 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / January 2007Why does Nikon keep making FF lenses?
They could cut their costs substantially by going with sub-FF support lenses, even ones designed for digital, Olympus's overpriced pro lenses notwithstanding. Looking that this, I'd say it's a fair bet Nikon is going FF at some point, maybe soon. DX lenses: DX Nikkor Lenses for DX Format Digital SLRs 10.5mm f/2.8G ED AF DX Fisheye-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor - REBATE! 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor - NEW! 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor - REBATE! 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor Film Lenses: Vibration Reduction (VR) Lenses 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 200mm f/2G ED-IF AF-S VR Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Nikkor - REBATE! 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor - REBATE! 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor - REBATE! 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED AF VR Zoom-Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF AF Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Zoom-Nikkor - REBATE! 28-80mm f/3.3-5.6G AF Zoom-Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor - NEW! 70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom-Nikkor - REBATE! > They could cut their costs substantially by going with sub-FF support > lenses, even ones designed for > digital, Olympus's overpriced pro lenses notwithstanding. > Looking that this, I'd say it's a fair bet Nikon is going FF at some > point, maybe soon. I say March  Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >> They could cut their costs substantially by going with sub-FF support >> lenses, even ones designed for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > I say March Not likely. Regardless of what Thom says. Nikon would have to redesign the lensmount and mirror box to get enough room for a FF sensor. The D200 is selling well, while the FF 5D is sluggish in sales, even with the recent $300 price drop. >>> They could cut their costs substantially by going with sub-FF support >>> lenses, even ones designed for [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >The D200 is selling well, while the FF 5D is sluggish in sales, even >with the recent $300 price drop. Out of curiosity, I've seen several referrences to this camera or that camera's sales being great or sluggish. I can't find sales numbers; where do you find them? SignatureSenate Democrats proposed ethics reform legislation on Tuesday. It calls for lawmakers to pay the real cost of corporate jet flights and the full cost of skybox tickets for sporting events. If you want to know ahead of time what's going to happen to this bill, you simply need to watch the last five minutes of Old Yeller. >>>> They could cut their costs substantially by going with sub-FF support >>>> lenses, even ones designed for [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > camera's sales being great or sluggish. > I can't find sales numbers; where do you find them? Good question. You hear that kind of stuff all the time. Where does it come from? > They could cut their costs substantially by going with sub-FF support > lenses, even ones designed for > digital, Olympus's overpriced pro lenses notwithstanding. > Looking that this, I'd say it's a fair bet Nikon is going FF at some > point, maybe soon. Old news. Even Thom Hogan says the D3h will be released this year, possibly at PMA, summer at the latest. As he says, there are too many prototypes floating around -- nearly everybody who is anybody has seen one. >> They could cut their costs substantially by going with sub-FF support >> lenses, even ones designed for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >at PMA, summer at the latest. As he says, there are too many prototypes >floating around -- nearly everybody who is anybody has seen one. Well, * I * haven't seen one, not even a (Photoshopped) image on a web site. But Thom is curiously very vague about the specifications, with his "teaser" comment about a "surprise." What in heck does he mean with that comment? Father Kodak >>> They could cut their costs substantially by going with sub-FF support >>> lenses, even ones designed for >>> digital, Olympus's overpriced pro lenses notwithstanding. >>> Looking that this, I'd say it's a fair bet Nikon is going FF at some >>> point, maybe soon. Nikon still has a massive userbase of people using real cameras and buying lenses for those. Anyway, anything is full frame for a given definition of "frame". DX is "full frame", so is 645, so is 35mm, and so is 6x6. And I doubt Nikon will ever produce a 6x6 DSLR, which (being the largest of those formats) is the only true "full" frame among them, everything else is smaller and therefore a subset of 6x6. >>Old news. Even Thom Hogan says the D3h will be released this year, >>possibly [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "teaser" comment about a "surprise." What in heck does he mean with > that comment? it means he doesn't know and is just speculating but wants to sound important by making you think he's got one already but isn't allowed to talk (if he really had one he'd not even be allowed to say that you're in for a surprise). >>>> They could cut their costs substantially by going with sub-FF support >>>> lenses, even ones designed for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> > Nikon still has a massive userbase of people using real cameras I see. So digital cameras aren't "real"? > and > buying lenses for those. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is the only true "full" frame among them, everything else is smaller and > therefore a subset of 6x6. The accepted definition of "full frame" is 35mm equivalent. By pretending that you don't know this or trying to redefine the term you're exposing yourself as ignorant, loony, or trolling. >>>Old news. Even Thom Hogan says the D3h will be released this year, >>>possibly [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > talk (if he really had one he'd not even be allowed to say that you're > in for a surprise). Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > The accepted definition of "full frame" is 35mm equivalent. Only if you work exclusively / mostly with 35mm.... Full frame has other meanings too. I have a film / TV / photo background and the term 'full frame' has many meanings depending on context. </pedantry> Guy >> The accepted definition of "full frame" is 35mm equivalent. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > </pedantry> Well, yes, but this is a SLR forum. Signaturejohn mcwilliams >>> The accepted definition of "full frame" is 35mm equivalent. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Well, yes, but this is a SLR forum. Wrong. It is a DSLR forum. 35mm is the newcomer. >Wrong. It is a DSLR forum. 35mm is the newcomer. Which ancient DSLRs are you refering to that are not based on 35mm? As far as I know, the first DSLR was a Kodak DCS 100, which was a Nikon F3 with a digital back. Obviously, the F3 was designed for full frame 35mm. Nikon's (actually Fuji's) first DSLRs was full frame in the sense that the angle of view was identical to 35mm film. It is only with relatively recent cameras, such as the D200, that is not clear whether they are still cropped 35mm designs or just designed with APS-C in mind. