 |
 | 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 / General Photo Topics / UK Photography / June 200835mm equivalent sizes
Hi I have a 75 - 300mm telephoto that I bought for my Canon film camera. I have now gone digital and got a Canon 450D. If I use this lens on the 450D what would be the 35mm equivalent range? I can't remember how to work it out. Thanks Phil > Hi > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >My Nikon is 1.5, I think Canon is 1.6 conversion factor, i.e 75 x 1.6 = >120. Geoff. >Hi > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Thanks >Phil As Geoff says, multiply by 1.6. So you are looking at 120-480mm.  SignaturePaul Giverin British Jet Engine Website:- www.britjet.co.uk My photos:- www.pbase.com/vendee Thanks guys. Cheers Phil >>Hi >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> > As Geoff says, multiply by 1.6. So you are looking at 120-480mm. Following up to Paul Giverin > As Geoff says, multiply by 1.6. So you are looking at 120-480mm. I just use 1.5 as its easier to work out :-) A further point is that (I think) when using the rule of thumb with telephotos that you need a shutter speed at least the length of the lens, its the unmultiplied number thats relevant as the theoretical longer length of the lens is cropping not magnification. SignatureMike::::::::: remove clothing to email > Following up to Paul Giverin > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > relevant as the theoretical longer length of the lens is cropping not > magnification. I am thinking a whole new language is needed to reflect the newer technology. *Drop the 35mm equivalents and use 2x. 3x, -2x or something where a standard is defined as a certain angle of view. As CCD chip sizes vary I guess there can't be a single fact to give 35mm equivalent. *Stop using the expression "footage" when talking of video. *Come up with a noise that is different to an old SLR to give the impression (in drama) that a photo has been taken. *Is ASA/ISO film speed really relevant now? Again should we have something that is based on factors of a new norm? I am happy with the 35mm terminology - but feel it is meaningless to the younger generation. >I am thinking a whole new language is needed to reflect the newer >technology. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >I am happy with the 35mm terminology - but feel it is meaningless to the >younger generation. I think we should abandon terms like resolution, sharpness, contrast, plane of focus, depth of field, out-of-focus rendering, backlight, exposure value, focal length, shutter speed and aperture because they also seem to be meaningless to the younger generation. >>I am thinking a whole new language is needed to reflect the newer >>technology. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > exposure value, focal length, shutter speed and aperture because they > also seem to be meaningless to the younger generation. I am sure you made the comment 'tongue in cheek', but the ones you list are based on fact and are not numerically related to a single format that is no longer the main one in use. >> I think we should abandon terms like resolution, sharpness, contrast, >> plane of focus, depth of field, out-of-focus rendering, backlight, >> exposure value, focal length, shutter speed and aperture because they >> also seem to be meaningless to the younger generation. >> >I am sure you made the comment 'tongue in cheek' You aren't quite as daft as I thought. >>> I think we should abandon terms like resolution, sharpness, contrast, >>> plane of focus, depth of field, out-of-focus rendering, backlight, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You aren't quite as daft as I thought. Perhaps angle of view of lens could be used - A telephoto would be (eg.10degrees: wide angle - 100degrees.) This would work - irrespective of the format size. Unfortunately a large telephoto would have a small number - so it may not appeal to the marketeers. What do you think Bruce and others? Could f numbers also be replaced - perhaps the old EV numbers were not such a bad idea if applied to digital. After all - does anyone need to know the effective diameter of the aperture as a ratio of the focal length? >>>> I think we should abandon terms like resolution, sharpness, contrast, >>>> plane of focus, depth of field, out-of-focus rendering, backlight, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >What do you think Bruce and others? I was right the first time. You're *completely* daft. ;-) John <Who90nospam@ntlworld.com> observed >>>> I think we should abandon terms like resolution, sharpness, contrast, >>>> plane of focus, depth of field, out-of-focus rendering, backlight, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >the format size. Unfortunately a large telephoto would have a small number - >so it may not appeal to the marketeers. When I used to use medium format, I never felt the need to express focal lengths in 35mm terms!! You have a good point, why not (true) focal length / diagonal of sensor as a measure of 'zoominess'? Then for 35mm (which coincidentally has a 35mm diagonal of the sensor) we get:- 28mm = 0.8z 35mm = 1.0z 50mm = 1.43z 80mm = 2.29z ... 