Buy a Rebel XTi or keep my S3 IS?

[EstorilM]

Personally I do not believe in "protecting lenses with UV filters".
UV filters do degrade optical quality somewhat, and can introduce reflections and reduction of contrast, no matter how high quality the filter is. Also, it will not protect the lens from a fall or a hard bump into something.

And how does a lens scratch? Not easily either. You have to poke it with something hard and sharp, or you have to rub it with grains of sand. What usually gets on your lens are finger grease and dust. Both are easily cleaned off with a good lens cleaning set (cloth and liquid) and soft lens brush. If you put a filter in front of the lens you have to clean that filter in the same way anyway.

A better idea is to just place the lens cap on when you are not making photos (this will not break like a filter will if you bump it into something or drop it) and put the sun hood on the lens will give even more protection, even when in use.

My motto is: use filters for what they are made for (so, for when they are needed. UV filters are for removing haze from UV light, mostly on higher altitudes).

Hahaha, trust me. You only need to be a clumsy dumbass once and drop a lens cap onto the main element of a 70-200 2.8 once to convince yourself that filters are important. It's not really the glass that's delicate, but the coating on it. It's NOT something you want to spray down and wipe off constantly to get off dust and other crap. A dual-layer front/back HMC coat UV filter can slightly improve quality in some cases, while protecting a fairly large investment (depending on what glass you have.)

As far as all this lens talk goes - if you know you're going to be doing sports and action, I think the 70-200 f/4 is a better choice than the 70-300, and the 2.8 (non IS) would be next, followed by the (obviously) more expensive 2.8 IS. I wish Nikon gave customers options like this - instead they go straight from consumer to professional with a 2.8 / VR.

Whoever said a certain lens was better because it was black, and matched the camera better, obviously doesn't know what a white Canon lens means. It means you've got something pretty badass. When in doubt, L-glass is the way to go, followed by max aperture.

 

[EstorilM]

On a beach in windy conditions, I do agree with you.

You never know
Filter time:

 

[dllavaneras]

Whoever said a certain lens was better because it was black, and matched the camera better, obviously doesn't know what a white Canon lens means. It means you've got something pretty badass. When in doubt, L-glass is the way to go, followed by max aperture.

And this is exactly why all the lenses at the sidelines of mayor sporting events are white and not black.

 

[compuwar]

And this is exactly why all the lenses at the sidelines of mayor sporting events are white and not black.

No, this has been discussed many times-- the reason is that someone's marketing arm decided they were going to offer institutions an offer they couldn't refuse on long lenses, loan out long glass to selected organizations and generally take over the market. It worked.

 

[EstorilM]

No, this has been discussed many times-- the reason is that someone's marketing arm decided they were going to offer institutions an offer they couldn't refuse on long lenses, loan out long glass to selected organizations and generally take over the market. It worked.

Yeah, with as much respect as I have for the L glass, compuwar is right - journalists for example usually work for companies that loan out equipment to their staff, it's theirs so long as they work there. They get VERY good incentives from Canon to purchase that kind of volume, not to mention Canon gets to use sideline pictures as marketing material.

A lot of private and freelance sports/event photographers and photojournalists (like myself) use Nikon products.

I used a Nikkor 600mm f/4 a couple months ago. Yeah.. wow? I don't care if it's not white - it sure as hell gets the job done!

 

[dllavaneras]

I got my facts straight now. And I never meant to diss Nikon, they make amazing cameras and lenses.

But still...

 

[EstorilM]

Yeah yeah, I've seen them all.
... and the one with the guy that's using his camera phone

Actually I see a few in there, the chick in the middle has a 200-400 f/4 I think. That's pretty much my dream lens.

 

[dllavaneras]

Come on, lighten up... the only reason I'm not considering Nikon when I purchase my first DSLR is Canon's lens lineup. I lust for that MPE-65... AND I have a choice of 4 L 70-200 lenses (all white, BTW )

 

[EstorilM]

Come on, lighten up... the only reason I'm not considering Nikon when I purchase my first DSLR is Canon's lens lineup. I lust for that MPE-65... AND I have a choice of 4 L 70-200 lenses (all white, BTW )

I was joking haha, and all the white canon optics are L btw.

For what it's worth, you can get a new Sigma 70-200 2.8 for 700ish, and unlike most 3rd party optics, that lens is STELLAR, and every bit as fast as the Canon and Nikon models - might be worth a look, it would also allow you to look at Nikons as well.