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >Nikon's (actually Fuji's) first DSLRs was full frame in the sense that the >angle of view was identical to 35mm film. 35mm film has an angle of view? I thought a lens had to be used for that. Do you mean "normal" as in the sense that a 45-55mm lens is "normal" for 35mm film cameras? So the field of view is about what a 50mm lens on a 35mm SLR gave? SignatureSenate Democrats proposed ethics reform legislation on Tuesday. It calls for lawmakers to pay the real cost of corporate jet flights and the full cost of skybox tickets for sporting events. If you want to know ahead of time what's going to happen to this bill, you simply need to watch the last five minutes of Old Yeller. >>Nikon's (actually Fuji's) first DSLRs was full frame in the sense that the >>angle of view was identical to 35mm film. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >for 35mm film cameras? So the field of view is about what a 50mm lens >on a 35mm SLR gave? Yes. I should have said that on the Nikon E2 (Fujix DS-505) the field of view of a lens doesn't change compared to using the same lens with 35mm film. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >> Wrong. It is a DSLR forum. 35mm is the newcomer. > > Which ancient DSLRs are you refering to that are not based on 35mm? > > As far as I know, the first DSLR was a Kodak DCS 100, which was a Nikon F3 > with a digital back. Obviously, the F3 was designed for full frame 35mm. But the back was designed for a small sensor. Big deal. The first 35mm camera bodies were based on designs for larger formats and used lenses designed for larger formats. > Nikon's (actually Fuji's) first DSLRs was full frame in the sense that the > angle of view was identical to 35mm film. Actually, it was Nikon's -- they just bought Fuji bodies. And no, it was not identical. > It is only with relatively recent cameras, such as the D200, that is > not clear whether they are still cropped 35mm designs or just designed > with APS-C in mind. Give me a break. No DSLR had a 35mm sensor until the 1DS. The Nikon D1 was the first practical DSLR and it had the same size sensor that every Nikon has had since. > Give me a break. No DSLR had a 35mm sensor until the 1DS. Actually, no. The Contax N Digital was first. Signature--Bryan >Give me a break. No DSLR had a 35mm sensor until the 1DS. The Nikon D1 was >the first practical DSLR and it had the same size sensor that every Nikon has >had since. But the D1 is an APS-C sensor in a camera designed for 35mm. Mirror, shutter, viewfinder, they are all big enough that accommodate 35mm. But if you want to play silly word games go ahead. 'full frame' is well defined concept in the context of DSLRs with Nikon or Canon mount. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >>>> The accepted definition of "full frame" is 35mm equivalent. >>> Only if you work exclusively / mostly with 35mm.... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Wrong. It is a DSLR forum. 35mm is the newcomer. Uh, DSLR is a subset of SLR, pretty clear in the context of the name of this NG. Signaturejohn mcwilliams I know that you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. >....................................................................................... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > to email, dial "usenet" and validate > (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) I shudder to think what the music industry would be like if they clung to the notion that good CDs would have to be full frame, ie vinyl record size. Why we compare melons with goldfish in the photo world is beyond me, saying that a good goldfish should be melon sized and vice versa. The mediums are so incredibly different that only end results are of importance. So if, in a couple of years time, a sensor comes along thats 2x2 cm and WAY better than film in picture quality we'll spit on it?? The "full frame" crap is just for the huge 35mm lens base out there, and it will take some time for the notion to simply wither and go away. >The "full frame" crap is just for >the huge 35mm lens base out there, and it will take some time for the notion >to simply wither and go away. Except that the wide angle lens selections of Nikon and Canon are not all that great compared to what is available on 35mm. It is only when they match angle of view and DoF on APS-C that you can say that APS-C is a real alternative to 35mm full frame. It should be obvious that Canon opted for 35mm full frame. Nikon will probably do the same when they can get a full frame sensor. The only real advantage of APS-C is that it is cheaper. And with huge discounts on the 5D, even that is not such a great argument anymore. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >>The "full frame" crap is just for >>the huge 35mm lens base out there, and it will take some time for the notion [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >they match angle of view and DoF on APS-C that you can say that APS-C is a >real alternative to 35mm full frame. The Canon EF-S 10-22mm is a wonderful superwide zoom... fulfills all my expectations. >It should be obvious that Canon opted for 35mm full frame. Nikon will >probably do the same when they can get a full frame sensor. The only >real advantage of APS-C is that it is cheaper. And with huge discounts >on the 5D, even that is not such a great argument anymore. Both 22mm and 36mm (widths) sensors have their pros and cons. The only advantages that I can think of for the bigger sensors is 1) slightly lower noise and 2) ability to use legacy lenses as originally intended. You can add narrower depth of field if that is valuable for you. The advantages for the smaller sensors include 1) higher pixel density, which is beneficial especially if you need a long tele reach, 2) less weight to haul around for body and lenses, 3) greater depth of field, especially beneficial for landscapes and macro work, 4) built-in flash, and 5) less expensive bodies (but not lenses, which are about the same cost for similar field of view). On balance, putting cost aside, which is a small differentiator anyway since lenses will be the major cost and their cost is about the same, I prefer the smaller format. Time will tell what Nikon does and what the Canon 24x36mm format models do. KS >The Canon EF-S 10-22mm is a wonderful superwide zoom... fulfills all >my expectations. Well, my guess is that my Nikkor 17-35 on a Canon 5D is going to provide a better image quality than a Nikkor 12-24 on a D2X, And that is where some people get annoyed: you can get better quality images for less money by buying the competitors product. Nikon once said (or suggested) that DX was much better than full frame. Well, let them prove it. It is probably the same with your 10-22. Compare it to a good prime on a 5D, and the 5D will provide a much better image. >Both 22mm and 36mm (widths) sensors have their pros and cons. The only >advantages that I can think of for the bigger sensors is 1) slightly >lower noise and 2) ability to use legacy lenses as originally >intended. You can add narrower depth of field if that is valuable for >you. It is not just legacy lenses. The new lenses do not match the old lenses in performance. Many of the old (fast) primes are simply not there for smaller formats. >The advantages for the smaller sensors include 1) higher pixel >density, which is beneficial especially if you need a long tele reach, They invented teleconvertors for that. >2) less weight to haul around for body and lenses, That is sometimes true. >3) greater depth of >field, especially beneficial for landscapes and macro work, Not true. Just about all lenses can be stopped down beyond the limit of diffraction. >4) >built-in flash, Get real. Close to the lens is just about the worst position for a flash. Anyhow, there were plenty of 35mm film cameras with a built-in flash. If there is demand, companies will make it. >and 5) less expensive bodies (but not lenses, which >are about the same cost for similar field of view). Yes, that is the main attraction of small sensors. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > Well, my guess is that my Nikkor 17-35 on a Canon 5D is going to > provide a better image quality than a Nikkor 12-24 on a D2X, BINGO!!! > And that is where some people get annoyed: you can get better quality > images for less money by buying the competitors product. I don't see why, especially when a camera and lens system is nothing more than a set of tools to get the best possible image quality. > Nikon once said (or suggested) that DX was much better than full > frame. Well, let them prove it. Other than being cheaper for them to manufacture there is no real benefit to the end-user. It can be beneficial if you want to get some extra reach on the long end, but is detrimental to the FoV on WA. At the end of the day the final image between the two are what matters. Both FF and APS-C produce equally nice images. Rita >> The "full frame" crap is just for >> the huge 35mm lens base out there, and it will take some time for the notion [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > real advantage of APS-C is that it is cheaper. And with huge discounts > on the 5D, even that is not such a great argument anymore. Huge discounts, and price drops indicate lackluster sales. The fact the highest sales are on 6 megapixel dSLR like the Nikon D50, the Pentax K110D and K100D. Canon's next dSLR will be a 6 megapixel sub $500 usd camera. >The fact the >highest sales are on 6 megapixel dSLR like the Nikon D50, the Pentax >K110D and K100D. Canon's next dSLR will be a 6 megapixel sub $500 usd >camera. I don't care about all the cameras I don't want to buy anyhow. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >Huge discounts, and price drops indicate lackluster sales. Or a soon-to-be-released new model. The 5D was announced Q3 of 05; in digital camera years, it's getting old. >The fact the >highest sales are on 6 megapixel dSLR like the Nikon D50, the Pentax >K110D and K100D. Canon's next dSLR will be a 6 megapixel sub $500 usd >camera. Possibly. SignatureSenate Democrats proposed ethics reform legislation on Tuesday. It calls for lawmakers to pay the real cost of corporate jet flights and the full cost of skybox tickets for sporting events. If you want to know ahead of time what's going to happen to this bill, you simply need to watch the last five minutes of Old Yeller. >> Huge discounts, and price drops indicate lackluster sales. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Possibly. I think Canon may drop the price again on the 5D, or do a 20D to 30D upgrade. >>> Huge discounts, and price drops indicate lackluster sales. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >I think Canon may drop the price again on the 5D, or do a 20D to 30D >upgrade. They may, especially if they are going to replace it soon. In that case, though, you may beat yourself up because you didn't buy the replacement. :-( Myself (and this is me, myself, I), I don't wait much. If th3e price drops right after I buy something (and it seems to with great regularity), that's life. I just tell my friends when I'm buying something, and they wait a week, and get the lower price. :-) SignatureSenate Democrats proposed ethics reform legislation on Tuesday. It calls for lawmakers to pay the real cost of corporate jet flights and the full cost of skybox tickets for sporting events. If you want to know ahead of time what's going to happen to this bill, you simply need to watch the last five minutes of Old Yeller. >> Anyway, anything is full frame for a given definition of "frame". DX is >> "full frame", so is 645, so is 35mm, and so is 6x6. And I doubt Nikon [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >that you don't know this or trying to redefine the term you're exposing >yourself as ignorant, loony, or trolling. 35mm is a cropped format compared to 6x6. It's all relative to what you are used to. If medium fomat is your reference, then 35mm is cropped, and the 35mm crop factor is 1.5. Instead of shooting portraits with your 150mm lens, you would use 150/1.5 = about 100mm. Focal lengths relative to the 35mm format are useful for many of us because the format is so common, and we probably have some of the lenses designed for that format around. But this format is now fading and will be much less common in a few years. So we should gradually stop comparing everything to 35mm. The term "cropped format" is a bit depreciating, and suggests you are losing something. You are not. The current Nikon and Canon small frame formats are respectable and here to stay. A normal focal length for the new formats is 30mm. Remember that number: 30mm. No need to multiply anything. KS King pardon wrote: >>> Anyway, anything is full frame for a given definition of "frame". DX is >>> "full frame", so is 645, so is 35mm, and so is 6x6. And I doubt Nikon [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > crop factor is 1.5. Instead of shooting portraits with your 150mm > lens, you would use 150/1.5 = about 100mm. This is an SLR forum, where 35mm is the starting point. Using the word "cropped", or even "magnifying effect" is fine when the context is understood. Signaturejohn mcwilliams >King pardon wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >"cropped", or even "magnifying effect" is fine when the context is >understood. 35mm is not the starting point, it is the ending point. It's over for 35mm. Get used to the new formats. KS >> King pardon wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > KS My guess is that 35mm dSLR's will not be the standard norm as it once was, so I tend to agree with you. I've seen a lot of good work being done with "C" and "H" size sensors. Between the two, I prefer the "H" size sensor when using conventional 35mm lenses. > King pardon wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > "cropped", or even "magnifying effect" is fine when the context is > understood. Actually, this is a DSLR forum, where 35mm is simply the latest format. It was not the starting point. The starting point for DSLR was APSC. >> King pardon wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Actually, this is a DSLR forum, where 35mm is simply the latest format. It > was not the starting point. The starting point for DSLR was APSC. Ah, now I see your previous comment in a different light. Was the first DSLR that size, or smaller, and what was the very first DSLR? My remarks had more to do with understanding focal length, and cropping, and these were generally compared to full frame 35mm cameras, which at first, were all film cameras. Signaturejohn mcwilliams >>> King pardon wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Ah, now I see your previous comment in a different light. Was the first > DSLR that size, or smaller, and what was the very first DSLR? The Kodak DCS 100 was the first self-contained DSLR. It used a Nikon F3 body and had a detachable back housing a 1.3Mp 20.5x16.4mm sensor. It was introduced