400mm = 11.4z and you can do the same for your favourite format! >What do you think Bruce and others? > >Could f numbers also be replaced - perhaps the old EV numbers were not such >a bad idea if applied to digital. After all - does anyone need to know the >effective diameter of the aperture as a ratio of the focal length? F numbers are a non-dimensional variable which can be readily calculated - keep 'em & teach 'em. The real problem is that f numbers are actually expressed as 1/f.no. so people think that 11 is a 'large aperture' and 2 is small! But since the sensor makers have crazily adopted a similar and less logical approach for a dimension (eg. 1/1.8"), it can't be that bad! Mike [The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting] SignatureMichael J Davis <>< Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused the meaning of "discussion" with "digression". <>< > John <Who90nospam@ntlworld.com> observed >> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > [The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting] I like your point about not needing to think of 35mm equivalents when using medium format. I expect that sensors are in a number different sizes as well (although smaller) - so this adds weight to a non format way of expressing zoominess. (where Zoom vale 1 is equal to diagonal of sensor) >> John <Who90nospam@ntlworld.com> observed >>> [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > format way of expressing zoominess. (where Zoom vale 1 is equal to > diagonal of sensor) That is the problem the amount of sizes of sensors Its relatively easy with dslr's have mostly APS-c size then 4 thirds but when you get to the compacts that may be anything from 12mm to 4mm diagonals all claiming 35 to 140 Equivalents SignatureTrev Nobody is perfect. But Being a Yorkshire man is as close as you can get. > Then for 35mm (which coincidentally has a 35mm diagonal of the > sensor) Except the image size in a full-frame 35mm film camera is 24mm x 36mm, so the diagonal is about 43mm. Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> observed >> Then for 35mm (which coincidentally has a 35mm diagonal of the >> sensor) > >Except the image size in a full-frame 35mm film camera is 24mm x 36mm, >so the diagonal is about 43mm. Whoops! You are right!! That's even better - was expecting the 50mm factor to be nearer 1! Sorry for the confusion. The principle is OK though! Mike [The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting] SignatureMichael J Davis <>< Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused the meaning of "discussion" with "digression". <>< >Sorry for the confusion. The principle is OK though! No it isn't. It suffers from exactly the same problems as the focal length system. Let's take a 50mm lens as an example. On 35mm or full frame digital it will be a 1.15, 50mm being 1.15x the diagonal of the format. On most Nikon, Sony, Pentax or Samsung DSLRs it will be a 1.73 thanks to the smaller sensor. On most Canon DSLRs it will be a 1.85 because the sensor is slightly smaller. On a Canon 1D Mk III or Leica R9/DMR DSLR it will be a 1.50. On a Four Thirds DSLR it will be a 2.30. So the same lens can be a 1.15, a 1.50, a 1.73, a 1.85 or a 2.30. How does this make things any simpler? How on earth do you badge a 50mm lens that could be used on any of the five formats? The easiest thing is to call it a 50mm lens, because its focal length doesn't change one iota, and learn what that focal length means for each sensor format. This requires knowledge that must be learned. The person behind these stupid ideas doesn't want to learn, and expects other people, especially the camera manufacturers, to do his thinking for him. But photography is an amalgam of many skills that need to be learnt. Some of them are artistic, and some are technical. Anyone who isn't prepared to make the effort to learn, and expects other people to do everything for him except press the shutter release is not fit to be called a photographer. >> Sorry for the confusion. The principle is OK though! > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > other people to do everything for him except press the shutter release > is not fit to be called a photographer. So Lens need to be designated as .8, 2, 2.5, times the standard. Now all we need is a standard SignatureTrev Nobody is perfect. But Being a Yorkshire man is as close as you can get. > No it isn't. It suffers from exactly the same problems as the focal > length system. You're never going to get away from the fact that effective zoom is dependent on the ratio of focal length to image size - we're just suggesting referring to it as a ratio rather than taking the extra step of converting it to "35mm equivalent" when the 35mm format is no longer relevant to many users. >> Then for 35mm (which coincidentally has a 35mm diagonal of the >> sensor) > > Except the image size in a full-frame 35mm film camera is 24mm x 36mm, > so the diagonal is about 43mm. Let's not have facts get in the way of an important, innovative idea. Signaturesavvo orig. invib. man > >> Then for 35mm (which coincidentally has a 35mm diagonal of the > >> sensor) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Let's not have facts get in the way of an important, innovative idea. The concept of wide/normal/long lenses has long been linked to the image diagonal, but people tended to think of the ratios