Their lens lineups are fairly equal by the way - at least for lenses under ~$2000.

 

[dllavaneras]

Their lens lineups are fairly equal by the way - at least for lenses under ~$2000.

But I haven't seen the Nikon equivalent of the Canon MPE-65. It's a super macro lens, 1x-5x. See this example. And a review of the lens here

 

[Flowbee]

I use my 350D most of the time, but boy am I glad I still have the S2.

That's good to hear. I just ordered an S2 today... should have it in a couple of days. I'm looking forward to the big step up from my Pentax Optio S.

 

[EstorilM]

But I haven't seen the Nikon equivalent of the Canon MPE-65. It's a super macro lens, 1x-5x. See this example. And a review of the lens here

Good luck using that lens on the 400D viewfinder at 5x magnification lol, it's also manual focus and you'll have to shoot around f/16 or more to get more than a few mm depth of field - at that magnification, if the subject moves a micron it will blur.

I guess it's pretty cool though, if you're patient enough. If you want a standard 1:1 macro lens Nikon has the 60mm 2.8, which is AF and about 52345 times easier to use.

 

[coldrain]

Hahaha, trust me. You only need to be a clumsy dumbass once and drop a lens cap onto the main element of a 70-200 2.8 once to convince yourself that filters are important. It's not really the glass that's delicate, but the coating on it. It's NOT something you want to spray down and wipe off constantly to get off dust and other crap. A dual-layer front/back HMC coat UV filter can slightly improve quality in some cases, while protecting a fairly large investment (depending on what glass you have.)

A plastic lens cap does not scratch the coating (I have "touched" the front element of my 70-200 f4 L often with it, no scratches). Coatings are not THAT delicate. And they can very well stand cleaning with a good lens cleaning solution and a good lens cloth too (I use a very neat Zeiss cleaning kit myself). A scratch on the lens will not show in any photo anyway... while reflections caused by a UV filter or the like may degrade many photos, deminishing the performance of your "fairly large investment".
It is a tool anyway, not a jewel.

As far as all this lens talk goes - if you know you're going to be doing sports and action, I think the 70-200 f/4 is a better choice than the 70-300, and the 2.8 (non IS) would be next, followed by the (obviously) more expensive 2.8 IS. I wish Nikon gave customers options like this - instead they go straight from consumer to professional with a 2.8 / VR.

The difference at 200mm is less than an f-stop. If you want to shoot indoor sports, both lenses are not an obvious choice, and yet with the IS you will be able to sneak alongside that half an f-stop while still being able to avoid most motion blur of the subject. I personally find it ridiculous to make "indoor action shots" a leading arguement in this thread. Oh well.

Whoever said a certain lens was better because it was black, and matched the camera better, obviously doesn't know what a white Canon lens means. It means you've got something pretty badass. When in doubt, L-glass is the way to go, followed by max aperture.

White is fine when you want to attract attention, yes. If that is not your objective, a more compact black lens is preferrable. Not hard to imagine, now is it?
And no one is in doubt about the optical qualities of that 70-300 IS USM, it is not of the Nikon 70-300 VR ilk. It beats the 70-200 f4 L I own in sharpness, equals it in contrast, has no distortion problems and offers 200-300mm range, is more compact and less heavy and includes IS. For less. Only downside: rotating front element.

 

[coldrain]

Good luck using that lens on the 400D viewfinder at 5x magnification lol, it's also manual focus and you'll have to shoot around f/16 or more to get more than a few mm depth of field - at that magnification, if the subject moves a micron it will blur.

I guess it's pretty cool though, if you're patient enough. If you want a standard 1:1 macro lens Nikon has the 60mm 2.8, which is AF and about 52345 times easier to use.

Another silly snipe at Canon *shakes head*. If you mind a smaller viewfinder by all means buy another camera. Comparing a 60mm f2.8 with the lens the above poster mentioned is just silly. And for a sharp macro you are not limitted to the Nikon 60mm. As sharp or sharper are the Sigma 50mm f2.8 , Sigma 70mm f2.8, Sigma 105mm f2.8, Sigma 180mm f3.5, Tamron 90mm f2.8, Tamron 180mm f3.5, Canon 60mm f2.8, Canon 100mm f2.8, Canon 180mm f3.5 L, Nikon 200mm f4.

