Even cropped, the resolution is there...
Watch out for "heat mirage" on anything over 1000 meters...
a6k
Loc: Detroit & Sanibel
davidb1879 wrote:
Re: mirofoto (P1000): The P1000 weighs slightly over three pounds. I was very impressed with the Kingfisher. I would love to know how far away was the kingfisher. Also what was the focal length of the P1000 when the image was captured. Davidb1879.
I have no way to tell you how far away the bird was but here is the EXIF that is available to anyone who dowloaded the picture. It says the 35mm equivalent focal length was 1700 mm so it was not fully zoomed. It's cropped, too. I was trying to demonstrate print-ability for my wife and it worked out well.
I have no idea how do do the math but it could be done with the angle of view and a reasonable guess at the size of the bird (check Audubon). This image is (obviously) a screen print of the original, not the original. The original is in the earlier post. The screen print lets me show you the EXIF.
As I said before, it was too far for my 600 mm equivalent lens on my RX10m4. I may have mis-stated the difference but 1700 / 600 is almost 3X. This crop is 3000 pixels so it would have been about 1000 pixels with my Sony. The relative area would have been 12.4% for the Sony vs 100% for the Nikon.
I don't remember cropping this but the pixel dimensions given strongly suggest that I did. If anyone wants to know more detail about the original, PM me and I'll go find it on my backup drive.
a6k
Loc: Detroit & Sanibel
Here is a screen print of the original of the Kingfisher with the EXIF showing. I didn't crop it but the other was re-sized for printing 8x10. You can see the actual original pixel count in this one. This is as-shot, no edits, original jpg.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.