in terms of focal lengths for 35mm (normal ~ 50mm) and 6x6 (normal ~ 80mm) because those were the prevalent formats. Formats are so varied these days that a more general system makes sense. You can be sure that users of large-format cameras, arguably some of the most 'serious' photographers, don't think in terms of 35mm equivalents. >> >> Then for 35mm (which coincidentally has a 35mm diagonal of the >> >> sensor) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > users of large-format cameras, arguably some of the most 'serious' > photographers, don't think in terms of 35mm equivalents. Whilst the focal length and its relationship to the diagonal (diameter of image cast by the lens) is the principle - the image size was more appreciated when one worked with slides, plates, negatives. In most digital cameras (incl video) the sensor is never seen and the user is not conscious of it. Again - any thoughts on expressing the angle of view as a way of describing a lens in advertising and specifications - rather than constantly referring back to 35mm? In case Bruce thinks I am a young upstart - then I will admit to my first camera being a folding Kodak which took 620 film (3.5 x 2.5" if I recall correctly. I used to load the film from bulk in my darkroom by sticking it onto reclaimed backing papers. The f/6.3 lens seems big. Before moving to digital I used a Ziess Werra and then several SLRs (Canon and Olympus). Thanks for showing how to debate a point Bruce. > Whilst the focal length and its relationship to the diagonal > (diameter of image cast by the lens) is the principle - the image [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > describing a lens in advertising and specifications - rather than > constantly referring back to 35mm? It's a bit abstract compared to zoom ratio. The angle of view of the normal human eye (focal length ~ 24mm, retinal diameter ~ 24mm) is about 180 degrees, which is like a 16mm lens on a 35mm camera, but a 45-55mm lens on a 35mm camera produces normal perspective. This disparity is caused by the curvature of the retina. >In case Bruce thinks I am a young upstart - then I will admit to my first >camera being a folding Kodak which took 620 film (3.5 x 2.5" if I recall >correctly. I used to load the film from bulk in my darkroom by sticking it >onto reclaimed backing papers. The f/6.3 lens seems big. Before moving to >digital I used a Ziess Werra and then several SLRs (Canon and Olympus). >Thanks for showing how to debate a point Bruce. You don't need to be young to be completely daft. Still, you have done us all a favour, by proving that the current system of referring to focal length and aperture cannot be bettered. What can be bettered is people's knowledge, but this is the 21st century and people of all ages are too darn lazy to learn. ;-) >>In case Bruce thinks I am a young upstart - then I will admit to my first >>camera being a folding Kodak which took 620 film (3.5 x 2.5" if I recall [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > ;-) Do you mean they should learn about a format they may never use? The science of focal lengths and f numbers is not what I am arguing against -- it is the constant reference to it that is irrelevant to a large proportion of camera buyers. >>>In case Bruce thinks I am a young upstart - then I will admit to my first >>>camera being a folding Kodak which took 620 film (3.5 x 2.5" if I recall [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >constant reference to it that is irrelevant to a large proportion of camera >buyers. Complete nonsense. All the current DSLR manufacturers with the exception of the Four Thirds consortium will have at least one model with a full frame sensor by this time next year. Canon and Nikon are already there, with several new full frame models due. Pentax and Samsung are working on a full frame model, and Sony already has a full frame sensor ready for production that will also be sold to Nikon. So the 35mm format is alive and well, and strengthening its position in the marketplace with more and more full frame digital SLRs. As for compact digital cameras, everyone who has had a 35mm compact camera will be familiar with focal lengths, if they chose to take an interest. Those who took, and still take, an interest will find some reassurance in 35mm-equivalent focal lengths being quoted for their new digital compact cameras. And then there are the idiots who want to introduce a completely new system that bears no resemblance to the only one that most people can understand ... and those who cannot understand 35mm equivalents won't be able (or won't make the effort) to understand the new system either. It's madness, pure and simple, born out of the idea that photography can be reduced to one or two simple parameters. It can't. There is a lot about photography that needs to be learned, and dumbing it down so that lazy people can understand it without thinking for themselves is the road to ruin: You will never be able to dumb it down enough. It's madness, pure and simple, born out of the idea that photography can be reduced to one or two simple parameters. It can't. There is a lot about photography that needs to be learned, I agree - but expecting 35mm to be understood by everyone isn't a fact. Making sensors to full frame 35mm size