in 1991. Storage was a 200Mb hard disk. Nikon introduced a series of E cameras -- Fuji bodies with Nikon electronics (What? Nobody wanted to use their own body?) -- the E1, E2, and E3. Kodak also introduced some DCS 100 type cameras with Canon bodies -- same sensor, different body. There were so many varieties of the DCS 100 that you wonder if any two of them were identical. Canon brought out their first DSLR, the EOS D2000 (aka the Kodak DCS 520), in 1998. All of those cameras were incredibly expensive. The first practical DSLR was the Nikon D1 in 1999. It had a 2.7Mp APSC sized sensor, the largest yet, which had a resolution good enough for print. Better yet, it cost less than half than most of its predecessors. It was also robust enough for true professional use in the field. It blew everything else away. It was the first camera that was designed from the ground up to be a DSLR, instead of a patchwork of film camera bodies and sensor backs. > My remarks had more to do with understanding focal length, and cropping, > and these were generally compared to full frame 35mm cameras, which at > first, were all film cameras. It would be far better if people just stopped trying to convert focal length equivalencies. Yeah, the first DSLR had an F3 body, but it might just as well have been a Hasselblad or Mamiya or something even bigger. Manufacturers (well, Kodak) in those days never thought about the DSLR in 35mm terms except they wanted the camera to be compact and easy to handle. The sensors don't even have the same height to width ratio as a 35mm frame. What we think of 35mm film is actually a "double frame" format. It was created by taking 35mm movie film and turning sideways so as to get a bigger negative. Still cameras that used the old format were sometimes referred to as "half frame" format, but that is not really accurate. They use the full movie frame. If still photographers want to use movie film as the standard by which all others are measured, then "full frame" probably would be 70mm. >Actually, this is a DSLR forum, where 35mm is simply the latest format. It >was not the starting point. The starting point for DSLR was APSC. Just because Kodak decided to put an APS-C sized sensor in a digital back for an F3, we should refer to APS-C as 'full frame'? Get real. Note that Kodak also use 2x crop sensors, and the Fujix had the same angle of view as 35mm film. Kodak also produced 1.3x crop sensors, and the sensor in the 14n was of course as big as a 35mm film frame. Sensor sizes vary, so the only reasonable reference is the 35mm film most of those cameras were orginally designed for. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >> Actually, this is a DSLR forum, where 35mm is simply the latest format. It >> was not the starting point. The starting point for DSLR was APSC. > > Just because Kodak decided to put an APS-C sized sensor in a digital > back for an F3, we should refer to APS-C as 'full frame'? Get real. It is no more baseless than calling 35mm "full frame." Get real. > Note that Kodak also use 2x crop sensors, and the Fujix had the same > angle of view as 35mm film. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Sensor sizes vary, so the only reasonable reference is the 35mm film most of > those cameras were orginally designed for. 35mm was originally a movie film. Why not 70mm if you want to use a movie film for a standard? >35mm was originally a movie film. Why not 70mm if you want to use a movie >film for a standard? Because we talking about DSLRs. And the default for SLRs is 24x36mm film. Of course there were a few SLRs for other sizes, but most DSLR are derived from the 24x36mm film SLRs. 24x36mm is called full frame for Nikon and Canon mounts because that is what those mounts are designed for. Together, Nikon and Canon have about 100% of the DSLR market. So if you want to talk about odd ball camera, make sure that you use appropriate qualifiers. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >> 35mm was originally a movie film. Why not 70mm if you want to use a movie >> film for a standard? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > want to talk about odd ball camera, make sure that you use appropriate > qualifiers. I think the numbers are about 85% of the market. Currently the Pentax K10D is the fastest seller in Japan. >>> 35mm was originally a movie film. Why not 70mm if you want to use a movie >>> film for a standard? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >I think the numbers are about 85% of the market. Currently the Pentax >K10D is the fastest seller in Japan. Where do you get the numbers to say that? I asked before, but you didn't answer. SignatureNew Jersey threw out a one-hundred-fifty-year-old law Thursday that prevents idiots from voting. It threw the presidential race into chaos. As if Hillary Clinton wasn't facing enough problems, William Shatner is now leading in New Jersey. > >I think the numbers are about 85% of the market. Currently the Pentax > >K10D is the fastest seller in Japan. > > Where do you get the numbers to say that? > I asked before, but you didn't answer. From March last year... http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Nikon-Predicts-30-Growth-in- Entry-Level-DSLR-Market-Over-Next-Year.htm http://tinyurl.com/u9f8m It's from a bloomberg report and doesn't state wether 80% is US, US + Europe or global. There are many web sites that quote Nikon as aiming for a 40% share such as http://www.digitalworldtokyo.com/2006/03/nikon_hungry_for_more_dslr_sha. php http://tinyurl.com/y28jf7 also from March last year which suggests that the 80% referred to above is a global figure. But............. From August last year http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101 &sid=a1tNArNUlcUU&refer=japan http://tinyurl.com/tbf6n suggests that in Japan the market share is Sony ~ 20% Canon ~ 33% Nikon ~ 27% What relevance the current Japanese market has on the future global market, I can't say. SignatureAlan LeHun >> >I think the numbers are about 85% of the market. Currently the Pentax >> >K10D is the fastest seller in Japan. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >What relevance the current Japanese market has on the future global >market, I can't say. THanks. But NotDisclosed has also presented statements claiming sales of certain cameras are, for example, leading or sagging in certain markets. I was really asking where he gets figures for those. SignatureArnold Schwarzenegger was at the Golden Globes Monday to give away the award for Best Motion Picture Drama. He's no newcomer to the winner's circle himself. The Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas once voted him most lifelike over Al Gore. <guffaw!> I don't know where you get these things, but they're good. Neil >>>> 35mm was originally a movie film. Why not 70mm if you want to use a movie >>>> film for a standard? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Where do you get the numbers to say that? > I asked before, but you didn't answer. Well it is stupid to say Nikon and Canon have 100% of the dSLR market, that assumes Pentax, Sony, Olympus don't sell any product. The PMA publishes sales numbers every quarter. There other sources like Bloomburg et al show this. If I sell dozens of Canon XT/XTi Nikon D200, D50 and D70s per month but only sell a couple of 30D per month and one 5D per Quarter, I wouldn't say the sales of the 5D is brisk. If my price on the 5D is $3,000CDN when Henry's has them priced at $3,300 then I would expect to garner some sales, as we do in Nikon D200. OK the 30D sales have ground to a halt with the anticipated 50D. I haven't heard of a 5D replacement (5D mk.II), but there is a rumour of a D40 like Rebel Jr. 3000D 6 megapixel entry level dSLR, likely leaked a week prior to the Spring PMA 2007 show. I did get a deposit today for a Fuji FinePix S5 Pro, so I have no problem selling high-end stuff. In fact in 2006 we sold more Canon 1Ds mk.II than 5D. >>>>> 35mm was originally a movie film. Why not 70mm if you want to use a movie >>>>> film for a standard? [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >problem selling high-end stuff. In fact in 2006 we sold more Canon 1Ds >mk.II than 5D. Thanks. 50D? I haven't heard that. I'll need to look it up. SignatureMiss New Jersey USA said she's pregnant Monday, after Miss Nevada USA resigned over nude photos. Miss USA just got out of coke rehab. Miss Congeniality won her title with her presentation on how to tell undercover vice cops from the real Johns. >>>>>> 35mm was originally a movie film. Why not 70mm if you want to use a movie >>>>>> film for a standard? [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Thanks. > 50D? I haven't heard that. I'll need to look it up. The number 4 is considered unlucky in Asia, that is the reason Fuji went from the S3 Pro to the S5 Pro. There hasn't been leaks on the 30D replacement yet, but should start shortly. > King pardon wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > -- > john mcwilliams Full frame is a useless statement for all the reasons that have been stated. It is just to belittle the APS sensor which in its current form is better than most 6x4.5 cameras. The use of 35mm sized sensor is far more accurate and descriptive no matter what forum you are in. Kind of reminds me of the dpi vs ppi debate. Dpi is a leftover of the printing industry, ppi is what we deal with in digital photography. But up those of us who have been in this for a while may slip, everyone knows what you mean, but say dpi on this forum, the next 3 or 4 entries will being correcting you. Should be the same with full frame vs 35mm frame. Tom >> King pardon wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> "cropped", or even "magnifying effect" is fine when the context is >> understood. > Full frame is a useless statement for all the reasons that have been > stated. It is just to belittle the APS sensor which in its current form [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you mean, but say dpi on this forum, the next 3 or 4 entries will being > correcting you. Should be the same with full frame vs 35mm frame. I respectfully disagree. Signaturejohn mcwilliams > Full frame is a useless statement for all the reasons that have been > stated. It is just to belittle the APS sensor which in its current form > is better than most 6x4.5 cameras. The use of 35mm sized sensor is far > more accurate and descriptive no matter what forum you are in. No, because there are two 35mm film formats: full-frame and half-frame. "35mm" doesn't specify a known format, and no interesting measure of the frame is 35mm. The better term is "35mm full-frame". Signature--Bryan >> Full frame is a useless statement for all the reasons that have been >> stated. It is just to belittle the APS sensor which in its current form >> is better than most 6x4.5 cameras. The use of 35mm sized sensor is far >> more accurate and descriptive no matter what forum you are in. > > No, because there are two 35mm film formats: full-frame and half-frame. Otherwise known as double frame and single frame. But there are more than those two. The old Robot cameras used a 24x24 frame as I recall. The Stereo Realist frame is 24x23, and the European stereo frame is 24x30 -- all these being on standard 35mm film. And then there are the 35mm panoramic cameras. . . . > "35mm" doesn't specify a known format, and no interesting measure of > the frame is 35mm. The better term is "35mm full-frame". But in a few years young camera owners may be asking, "Daddy, what was 35mm?" Neil > If medium fomat is your reference, then 35mm is cropped, and the 35mm > crop factor is 1.5. Except it's not a "crop factor," which is a nonsensical term. Nothing is cropped by 1.5. You can't crop 1.5 of anything. When you crop 1.0 of it, it's all gone. > Instead of shooting portraits with your 150mm > lens, you would use 150/1.5 = about 100mm. So in that case it's a focal length divider. As generally used it's a focal length multiplier, though that term has mostly been abandoned since it annoys people. > Focal lengths relative to the 35mm format are useful for many of us > because the format is so common, and we probably have some of the > lenses designed for that format around. But this format is now fading > and will be much less common in a few years. > > So we should gradually stop comparing everything to 35mm. The problem there is, focal length equivalents are *useful* for conveying concepts of magnification and angle of view. And 35mm, which does indeed appear to be rapidly dying if it's not dead already, is the commonly accepted standard. If we don't "[compare] everything to 35mm," what would we compare everything to? In digital there isn't any standard. > The term "cropped format" is a bit depreciating, and suggests you are > losing something. You are not. The current Nikon and Canon small frame > formats are respectable and here to stay. > > A normal focal length for the new formats is 30mm. Remember that > number: 30mm. No need to multiply anything. Even if that were true, which it really is not since "the new formats" are all over the lot in dimensions, how would it eliminate the "need to multiply anything"? We're still using lenses for 35mm full frame on "the new formats" and we will be for the foreseeable future. We still need a multiplier to convert actual focal lengths into familiar expectations for magnification and field of view. Neil >> If medium fomat is your reference, then 35mm is cropped, and the 35mm >> crop factor is 1.5. > > Except it's not a "crop factor," which is a nonsensical term. Nothing is > cropped by 1.5. You can't crop 1.5 of anything. When you crop 1.0 of it, > it's all gone. Eh. In photography, when you abstract part of an image it's called "cropping". People talk about "cropping in the viewfinder", so it's not just a darkroom term. So, when you put a smaller sensor in what (started out being) essentially an existing 35mm SLR, "crop factor" is a sensible enough term. The actual number was defined so as to be mathematically useful. >>> If medium fomat is your reference, then 35mm is cropped, and the 35mm >>> crop factor is 1.5. