digital Zoom and then see if it has a 1.5X entry, then a 2.0X entry, and finally "Standard" which is the old pure digital zoom. I would use that one.
On my newer Canon SX60, when I go to "Digital Zoom", my only choices are "Standard" and "Off". If I choose "Off", the menu says "turns off digital zoom, but allows optical zoom". Only available on the SX50, then?
Jan 12, 2015 13:23:33 #
JimH123 wrote:
Yes, that shed is a favorite target when I am testing.
Thanks for confirming that. It partially restores my faith in my memory somewhat. :thumbup:
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.