Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

digital combinations

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 3:24:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.equipment.35mm, rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, uk.rec.photo.misc, aus.photo (More info?)

What digital combination would give the equivalent of a 35mm slr with a
80 - 200 mm lens.

I primarily shoot people walking in crowds. I was using a Nikon 35mm
with a 80-200 zoom to isolate subjects. What is the digital
equivalent?
/
What would you recommend using to shoot people walking, in digital?

More about : digital combinations

December 3, 2004 4:03:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,uk.rec.photo.misc,aus.photo (More info?)

In article <1102019070.769939.244220@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, nomads_05
@yahoo.com says...
>
>What digital combination would give the equivalent of a 35mm slr with a
>80 - 200 mm lens.
>
>I primarily shoot people walking in crowds. I was using a Nikon 35mm
>with a 80-200 zoom to isolate subjects. What is the digital
>equivalent?
>/
>What would you recommend using to shoot people walking, in digital?

This depends on the magnification ratio of your particular digital camera.
Say, with Nikon's 1.5 ratio, you'd be dealing with 53mm - 133mm for an almost
exact match. If you have 1.6, then it's 56mm - 125mm. Obviously, your camera's
mfgr will have something like 50mm - 150mm, or so.

Hunt
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 12:00:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,uk.rec.photo.misc,aus.photo (More info?)

> What would you recommend using to shoot people walking, in digital?

An AK47!!!
Related resources
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 12:00:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,uk.rec.photo.misc,aus.photo (More info?)

"Zinnick" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:41afba7f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>> What would you recommend using to shoot people walking, in digital?
>
> An AK47!!!
>

Is that a Digital AK47? :) 
December 3, 2004 12:00:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,uk.rec.photo.misc,aus.photo (More info?)

In article <z5Prd.1519$TV.1340@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>, harvey@not.ntlworld.com
says...
>
>
>"Zinnick" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message
>news:41afba7f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>
>>> What would you recommend using to shoot people walking, in digital?
>>
>> An AK47!!!
>>
>
>Is that a Digital AK47? :) 

Yes, they recently replaced the Kalashnikov action with a Foveon sensor!

Hunt
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 12:00:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,uk.rec.photo.misc,aus.photo (More info?)

"Harvey" <harvey@not.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:z5Prd.1519$TV.1340@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Zinnick" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message
> news:41afba7f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> >
> >> What would you recommend using to shoot people walking, in digital?
> >
> > An AK47!!!
> >
>
> Is that a Digital AK47? :) 
>
>

Nah, they're not there yet. But you can get a digital M16 no problem.
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 1:15:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,aus.photo (More info?)

"Zinnick" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:41afba7f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> > What would you recommend using to shoot people walking, in digital?
>
> An AK47!!!
>
>
>
>

No!

A CANNON
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 6:35:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.equipment.35mm, rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, uk.rec.photo.misc, aus.photo (More info?)

Clarification

In order to do what an Optical zoom lens 80-200 zoom can do on a film
camera would we still us an 80-200 zoom on a digital?
Has something changed in the switch from film to digital.
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 11:27:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,uk.rec.photo.misc,aus.photo (More info?)

"-oo0-GoldTrader-0oo-" <nomads_05@yahoo.com> writes:

> Clarification
>
> In order to do what an Optical zoom lens 80-200 zoom can do on a film
> camera would we still us an 80-200 zoom on a digital?
> Has something changed in the switch from film to digital.

Yes, on most DSLRs the sensor is smaller than the 24x36cm dimensions of
standard 35mm film (the 35mm is the size of the film including the sprocket
holes, 24mm is the size that gets exposed).

This means when you put a lens designed for a film camera on a DSLR, except for
the high end DSLRs, you are only using the center of the lens.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 5:40:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.equipment.35mm, rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, uk.rec.photo.misc, aus.photo (More info?)

So you are saying, the Nikon 1.5 ratio w/ 133mm is about equal to the
200mm on a 35mm?