is possibly a sop to traditionalists. I am suggesting dropping the term "35mm equivalent" as it is meaningless to many. (not Bruce or myself). It may even be an excuse for increasing prices. >>It's madness, pure and simple, born out of the idea that photography >>can be reduced to one or two simple parameters. It can't. There is a >>lot about photography that needs to be learned, > >I agree - but expecting 35mm to be understood by everyone isn't a fact. >Making sensors to full frame 35mm size is possibly a sop to traditionalists. Don't be ridiculous. The 35mm equivalent focal length is something that a good proportion of digital camera users understand. It is complete madness to consider introducing a more complex alternative that no-one will understand. >I am suggesting dropping the term "35mm equivalent" as it is meaningless to >many. (not Bruce or myself). Virtually every technical aspect of photography is completely meaningless to the majority of camera users. The situation is getting worse. That's because the affordability of cameras and their interface with near-universal personal computers means that many millions of people have cameras who would not have been interested in owning one before. The additional millions have no interest in the technicalities, so they would not be remotely interested in your madcap ideas. >It may even be an excuse for increasing prices. So there's a conspiracy. Funny how there's always a conspiracy, and the only way to counter it is to confuse tens of millions of people with ideas that are of no use to anyone! Priceless. > Don't be ridiculous. The 35mm equivalent focal length is something > that a good proportion of digital camera users understand. It is > complete madness to consider introducing a more complex alternative > that no-one will understand. How much longer are you going to claim that using ratios is more complex, when in fact it's simpler? Just because your brain is stuck in one gear doesn't mean that everyone else has the same limited outlook. >> >> Then for 35mm (which coincidentally has a 35mm diagonal of the >> >> sensor) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > users of large-format cameras, arguably some of the most 'serious' > photographers, don't think in terms of 35mm equivalents. Having shot 5x4, 645 and 6x6 for several years, I know. But thanks for the egg-sucking advice. BTW, blow. Don't suck. Signaturesavvo orig. invib. man > >> >> Then for 35mm (which coincidentally has a 35mm diagonal of the > >> >> sensor) [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Having shot 5x4, 645 and 6x6 for several years, I know. But thanks for > the egg-sucking advice. So you agree that a more general system of ratio, rather than "35mm equivalent", makes sense? Jolly good. > BTW, blow. Don't suck. I thought it was the other way round ... no hang on, that was something else ... >> > On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:18:09 +0100 >> >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> Having shot 5x4, 645 and 6x6 for several years, I know. But thanks for >> the egg-sucking advice. Oops. Forgot the 6x9. > So you agree that a more general system of ratio, rather than "35mm > equivalent", makes sense? Jolly good. No. I agree that "photographers, don't think in terms of 35mm equivalents." There is sufficient information in the focal length for anyone to know what's a normal/wide/long lens for the format they're working on. I've pondered a complaint to the ASA about Panasonic's current oxymoronic ad claiming their compact camera has a wide-angle 28 mm lens. Signaturesavvo orig. invib. man >>> I think we should abandon terms like resolution, sharpness, contrast, >>> plane of focus, depth of field, out-of-focus rendering, backlight, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You aren't quite as daft as I thought. I find it a bit amusing that 'anti-camera shake setting' on some budget cameras merely increases the sensitivity. A young friend of mine revealed this to me - when she wasn't satisfied with some photos taken in quite good conditions, I found that they had been taken at ISO 800. J> I find it a bit amusing that 'anti-camera shake setting' on some budget J> cameras merely increases the sensitivity. A young friend of mine revealed J> this to me - when she wasn't satisfied with some photos taken in quite good J> conditions, I found that they had been taken at ISO 800. J> I hope she took the oportunity to learn why from you. Auto iso might be a better option for her. My point-and-shoot seems to have an algorithm that will open up the lens as much as possible before upping the iso at some unknown speed level. I don't know if it is intelligent enough to bring focal length into the equation but it does seem to keep the iso as low as possible.. On my Nikon D80 the speed at which auto iso will kick in can be set but it would be useful if that could be varied automatically with focal length. After all, these cameras and lenses know all about each other, so it should be easy for Nikon to implement that. SignatureAlan http://rp.clifford.org.uk/potpourri/ ( If replying by mail, please note that all "sardines" are canned. However, unless this a very old message, a "tuna" will swim right through. ) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.