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Eh. In photography, when you abstract part of an image it's called > "cropping". You "abstract part of an image" by removing the part(s) you don't want. That's cropping. But even if you do take "crop" to refer to only the part that remains, "crop factor is 1.5" still makes no sense. Can you crop something so as to end up with 1.5 of it? > People talk about "cropping in the viewfinder", so it's not just a > darkroom term. So, when you put a smaller sensor in what (started out > being) essentially an existing 35mm SLR, "crop factor" is a sensible > enough term. No, it is not. Whether the camera "started out being" an existing 35mm SLR would be irrelevant, and is not true now anyway. The only part of my Nikon dSLRs that started out designed for 35mm is the lens mount. (Well, and maybe the odd screw, etc.) The other parts were designed to be part of a digital instrument from the get-go. The image is whatever fits on the sensor. If that's not cropped, there has been no cropping. That the image circle may be substantially larger than the sensor is irrelevant. Is a view camera photo "cropped" just because the image circle (which has to be oversize to allow for swings and tilts, etc.) is larger? Similarly, how about a picture taken with a perspective-control lens on a 35 -- is that "cropped"? > The actual number was defined so as to be mathematically useful. Absolutely! I'm not disputing that in the least. It's only the horrid term "crop factor" that I'm objecting to. Canon calls the number a "lens focal length conversion factor." That's very good, if a little unwieldy. "Conversion factor" should be good enough in most cases, or just "lens factor" or "f.l. factor." Almost anything would be better than "crop factor" -- but newsgroup folk seem to have this incredible talent for latching on to the least appropriate term and then sticking with it forever. "Crop factor" is the new "prime," apparently. Neil >>>> If medium fomat is your reference, then 35mm is cropped, and the 35mm >>>> crop factor is 1.5. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >talent for latching on to the least appropriate term and then sticking with >it forever. "Crop factor" is the new "prime," apparently. Just get used to the focal lengths on your camera (whatever format it is). For my Rebel XT, 10mm is ultrawide, 30mm is normal, 50mm is portrait length, 100 is medium telephoto, and 200 is long tele. When we discuss subjects that involve different formats, like in this NG, then we need to have a way of doing that... but I agree that "crop factor" is not a good term. Nothing is being cropped on my XT sensor any more than any format crops its images. KS [ . . . ] >>> The actual number was defined so as to be mathematically useful. >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > is). For my Rebel XT, 10mm is ultrawide, 30mm is normal, 50mm is > portrait length, 100 is medium telephoto, and 200 is long tele. Indeed, that'd be a great idea if all dSLRs used the same size sensor -- we could all just get used to that and stop thinking of focal lengths in terms of 35mm full frame. But that isn't likely to happen any time soon, and may never happen. While your Rebel XT may be all you need to care about *now*, Canon makes dSLRs in a couple of other sensor sizes and how sure can you be that you won't want to buy one of those later? And still other dSLR sensor sizes have come along in the last few years. I use Nikon and Minolta dSLRs and so far they all have the same sensor size. Nevertheless, for me it really is, and will continue to be, convenient to continue to think of focal lengths in terms of some familiar standard for magnification and angle of view. And 35mm is that familiar standard, even if 35mm itself is on its death bed. > When we discuss subjects that involve different formats, like in this > NG, then we need to have a way of doing that... but I agree that "crop > factor" is not a good term. > > Nothing is being cropped on my XT sensor any more than any format > crops its images. Absolutely! Neil [...] > But even if you do take "crop" to refer to only the part that remains, "crop > factor is 1.5" still makes no sense. Can you crop something so as to end up > with 1.5 of it? It's interpreted the other way: looking at the cropped image, we figure how much there could have been by multiplying by the crop factor. Signature--Bryan > [...] >> But even if you do take "crop" to refer to only the part that remains, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It's interpreted the other way: looking at the cropped image, we figure > how much there could have been by multiplying by the crop factor. <guffaw!> I don't think so. The 1.5 is a multiplier for converting actual focal length to the equivalent of a familiar focal length. That's what it is and that's all it is. It has nothing to do with cropping. Why would anyone care "how much there could have been" other than what there is? Neil >> [...] >>> But even if you do take "crop" to refer to only the part that remains, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Neil You multiply the marked FL by whatever the factor is, but "Multiplication factor" is a no-go. The image is a crop of the 24x36mm "full frame", but crop factor is wrong. Print-size for print-size, the subject is magnified, but "magnification factor" is not acceptable. Let's just call it a "lens factor" and let it go. SignatureNew Jersey threw out a one-hundred-fifty-year-old law Thursday that prevents idiots from voting. It threw the presidential race into chaos. As if Hillary Clinton wasn't facing enough problems, William Shatner is now leading in New Jersey. >>> [...] >>>> But even if you do take "crop" to refer to only the part that remains, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > "magnification factor" is not acceptable. > Let's just call it a "lens factor" and let it go. I'd be perfectly satisfied with that. As I've mentioned elsewhere in the thread, Canon calls it a "lens focal length conversion factor," which seems perfect except that it's somewhat unwieldy. So either shorten that to "LFLC factor" -- which would be fine except no one would remember it -- or just drop out the middle three words and we get what you suggest. <guffaw!> Neil >As I've mentioned elsewhere in the thread, Canon calls it a "lens focal >length conversion factor," which seems perfect except that it's somewhat >unwieldy. It needs to be unwieldier. Canon should call it "lens focal length conversion factor relative to the standard 35mm frame". The LFLCFRTS35mm. A wieldier acronym would be F(35mm), focal length equivalent to the 35mm format. Likewise, you could have F(6x6) for the square MF format, My 50mm Canon lens on my Rebel XT gives a field of view equal to a 125mm lens on my Hasselblad. For portrait work, I prefer the Hasselblad and that is my basis for comparison. The "conversion factor", the F(6x6), is 2.5. KS >>As I've mentioned elsewhere in the thread, Canon calls it a "lens focal >>length conversion factor," which seems perfect except that it's somewhat [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The LFLCFRTS35mm. <guffaw!> But I think the last part is understood. I would certainly agree that "LFLCFRTS35mm" is a lot better than "crop factor," anyway. > A wieldier acronym would be F(35mm), focal length equivalent to the > 35mm format. Likewise, you could have F(6x6) for the square MF format, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Hasselblad and that is my basis for comparison. The "conversion > factor", the F(6x6), is 2.5. That gets into a whole new area of difficulty, I think. "Normal" focal length used to mean "equal to the diagonal of the negative," though few people took that very strictly. Zeiss did at one time make a 42.5mm lens for the Contax, which was pretty close. The diagonal of the 24x36 format is about 43.2 mm, and if I remember correctly, which does happen occasionally, the diagonal of the 6x6 format (actually about 55x55 mm, isn't it?) is around 83 mm. That would put your conversion factor somewhere around 1.92. On the other hand, most 6x6 cameras seem to have had "normal" lenses somewhat wider than the rule called for, 75mm for Rolleis and so on, just as 35s for many years stuck with old Barnack's too-long 50mm, or even longer