G
Guest
Guest
In this months YM there's another photo of the motor cruiser on the rocks ... taken with a "3000m telephoto lens". Where can I get one - and how big was the ship on which it was mounted?
billskip
Well-known member
My box brownie is better than that ..i can take a photo of the moon and thats 240,000 miles....
Bill
www.aegeansailing.co.uk
www.macsyachting.com
Bill
www.aegeansailing.co.uk
www.macsyachting.com
Twister_Ken
Well-known member
It's the two mile walk to take the lens cap off that gets to you.
Davo_e
New member
I suspect the readership are being fobbed off with some fancy story about "distorted perspective" and "3000m lenses", but I suspect the original photo has been heavily retouched by someone. The top picture in this months issue looks like a model out of Thunderbirds, and has almost certainly been 'altered' electronically.
andrewhopkins
New member
Fobbing off
Absolutely. There is no way that it is a distortion from the telephoto lens. It cant make one bigger and not the other unless someone did some superimposing.
Its not that serious but I really dont think YM should be fueling the fire by such pictures. They could probably get done for libel if they are not careful!
Absolutely. There is no way that it is a distortion from the telephoto lens. It cant make one bigger and not the other unless someone did some superimposing.
Its not that serious but I really dont think YM should be fueling the fire by such pictures. They could probably get done for libel if they are not careful!
yachtcharisma
New member
Re: Fobbing off
"It cant make one bigger and not the other unless someone did some superimposing."
Sorry, but that is exactly what a telephoto lens does. If you're standing close to the motor cruiser (eg with a normal lens) and the lighthouse is, say, 10 times further away from you than the boat then the lighthouse appears 10 times smaller. If you're far away and "zoom in" with a telephoto lens, then the lighthouse may now be, say, twice as far away as the boat and so appears only twice as small. Thus through the telephoto, the lighthouse appears relatively larger compared to the boat than through the normal lens.
(The example above assumes that lighthouse and boat are the same size, but the principle applies whatever the relative dimensions are).
Hope that's clear - it really needs a diagram!
Cheers
Patrick
==================
Sailing a Corribee
vzone.virgin.net/patrick.fox
==================
"It cant make one bigger and not the other unless someone did some superimposing."
Sorry, but that is exactly what a telephoto lens does. If you're standing close to the motor cruiser (eg with a normal lens) and the lighthouse is, say, 10 times further away from you than the boat then the lighthouse appears 10 times smaller. If you're far away and "zoom in" with a telephoto lens, then the lighthouse may now be, say, twice as far away as the boat and so appears only twice as small. Thus through the telephoto, the lighthouse appears relatively larger compared to the boat than through the normal lens.
(The example above assumes that lighthouse and boat are the same size, but the principle applies whatever the relative dimensions are).
Hope that's clear - it really needs a diagram!
Cheers
Patrick
==================
Sailing a Corribee
vzone.virgin.net/patrick.fox
==================
Grehan
Well-known member
3000m lenses ...
A ship would be far too wobbly - you'd need a solid concrete foundation.
The exposure time would be pretty phenomenal, too.
The lens cap might not be too far away if this was a mirror lens, but its size would be quite big! [. . . if the cap fits . . ]
In all seriousness, this was one helluva embarassing incident - an HMS Troutbridge "oh lummee" one. And of course, the result of a quite humdrum human error (let he who is without blame . . ) was amazingly magnified by circumstances. I can't blame the hapless owner for feeling sensitive, hence his letter to YM.
But it did make a lulu of a photograph didn't it, wellytoto lens or no.
A ship would be far too wobbly - you'd need a solid concrete foundation.
The exposure time would be pretty phenomenal, too.
The lens cap might not be too far away if this was a mirror lens, but its size would be quite big! [. . . if the cap fits . . ]
In all seriousness, this was one helluva embarassing incident - an HMS Troutbridge "oh lummee" one. And of course, the result of a quite humdrum human error (let he who is without blame . . ) was amazingly magnified by circumstances. I can't blame the hapless owner for feeling sensitive, hence his letter to YM.
But it did make a lulu of a photograph didn't it, wellytoto lens or no.
andrewhopkins
New member
eh ?
I know what a telephoto lens does but it cannot make one object bigger IN THE SAME FRAME than another. They both get enlarged.
If you look at the pictures, the lighthouse gets enlarged by 100% but the boat does not. This cannot happen so they've zoomed in on the lighthouse and then pasted it against the un-zoomed boat.
Does that make sense ?
I know what a telephoto lens does but it cannot make one object bigger IN THE SAME FRAME than another. They both get enlarged.
If you look at the pictures, the lighthouse gets enlarged by 100% but the boat does not. This cannot happen so they've zoomed in on the lighthouse and then pasted it against the un-zoomed boat.
Does that make sense ?
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Fobbing off
A telephoto lens is also not capable of moving a tower from the port quarter of a boat to just in front of it!
Nor would it be possible to use a lense of 1000mm or more (2000mm is the maximum that I am aware of, manufactured by Nikon) on board a boat because of camera shake. As a professional photographer, I can assure you that the picture was not taken with a 3000mm lens (or even a 3000m one!)
A telephoto lens is also not capable of moving a tower from the port quarter of a boat to just in front of it!
Nor would it be possible to use a lense of 1000mm or more (2000mm is the maximum that I am aware of, manufactured by Nikon) on board a boat because of camera shake. As a professional photographer, I can assure you that the picture was not taken with a 3000mm lens (or even a 3000m one!)