Only the Nikon 105mm f2.8 (VR or non-VR) is a bit of a letdown resolution wise.

So plenty of 1:1 macro lenses, but that above mentioned Canon lens is something special. You can of course put extension tubes on your 1:1 macro. If you want a bigger view finder then you could do worse than to consider the Canon EOS 5D. A bit pricy at a bit above $2000, but so are lenses . And it comes with Canon CMOS (not that so-so Sony 10mp CCD stuff), and you can exchange the focus screen for manual focussing (Canon offers 3 different focus screen types for the 5D).

And btw, I do manual focus with my 350D/Tamron 90mm f2.8 handheld. When needed.

 

[coldrain]

No, this has been discussed many times-- the reason is that someone's marketing arm decided they were going to offer institutions an offer they couldn't refuse on long lenses, loan out long glass to selected organizations and generally take over the market. It worked.

Hey, that "someone" must have taken a leaf out of Nikon's strategy book, that is exactly how Nikon got marketshare itself.
Anyway, this has not been discussed many times, this has been just said you for instance you many times as explanation about Canon's market share. Now if you actually TALK to real professionals, they actually often choose Canon for the quality of the product and nothing else. And yes, Canon's tele lens lineup is very impressive (as are some other Canon lenses like the 85mm f1.2). And yes, Canon's CMOS sensors do a rather good job. And yes, Canon's 1D MK II N is without equal in speed + image quality.
And yes, Canon is the only one for now to offer full frame, till Nikon releases the D3(X?) with full frame sensor.

 

[dllavaneras]

Good luck using that lens on the 400D viewfinder at 5x magnification lol, it's also manual focus and you'll have to shoot around f/16 or more to get more than a few mm depth of field - at that magnification, if the subject moves a micron it will blur.

Personally I'd use it on the 30D or it's replacement. I prefer pentaprism to pentamirror I have no trouble with manual focusing (and I would be using a ring flash with a lamp to be able to see better), and I can handle the ridiculously small DOF. If you check my gallery, you can see that I've taken a macro shot or two myself and I know the drill But thanks, it's always good to be reminded of that!

I guess it's pretty cool though, if you're patient enough. If you want a standard 1:1 macro lens Nikon has the 60mm 2.8, which is AF and about 52345 times easier to use.

The only thing that I'd like Canon to include in a macro lens is VR. But that's not a deciding factor for me. I've looked at the Canon 100mm and the Sigma 105mm macro lenses (both AF and USM or whatever is the Sigma equivalent), and my choice is to stick to Canon.

 

[spine]

kit lens for rebel xt

The kit lens is not that bad.
A lot of people love to trash it, but it actually is a good lens to have in your setup. I use a 50mm 1.4, but still need to go wide with the kit lens.
In bright, natural light, its very sharp and useable.

 

[compuwar]

Hey, that "someone" must have taken a leaf out of Nikon's strategy book, that is exactly how Nikon got marketshare itself.
Anyway, this has not been discussed many times, this has been just said you for instance you many times as explanation about Canon's market share. Now if you actually TALK to real professionals, they actually often choose Canon for the quality of the product and nothing else. And yes, Canon's tele lens lineup is very impressive (as are some other Canon lenses like the 85mm f1.2). And yes, Canon's CMOS sensors do a rather good job. And yes, Canon's 1D MK II N is without equal in speed + image quality.
And yes, Canon is the only one for now to offer full frame, till Nikon releases the D3(X?) with full frame sensor.

No, it's been discussed many times in many different fora. Having spent eight and a half years at Gannett, I'd put real money on the fact that I have much more insight about how the media companies work than you do. If you'd actually WORKED with real professionals you'd know the difference. FYI, Gannett owns approximately 110 newspapers in the US and UK.

The D3H will be the full-frame Nikon body, FWIW, no word yet on the sensor size for the D3x.

The now-defunct Kodak SLR/n was full-frame digital with an F-mount years ago, so it's accurate to say "Canon's the only manufacturer offering a 35mm full-frame sensor in a 35mm body." [Hint: Check the size of the sensors in the MF cameras.]

You're starting to act like a rabid fanboy again.

 

[Abstract]

The difference at 200mm is less than an f-stop. If you want to shoot indoor sports, both lenses are not an obvious choice, and yet with the IS you will be able to sneak alongside that half an f-stop while still being able to avoid most motion blur of the subject. I personally find it ridiculous to make "indoor action shots" a leading arguement in this thread. Oh well.