in the case of SLRs of the '50s with fast lenses, the 58mm Biotar and others. So that might have to be factored in too. Or not. :-) Neil >>>As I've mentioned elsewhere in the thread, Canon calls it a "lens focal >>>length conversion factor," which seems perfect except that it's somewhat [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > >Neil Some people say the "normal" lens is the diagonal of the format, others say it most closely approximates human viewing. I think neither is true. Operationally, it is the cheapest fast lens that you can make for a camera. For square MF it is 75 or 80mm, for a 35mm SLR it is 50 (usually) or sometimes 55mm, but for a 35mm rangefinder or point-and-shoot it is anywhere from 38mm to 45mm. No need to make room for the mirror in those, so the shorter lengths are more economic. Re focal length equivalent conversion factors: we should use the image format dimensions. The exact figure depends on some assumptions. For Hasselblad 6x6 compared to Canon APS-C, I used 55mm / 22mm = 2.5. This assumes I would use the full width of the Canon sensor... probably the best assumption. But if one has a preference for square format, then one would have to use a comparison factor of 55/14.8 = 3.7, the 14.8mm being the small dimension of the Canon format. KS [ . . . ] >>> My 50mm Canon lens on my Rebel XT gives a field of view equal to a >>> 125mm lens on my Hasselblad. For portrait work, I prefer the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > others say it most closely approximates human viewing. I think neither > is true. Well, certainly the *latter* is not true, since no focal length "approximates human viewing." The diagonal of the format is reasonable enough, but "normal" is pretty much a matter of taste and just about impossible to quantify. Some photographers use only wide-angle lenses, others use only long lenses. > Operationally, it is the cheapest fast lens that you can make for a > camera. That seems a good enough way of deciding it for me, too. > For square MF it is 75 or 80mm, for a 35mm SLR it is 50 > (usually) or sometimes 55mm, Or often 58mm, in the '50s. Zeiss Biotar and Meyer Primoplan for example. > but for a 35mm rangefinder or > point-and-shoot it is anywhere from 38mm to 45mm. No need to make room > for the mirror in those, so the shorter lengths are more economic. Or even shorter -- 35mm became pretty much the standard for point-and-shoots (Konica Big Mini, Yashica T4 etc.) I always liked 35mm myself for an all-around lens. > Re focal length equivalent conversion factors: we should use the image > format dimensions. The exact figure depends on some assumptions. For [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > one would have to use a comparison factor of 55/14.8 = 3.7, the 14.8mm > being the small dimension of the Canon format. But a more useful (and generally accepted) way of arriving at the factor is to compare the diagonals of both formats, not one side or another. That automatically compensates, more or less, for differences in aspect ratio. Neil >> [...] >>> But even if you do take "crop" to refer to only the part that remains, >>> "crop factor is 1.5" still makes no sense. Can you crop something so as >>> to end up with 1.5 of it? >> It's interpreted the other way: looking at the cropped image, we figure >> how much there could have been by multiplying by the crop factor. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > nothing to do with cropping. Why would anyone care "how much there could > have been" other than what there is? It's about lenses designed for the 35mm full-frame. If you had the sensor format for which these were designed, that's how much more there would be. Signature--Bryan > If we don't "[compare] everything to 35mm," what would we > compare everything to? In digital there isn't any standard. You don't need to compare any sensor or film size to any other film size to use it effectively. Bigger sensor or film, more details, more need for more light, shallower depth of field over the complete sensor/negative. Beyond that, it's all a question of what lenses work with what cameras. In large format, if the image circle is big enough, you can use the same lens on 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10, regardless of the camera brands. Does the lens cover this format is the question, not what the lens would do with another format. >> If we don't "[compare] everything to 35mm," what would we >> compare everything to? In digital there isn't any standard. > > You don't need to compare any sensor or film size to any other film size > to use it effectively. I don't *need* to, but it's just a very convenient way of relating unfamiliar focal lengths to the characteristics of familiar focal lengths. I agree that there's no other reason (at least no other important to me) to compare to any particular film size. > Bigger sensor or film, more details, more need > for more light, shallower depth of field over the complete [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > camera brands. Does the lens cover this format is the question, not > what the lens would do with another format. Sure. For view cameras I would agree with you, but that's really quite a different ball of wax. For long-time 35mm users, it's just very convenient to think of focal lengths in 35mm terms. Most digital camera makers recognize this, and some even mark their lenses with 35mm equivalencies. My Minolta 7Hi and A200 cameras for example have the zoom ring graduated from 28 to 200mm, even though the actual focal length range is only 7.2 to 50.8mm. Neil > For long-time 35mm users, it's just very convenient > to think of focal lengths in 35mm terms. People who haven't used other formats than 35 mm are likely to be camera users rather than photographers. >> For long-time 35mm users, it's just very convenient >> to think of focal lengths in 35mm terms. > >People who haven't used other formats than 35 mm are likely to be camera >users rather than photographers. You mean people like Henri Cartier-Bresson? So, how do you remember equivalent lenses? SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >>> For long-time 35mm users, it's just very convenient >>> to think of focal lengths in 35mm terms. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So, how do you remember equivalent lenses? You don't need to. Do you look at a scene and think I will need 19.6 mm here or do you just think I will use a medium wide here. Anyway you know what results a lens will give without even putting it on the camera after a bit of practice. >You don't need to. >Do you look at a scene and think I will need 19.6 mm here or do you just >think I will use a medium wide here. >Anyway you know what results a lens will give without even putting it on the >camera after a bit of practice. Given a choice between 20, 24, 28, and 35, yes I do think about which lens to try first or which lens to take. If I need 24mm on 35mm film, I know I don't have to try digital, because I don't have anything wide enough on DX (though I should remember to try multiple shots and stitching). I think lots of people know what their lenses do on 35mm film, so they want to be able to compute which lenses they would need on APS-C sized sensors. They don't want to randomly try lenses for a couple of year to re-acquire the knowledge they already have. (The best thing is to use a 24x36mm sensor. Many lenses have unique characteristics that are not present and other