Saturday 29 August 2020

29.08.2020 Magnification v focal length.

~~

Saturday is overcast with showers. Only 250 images captured on my hour and half morning walk. A Red kite circled briefly overhead before moving away across the fields. I wasn't ready but snapped away capturing single images at 280mm as I struggled to keep the bird centred in the viewfinder. [280mm = 560mm FF:35mm] 1/640s f5.6 ISO250 [Program + Auto Focus and Auto ISO]

I had been photographing  the countryside so the camera was already at those settings.The bird arrived unexpectedly over the top of a large tree.

280mm is proving not nearly enough reach for birds or deer in the wilds. This is the only image [right] of the many I captured which tolerated  the massive cropping required. Just to make the tiny image of the bird interesting. Brightened considerably to bring out any colour and detail from the near-black silhouette. [See full frame original image below.]

50mm @ 35mm Full Frame focal length is considered equivalent to normal eyesight at 1x magnification. This would be 25mm MFT. Longer focal lengths should be divided by 50 FF [or 25 for MFT] for the resulting magnification.  

I have 200mm and 280mm max f/l available from my Leica 50-200 MFT lens with the TC14. This is equivalent to 400 and 560mm in 35mm Full Frame terms. Adding a 2x TC instead of the 1.4 would provide 400mm MFT or 800 FF 35mm. It is arguable whether the Lumix TC 2x on the 50-200 would provide the same image quality as the Leica 100-400mm. 

If large prints were of no interest then it is debatable whether doubling my expenditure for the big Leica [compared to the TC2x] is really worthwhile. In reality the big Leica 100-400 would only be used for the 300-400 range.Which is considered rather soft by most reviewers. The rest up to 280mm being duplicated by the 50-200 x 1.4, TC14. So the Lumix TC20 makes quite a lot of sense in this context. The 100-400 is slow at f6.3 at the long end. The 50-200mm [f2.8-4] x2 TC20 would be working at f/8. The loss of only one stop over the Leica 100-400 [f4-6.3]

The pair of Lumix TCs would provide a far more flexible and compact set up. My experience so far is that I use the full, 280mm, almost continuously on my rural walks. So I would be very likely to be using the TC20 on the Leica 50-200 at 400mm. Providing 100-400mm at f6.3 to f8.

Buying the Leica 100-400 instead would duplicate my lens collection in a very similar size and weight for no greater range than the TC20. If I desperately needed a shorter lens, while out on my walks, I can simply remove the TC20. To provide the considerable flexibility of 50-200mm. Or fit the TC14 1.4x teleconverter for 70-280mm. 

My little Leica 12-60 zoom offers much lower magnification and seems very underwhelming for serious wildlife use. Though it is very handy for images around the garden. Even indoors, when there is enough light. So, unlikely to be useful on my walks as a back up to the longer lens.

However, the 12-60 + 50-200 with both TCs, makes a very compact and lightweight set-up for general photography under most circumstances. Providing 25-800mm in FF 35mm terms. Without the huge bulk, sheer weight and vast expense of a matching Full Frame camera and matching lenses.

The following table shows the various f/l against resulting magnifications from my potential MFT lens options.

   TC        MFT              FF35mm          X     
   [0]    12-60/25      =  120mm/50   =  2.4   ✔
   [0]    50-200/25    =  400mm/50   =   8     ✔
[1.4]    70-280/25    =  560mm/50   =  11    ✔
[2]     100-400/25    =  800mm/50   =  16    X

Magnification can be thought of in various ways. Doubling the focal length means 2x more magnification. Which brings the subject twice as close. It makes the subject twice the size on the sensor in the camera. Or, it halves the field of view.

~~