There's only a 1 stop difference between the 70-200 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/4 as well. Does that not matter to you?

For indoor sports, I'd rather have the extra stop (yes, it's a bit less) of the 70-200 f/4, especially for a better chance of avoiding motion blur, which you mentioned. But how would having the IS on the 70-300 mm IS allow you to avoid motion blur when athletes are moving?

Of course you're right in that neither is the best lens for sports, but you just wrote off the 70-200 mm f/4 as not being better than the 70-300 mm for shooting sports when it has some obvious advantages over the 70-300 mm.

And no one is in doubt about the optical qualities of that 70-300 IS USM, it is not of the Nikon 70-300 VR ilk. It beats the 70-200 f4 L I own in sharpness, equals it in contrast, has no distortion problems and offers 200-300mm range, is more compact and less heavy and includes IS. For less. Only downside: rotating front element.

It only matters if you need it. I'd be more happy with the 70-200 mm f/4 than you own than the 70-300 mm IS, unless reach was a huge factor. Actually, I'd rather have the 70-200 mm f/4 IS than the 70-300 mm IS, but they're both going to take good photos.

And for a sharp macro you are not limitted to the Nikon 60mm. As sharp or sharper are the Sigma 50mm f2.8 , Sigma 70mm f2.8, Sigma 105mm f2.8, Sigma 180mm f3.5, Tamron 90mm f2.8, Tamron 180mm f3.5, Canon 60mm f2.8, Canon 100mm f2.8, Canon 180mm f3.5 L, Nikon 200mm f4.

Only the Nikon 105mm f2.8 (VR or non-VR) is a bit of a letdown resolution wise.

It really depends where you read. No review has said that the Nikon 105 mm VR lens has a poor resolution that would even show up in photos. Its resolution is very slightly lower than the 105 mm lens it replaces, and both lenses are included in a batch of lenses that are ALL good lenses. Which Porsche do you want, sir? Anyway, the Nikon 105 mm has VR and focuses internally, which is why I wanted it more than the Sigma 105 mm I was considering. That left my options to a Sigma 150 mm or Nikon 105 mm VR, and I chose the Nikon 105 mm VR for its length and VR.

I don't know. You talk about definites with regards to lens performance, as if all that matters are MTFs. You are a photographer, no? Do you ever just use your eyes to judge a photo, or do you only look at histograms?

 

[EstorilM]

Personally I'd use it on the 30D or it's replacement. I prefer pentaprism to pentamirror I have no trouble with manual focusing (and I would be using a ring flash with a lamp to be able to see better), and I can handle the ridiculously small DOF. If you check my gallery, you can see that I've taken a macro shot or two myself and I know the drill But thanks, it's always good to be reminded of that!



The only thing that I'd like Canon to include in a macro lens is VR. But that's not a deciding factor for me. I've looked at the Canon 100mm and the Sigma 105mm macro lenses (both AF and USM or whatever is the Sigma equivalent), and my choice is to stick to Canon.

I'm sure you know the drill - but I've also messed with macro stuff before and wouldn't go near that lens haha, but that's my fault not the lens - which like I said is really impressive in the right hands.

Besides, who wants to stick their hands that close to creepy stuff like that anyways?

 

[coldrain]

There's only a 1 stop difference between the 70-200 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/4 as well. Does that not matter? For indoor sports, I'd rather have the extra stop (or slightly less), especially for avoiding motion blur, like you mentioned. And how would having IS let you avoid motion blur when athletes are moving?

What is the max. handholdable shutter speed you can realy on photos to be sharp at 200mm? 200 x 1.6 = 320mm... so 1/320th of a second. Do you think it is a problem to shoot indoor action at 1/320th of a second? And what about 300mm. 300 x 1.6 = 480mm. 1/500th of a second. And you really think IS will NOT help you there? The IS at f5.6 will easily put it past the f4 lens in this case. Since you have the room in exposure time to have the IS help you get more light in.

Of course you're right in that neither is the right lens for the job, but I think you're crazy if you don't think that the 70-200 mm has obvious advantages over the 70-300 mm for indoor sports, even if it's not the best lens for the job.

See above.

It only matters if you need it. I'd be more happy with the 70-200 mm f/4 than the 70-300 mm IS. Actually, I'd rather have the 70-200 mm f/4 IS than the 70-300 mm IS. Either way, they're both going to take good photos.