lenses). SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >>You don't need to. >>Do you look at a scene and think I will need 19.6 mm here or do you just [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I don't have anything wide enough on DX (though I should remember to try > multiple shots and stitching). But you don't need to know its 24mm do you? You stand there and look at it and think I don't have a lens wide enough to do that. You don't usually have to get the lens out the bag to know it isn't wide enough. (If its a still image, stiching works really well. You can try QTVR too.) > I think lots of people know what their lenses do on 35mm film, so they > want to be able to compute which lenses they would need on APS-C sized > sensors. They don't want to randomly try lenses for a couple of year > to re-acquire the knowledge they already have. I would imagine they are like me and would try all their lenses the same day they got their new digital. It would then take only a few shoots to know which lens does what. I suppose it may be that I had an APS SLR as a point and shoot camera and a fully manual 35mm as my main camera. Even then my waterproof digital was used for most shoots before I bought a 4/3 SLR. Even with that many different formats I don't find it necessary to work in equivilents of 35mm.. especially as its meaningless. Maybe lenses should quote their angle of coverage (at infinity as it varies with focus). > (The best thing is to use a 24x36mm sensor. Many lenses have unique > characteristics that are not present and other lenses). Like lens shifting on large format? Oops that's not 35mm. ;-) >> If I need 24mm on 35mm film, I know I don't have to try digital, because >> I don't have anything wide enough on DX (though I should remember to try >> multiple shots and stitching). > >But you don't need to know its 24mm do you? The label says 24mm. I can try to remember the serial number, but that is not very productive. >You stand there and look at it and think I don't have a lens wide enough to >do that. >You don't usually have to get the lens out the bag to know it isn't wide >enough. >(If its a still image, stiching works really well. You can try QTVR too.) I know my lenses by what they do on 35mm film. Digital is relatively new, and still prefer film, so the effects of lenses on DX is not yet intuitive. (and given the technical advantages of 24x36mm sensor, I'd like to have a 'full frame' digital camera in the future.) It is far easier for me to think about what lens I would use on 35mm and then compute which one I need on DX. >> I think lots of people know what their lenses do on 35mm film, so they >> want to be able to compute which lenses they would need on APS-C sized [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >they got their new digital. >It would then take only a few shoots to know which lens does what. Wow, you can just put a lens on a camera and then remember for ever the field of view? And that for 10 lenses or more. Wow. >Maybe lenses should quote their angle of coverage (at infinity as it varies >with focus). How would you do that for lenses that are designed for 35mm film and then used on APS-C? Relabel the lenses? >> (The best thing is to use a 24x36mm sensor. Many lenses have unique >> characteristics that are not present and other lenses). > >Like lens shifting on large format? >Oops that's not 35mm. ;-) With large format anything takes at least half an hour. I guess that after setting up the tripod, people just start with a nice cup of tea before they go on. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >>>You don't need to. >>>Do you look at a scene and think I will need 19.6 mm here or do you just [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > (If its a still image, stiching works really well. You can try QTVR > too.) If someone has been working with 35mm for 20 years then I can see where adjusting to a different sensor size could be a bit of a learning curve. This is what the "equivalent" numbers address to some extent. They specifically address acceptance angle, not depth of field, but they're still useful. >> I think lots of people know what their lenses do on 35mm film, so they >> want to be able to compute which lenses they would need on APS-C sized [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > day they got their new digital. > It would then take only a few shoots to know which lens does what. Takes a lot longer to be able to look at a scene and pull a lens out of the bag and be reasonably certain that it's the "right" lens. When you're doing it for fun it's not an issue, when you're doing it for pay time is money. > I suppose it may be that I had an APS SLR as a point and shoot camera > and a fully manual 35mm as my main camera. Even then my waterproof [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Like lens shifting on large format? > Oops that's not 35mm. ;-) It isn't? There are numerous shift lenses for 35mm, many of which also work quite nicely with digital. Some of the Russian ones are even reasonably priced. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >This is what the "equivalent" numbers address to some extent. They >specifically address acceptance angle, not depth of field, but they're >still useful. DoF is easy: just open the aperture one stop compared to 35mm full frame (for 1.4x, 1.5 and 1.6 should be close enough, two stops for the 4/3 system). SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > >> For long-time 35mm users, it's just very convenient > >> to think of focal lengths in 35mm terms. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You mean people like Henri Cartier-Bresson? Cartier-Bresson used rangefinders, which tend to be more a photographer's camera than a camera user's camera, at least when he was using it. > So, how do you remember equivalent lenses? Knowing the precise measurements is really irrelevant to anyone who's not confusing technogrit with taking photographs. Shoot the damn things and see what lens does what with which film/sensor. My 50 mm f/1.8 lens is a portrait lens on the Nikon; the other 50 mm f/2 does other things on the Leica (and with the old lenses, and even probably with some of the new, the focal length is just part of what signature the lens puts on its photographs). >> >> For long-time 35mm users, it's just very convenient >> >> to think of focal lengths in 35mm terms. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >photographer's camera than a camera user's camera, at least when he was >using it. I think you lost me here. HCB was a photographer because he used a Leica? Mere mortals have to use multiple formats to be considered 'photographers' otherwise we are just 'camera users'. But if I go out today to buy a Leica M, then I will also become a real photographer. Wow. >> So, how do you remember equivalent lenses? > >Knowing the precise measurements is really irrelevant to anyone who's >not confusing technogrit with taking photographs. > >Shoot the damn things and see what lens does what with which film/sensor. Som people are a bit more analytical than that (I guess Ansel Adams was way more analytical). If I know what lens I would use on one format, I just compute which one I want in another format. >My 50 mm f/1.8 lens is a portrait lens on the Nikon; For example, I do not consider 50mm a good portrait lens. The reason is that I like 105mm most (on 35mm film), and 50mm on DX is just too wide. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message