Hunt wrote:
> In article <1102019070.769939.244220@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
nomads_05
> @yahoo.com says...
> >
> >What digital combination would give the equivalent of a 35mm slr
with a
> >80 - 200 mm lens.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 10:55:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,uk.rec.photo.misc,aus.photo (More info?)

"-oo0-GoldTrader-0oo-" <nomads_05@yahoo.com> writes:

> So you are saying, the Nikon 1.5 ratio w/ 133mm is about equal to the
> 200mm on a 35mm?

Well in terms of field of view, yes. However in terms of depth of field, it
still is a 133mm lens.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 1:13:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Michael Meissner wrote:
[]
> Yes, on most DSLRs the sensor is smaller than the 24x36cm dimensions
> of standard 35mm film
[]

Even on film SLRs it's only 24 x 36mm!

<G>

David
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 1:13:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> writes:

> Michael Meissner wrote:
> []
> > Yes, on most DSLRs the sensor is smaller than the 24x36cm dimensions
> > of standard 35mm film
> []
>
> Even on film SLRs it's only 24 x 36mm!

Yep. Thanks!

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 2:42:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Michael Meissner wrote:

> "-oo0-GoldTrader-0oo-" <nomads_05@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>>So you are saying, the Nikon 1.5 ratio w/ 133mm is about equal to the
>>200mm on a 35mm?
>
>
> Well in terms of field of view, yes. However in terms of depth of field, it
> still is a 133mm lens.

As DOF goes to how the print will look in the end, it all washes out as if the
DOF were for the cropped FL, that is to say, shallower.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 12:08:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.equipment.35mm, rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, uk.rec.photo.misc, aus.photo (More info?)

I went to Comp-usa. The salesman did not know a thing. The batteries
were all dead. The Camera's did not work.

The Nikon said optical 7x

How do I compare a 7x to a 200mm lens?

There was a lens that had a lot of numbers. The last was something
like 200 equivalent to 134.

What do these numbers mean.

Does the 200 equivalent mean that it is a 134mm lens with the view of a
200?
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 10:26:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.equipment.35mm, rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, uk.rec.photo.misc, aus.photo (More info?)

I know less today than I did yesterday.
Thanks! You seem to be able to answer this stuff as easily as I answer
inquires over in misc.invest.futures.

George E. Cawthon - If the sensor is smaller then prints simply need
more magnification.

I think in general the digital sensors are smaller. So would that
mean, that to get a shot like a 200mm I would need to go to even a
larger digital telephoto?

As for the example with prints. I must confess I never use them. You
cannot do the panoramic beauty of Hawaii any justice in small pictures.
With 35mm I always shot slides. With the new digital I am pretty much
aiming at a 15 inch computer screen, aware that I may be using a larger
Apple screen later.

It seems to me that I have two choices when I am shooting a picture. I
can shoot everything, and then crop it, or I can do the major cropping
with the telephoto before I shoot, then trim it later.

I do not know enough about digital to know. However, cropping and
blowing up a wide shot, seems to derogate the final picture more than a
telephoto.

Film pictures cropped from the telephoto might make it. The same shot
from a wide-angle shot might be unusable. Is digital the same?

George E. Cawthon - A 200mm would yield an image size 4x the size of a
50mm lens.
If this were done by 4x ing it would it diminish the picture?
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 11:35:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,uk.rec.photo.misc,aus.photo (More info?)

-oo0-GoldTrader-0oo- wrote:
> I went to Comp-usa. The salesman did not know a thing. The batteries
> were all dead. The Camera's did not work.
>
> The Nikon said optical 7x
>
> How do I compare a 7x to a 200mm lens?
>
> There was a lens that had a lot of numbers. The last was something
> like 200 equivalent to 134.
>
> What do these numbers mean.
>
> Does the 200 equivalent mean that it is a 134mm lens with the view of a
> 200?
>
You can't compare. 7x just means that the longest focal
length is 7 times the shortest focal length. You have to
know either the short or the long focal length. It has
nothing to do with 35mm equivalents. I suggest that you
look at the real focal lengths not equivalents. Second you
need to look at the size of the sensor. Without knowing
that you will have no way of really comparing what you might
get to what a 200mm lens on a 35mm would deliver. If the
sensor is the same size as you 35mm camera then the camera
will essentially in all ways handle the same. If the
sensor is smaller then prints simply need more magnification.