I rather have the 70-300 IS USM while traveling (size, weight, colour of the lens itself, more reach when needed), and rather have the 70-200 f4 L IS USM for some of my photography where I use a polarized light filter.
The 70-200 IS USM costs more than twice that of the 70-300 IS USM though, quite a big difference.

It really depends where you read. Low resolution out of a lot of high resolution lenses, but it has VR and focuses internally (doesn't extend when using as a macro lens), which is why I wanted it more than the Sigma 105 mm I was considering. That left my options to a Sigma 150 mm or Nikon 105 mm VR, and I chose the Nikon 105 mm VR for its length and VR.

I agree that the VR is a very nice feature of this lens. But it is not so strange to want a sharp macro lens, now is it? I was just stating that if you want a 1:1 macro lens there are many macro lenses as sharp or sharper than the 60mm Nikkor mentioned, listing the many alternatives, and the 105mm nikkor is just not one of them. It was not a post about "does the Nikkor 105mm f2.8 VR have virtues".

I don't know. You talk about definites with regards to lens performance, as if all that matters are MTFs. You are a photographer, no? Do you ever just use your eyes to judge a photo, or do you only look at histograms?

I do not get this part of you post at all, the only time I mentioned MTF charts is when someone asked how "good" the 70-300 G lens from Nikon is.
Conclusion: a lens to avoid, and if you don't want to believe that, check Nikon's own MTF charts that back up the negative opinions people have about this lens.
I was actually talking about a 70-200 f4 L and a 70-300 IS USM here, and mentioned sharpness, contast, colour and distortion.

So, I do not see any reason for this part of your post, it seems to be just another stab.

I do envy that your macro has VR by the way, I would not mind my Tamron 90mm having that, at times.

 

[EstorilM]

Abstract - you pretty much took the words out of my mouth, I've never seen a Canon person talk-down an L lens before, especially the kinda value you get in the F4.

..and yeah, was he actually saying that IS would make up for the aperture disadvantage for sports? Big no-no. (Fast) shutter speeds are the only thing that will stop action, IS eliminates shake between the camera and the subject (but to a far smaller extent when tracking something moving, which doesn't work most of the time anyways.)
Sooo coldrain:
By the way, downplaying a 1 stop advantage as trivial is the most ridiculus thing I've ever heard. There's probably a reason 300mm f/2.8's go for $4500 while the f/4s are going for $1200.

There's no argument between the 70-200 and the 70-300. One is a professional lens, with better CA, vignetting, sharpness, contrast, construction, distortion, etc - the other one is a consumer product. There's a lot more to L glass than "attracting attention" haha.

I'm also not sure how you can say that you can't scratch the coating on a lens with a lens cap - my lens has the type of cap that you can take off through the hood (pinch style) and has rather pointy clips on either side. Drop that on there on the edge (or miss the clip part on the lens and push it into the element) and you'll scratch something.

BTW, please don't lecture me on the lens being a "tool" and not a "jewel." I've made more than enough money between event and press / journalism photography to pay for my equipment.

 

[coldrain]

Abstract - you pretty much took the words out of my mouth, I've never seen a Canon person talk-down an L lens before, especially the kinda value you get in the F4.

..and yeah, was he actually saying that IS would make up for the aperture disadvantage for sports? Big no-no. (Fast) shutter speeds are the only thing that will stop action, IS eliminates shake between the camera and the subject (but to a far smaller extent when tracking something moving, which doesn't work most of the time anyways.)
Sooo coldrain:
By the way, downplaying a 1 stop advantage as trivial is the most ridiculus thing I've ever heard. There's probably a reason 300mm f/2.8's go for $4500 while the f/4s are going for $1200.

There's no argument between the 70-200 and the 70-300. One is a professional lens, with better CA, vignetting, sharpness, contrast, construction, distortion, etc - the other one is a consumer product. There's a lot more to L glass than "attracting attention" haha.

I'm also not sure how you can say that you can't scratch the coating on a lens with a lens cap - my lens has the type of cap that you can take off through the hood (pinch style) and has rather pointy clips on either side. Drop that on there on the edge (or miss the clip part on the lens and push it into the element) and you'll scratch something.

BTW, please don't lecture me on the lens being a "tool" and not a "jewel." I've made more than enough money between event and press / journalism photography to pay for my equipment.

