markwilliam1

On my Sony RX10M4 it has a feature called Clear Image Zoom that essentially doubles the focal length to 1200mm with no image degradation. The only draw back is you have to shoot jpegs.

MrPhotog

Obviously the camera is not adding pieces of glass into the light path to do this. It is simply sampling the receptors in the middle of the sensor, and using them for the jpeg image. You should see smaller file sizes for these, unless the in-camera software is making up something to fill in.

You should get similar results by cropping in Photoshop. You can also get this software to fill in between the dots, and have a few choices on how it determines those.

westitzer Loc: Central California coastal area

Have you considered the Nikon P1000? Built specifically for wildlife.

sharisujka Loc: Winter Park, FL

Thanks everyone for your knowledge and insight in responding to my question. I will take it all under consideration when and if I buy another telephoto lens.

agillot

There is not much difference between 600 and 800 . i use an old 8oomm nikkor from the 80 s for birds , also at time but rarely anymore a 500 / 1000 vivitar . You are better with a sharper picture at 600 then add on a converter and end up with something not that great .

Rick from NY Loc: Sarasota FL

A couple of folks mention there isn’t much difference between 600 and 800. Uh….the difference is an additional 33.33% more. Not much difference?

Craig Meyer Loc: Sparks, NV

That image alone should sell the zoom lens. Thanks, Bill, for your years of good sense and wisdom here.

As a long experienced amateur, I shoot my grandson's baseball games. He's a High School Catcher, so any non-screened-in shots with him facing the camera need to be taken from about 120 feet away where there's a way to shoot around the fence.
I have a Canon Aps-C camera with the 26MP Sensor and Digic 8 processor. The only body specs that make a difference in still-image quality. I use the EF-70-300-II which delivers crisp images and shines as a non-L smaller max aperture lens. It is a great budget alternative, but still good enough to be a lighter weight substitute for very demanding pros on the go.

I fill the frame with him in the low position at about 200mm--which is about 320 after the "crop." And for his at-bats he fills the frame at about 190mm or 304 with the crop factor.

I hope you solve your tele needs. Try renting some alternatives. The Converters, long a staple for Nature, wildlife and even Sports pros, were never a good solution. I remember when I had a sideline opportunity at a football game. I got terminal Lens envy over a BIG WHITE 600 mm my host was using like it was a 70-200. He mounted it onto my camera, making the FOV of 960mm. I was much younger and still pushing some "big plates" around the Gym. But handling that monster yielded some very lousy camera-shake shots in my display. I returned it after two series.

As bad as trying to shoot with that monster was, carrying it to and from the van was worse! And that'll never be a one lens solution, so you've got another 30# of stuff to schlep.

Almost every wildlife "in situ portrait" is already heavily cropped for print or publication. The converter will degrade the image far more than a good modern APS-C sensor.

The APS-C body gives a long lens shooter a great advantage. Come to think of it, a quality 1.4 or 2X converter costs nearly as much as a nice used APS-C body--especially if that's all you're using it for. And it could save the bacon if a back-up body is needed. And except for extreme low light situations, today's sensors and processors are delivering excellent images from these newer bodies.

And mine even has a mirror!

Historic note: The late great Galen Rowell used to carry an EOS 35mm Rebel when he was on location and during his regular fitness runs. One of his famous mountain-top Indian Temple photos was taken with that rig.

C

Bayou

Even with a tripod, it's hard to truly steady a lens of that effective focal length (1200mm for an 800mm lens on an APS-C body). Hand held? Seems nearly impossible. And with moving wildlife...well. I have a bridge camera that zooms to an effective 1200mm, and it's very difficult to get a sharp photo at that length. Braced on a porch railing at 1/1000 second, maybe. On a lightweight tripod just pressing the shutter button moves the (stabilized!) image quite noticeably.

At these extreme distances cropping will likely yield sharper/better results than going to even more extreme focal lengths. The extra space in the frame makes it easier to take the shot, too.

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

For less money than the 800 lens, you should maybe get a z7ii body. At 45 megapixels, you could crop a lot and actually come up with the same pixel count as the z50. This cropping will also give the equivalent of the 800 lens or even more.

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

I accidently dropped a note into dirtfarmer's reply -- please take a look on pg. 2.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I've done that on occasion. However, if you catch it in time, it's correctable.
Note that your first reply and your second reply are only 16 minutes apart. That's within the time frame that UHH allows you to edit your post. So if that happens again, go to your first post and click on 'Edit'.


You will see at the top of the edit frame the text that you were replying to (erroneously) enclosed in tags [ quote=Name on quoted post ] quoted post [ /quote]

That is editable. You can highlight it and delete it. You can then open another window and bring up the post you really wanted to reply to. Click on 'Quote Reply'. When that edit frame pops up you can highlight the correct quote, copy it (ctrl-c or command-c), go back to your first window and paste it into your edited post at the top. Voila. Correct attribution. Save it. You can go to your secondary window and close it (without saving, so you don't actually reply again).