*sigh*. You keep on talking about the 70-200 f4 L and the 70-300 IS USM without actually knowing anything about how they perform.

The 70-300 IS USM IS sharper, HAS the contrast and colour of an L lens,
has NO vignetting problem to speak of, and performs well even into the corners on FULL FRAME. This is not a Nikon 70-300 VR we are talking about, you know.

Yes, I know it is hard for you to believe, and yes, it would not harm if you would actually educate yourself about these lenses intead of boasting time and time again on what a professional you are.

The 70-300 IS USM is an amazing lens for the money, and yes, like I pointed out in above post, IS actuallly WILL help you at 480mm tele range. And yes, this lens IS a better choice when you are looking for an ultrazoom replacement with IS and big range. Ridicule me all you want, you just show you do now know the lenses in question at all, and seem to just focus on a red L printed on one of them. Oh well.

You are the one who thinks a scratch on a lens is harmfull (it will not show up in a photo) and a filter is fine (that will show up in many photos, with visible refelections and loss of contrast) to protect you "investment".
So again, it is a tool, not a jewel. And lens caps do not scratch coatings.

And about your puzzling remark about that "There's probably a reason 300mm f/2.8's go for $4500 while the f/4s are going for $1200", of course there is a reason... Bigger glass elements are very expensive to make, the lens weighs a lot more, and price also depends somewhat on production figures. But is the point you are trying to make?

 

[compuwar]

I don't know. You talk about definites with regards to lens performance, as if all that matters are MTFs. You are a photographer, no? Do you ever just use your eyes to judge a photo, or do you only look at histograms?

Most places only report MTF charts at infinity, while most macro shots aren't shot there- but then that wouldn't help back up his *opinions.*

What is the max. handholdable shutter speed you can realy on photos to be sharp at 200mm? 200 x 1.6 = 320mm... so 1/320th of a second.

Once again, you're misinformed and misinforming whilst trying to spout off as authoritative.

A *crop factor* is just that. It is *not* a *magnification factor.* The "rule of thumb" is about steadyness due to magnification, not field of view, so it's still 1/200th of a second with a 200mm lens and 1/300 of a second with a 300mm lens.

The image circle of a lens and its magnification properties don't change just because you simply move it to a new body and use a smaller part of the image circle.

By the way, downplaying a 1 stop advantage as trivial is the most ridiculus thing I've ever heard. There's probably a reason 300mm f/2.8's go for $4500 while the f/4s are going for $1200.

I agree that a 1 stop advantage is non-trivial (photography's all about light, and twice as much or half as much makes a difference) the one stop difference becomes the reason so many are sold, not necessarily the reason for the difference in price which has more to do with construction costs, quantity sold and things like that.

 

[coldrain]

Once again, you're misinformed and misinforming whilst trying to spout off as authoritative.

A *crop factor* is just that. It is *not* a *magnification factor.* The "rule of thumb" is about steadyness due to magnification, not field of view, so it's still 1/200th of a second with a 200mm lens and 1/300 of a second with a 300mm lens.

The image circle of a lens and its magnification properties don't change just because you simply move it to a new body and use a smaller part of the image circle.

Have you actually ever thought about on WHY it is like that that you can shoot shorter exposure times with shorter focal lengths? Is it because you shake less with longer focal lenghts? Uhmm... No.
Is it because a longer lens makes teh camera move more? Uhmmm..... NO again! Try it yourself, with a 70-200mm lens for instance... at 70 and at 200mm... HEY! 70mm is less moved than 200mm at the same shutter speed! Figure that .

Then what is it? EXACTLY! very good. The actual field of view, or the resulting magnification factor.
Crop factor IS a magnification factor. It is the same thing as you zooming in on a photo on your computer screen. try zooming in... HEY look at that, things get bigger. Magnification. Awesome! *clapping for compuwar*. The fact that you look at something from a big distance makes a small movement of the lens show big time on the image, when you maginify the subject.

So, does that mean that you actually have to factor in a crop factor? YES, it does. That is why you also have to factor that in with a digital ultrazoom like a Panasonic FZ30, ist 430mm is of course not really 430mm (big crop factor, remember?).

So, compuwar, whipe the egg off your face and try to understand what is actually involved in optics and photography. Or just look though your lens and try to understand why that rule of thumb for focal length vs shutter time actually exists. And why cropfactor equals magnification factor.