Let's say you want 4x6 prints. On your 35mm camera the
prints would be 4x enlargements, on a 6meg camera they might
be 7.3x enlargements and on my 4 meg they would be 19x
enlargements. That's because the sensors are much smaller
than 35mm film and my 4meg sensor is only about 5mm high.

A 200mm would yield an image size 4x the size of a 50mm
lens. If my 8mm lens produces about the same image on a 4x6
as your 50 mm lens (and it does due to the extreme
enlargement) then, if I zoom the lens out to 4x8 (i.e. 32mm)
the 4x6 will show the same as your 200mm lens.
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 2:42:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc,aus.photo (More info?)

-oo0-GoldTrader-0oo- wrote:

> I went to Comp-usa. The salesman did not know a thing. The batteries
> were all dead. The Camera's did not work.
>
> The Nikon said optical 7x

When a camera manufacturer advertises "7X" (whatever) it is simply a marketing
number that is not very meaningful in terms of what you really get.

7x means that the longest FL divided by the shortest is 7 (or close enough). It
could mean 10mm to 70mm, it could mean 30mm to 210mm.

> How do I compare a 7x to a 200mm lens?

A 200mm lens (on a 35mm camera) is very roughly 4x your natural view (as the CW
is that a 50mm ("normal") lens is roughly equal to human vision. Emphasis on
"roughly" for reasons I won't mention here).

For a digital camera (of the SLR ilk), then there is the 'crop factor' due to
the smaller sensor size. In turn, for an equal sized print at the end, you get
a magnification similar to a change in focal lenght. So a 35mm camera 200mm
lens will provide a print that looks like it came from a 300mm lens on a 35mm
film frame (1.5x crop, crop factors vary slightly).

>
> There was a lens that had a lot of numbers. The last was something
> like 200 equivalent to 134.

They were saying "this lens is 'equivalent' to a 35mm 200mm lens." in terms of
the final image.

>
> What do these numbers mean.
>
> Does the 200 equivalent mean that it is a 134mm lens with the view of a
> 200?

When put on a camera with a crop factor of 200/134 (1.5), yes.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 6:58:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,uk.rec.photo.misc,aus.photo (More info?)

In article <1102346765.409237.182270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
-oo0-GoldTrader-0oo- <nomads_05@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I know less today than I did yesterday.
> Thanks! You seem to be able to answer this stuff as easily as I answer
> inquires over in misc.invest.futures.

> George E. Cawthon - If the sensor is smaller then prints simply need
> more magnification.

> I think in general the digital sensors are smaller. So would that
> mean, that to get a shot like a 200mm I would need to go to even a
> larger digital telephoto?

> As for the example with prints. I must confess I never use them. You
> cannot do the panoramic beauty of Hawaii any justice in small pictures.
> With 35mm I always shot slides. With the new digital I am pretty much
> aiming at a 15 inch computer screen, aware that I may be using a larger
> Apple screen later.

> It seems to me that I have two choices when I am shooting a picture. I
> can shoot everything, and then crop it, or I can do the major cropping
> with the telephoto before I shoot, then trim it later.

> I do not know enough about digital to know. However, cropping and
> blowing up a wide shot, seems to derogate the final picture more than a
> telephoto.

> Film pictures cropped from the telephoto might make it. The same shot
> from a wide-angle shot might be unusable. Is digital the same?

> George E. Cawthon - A 200mm would yield an image size 4x the size of a
> 50mm lens.
> If this were done by 4x ing it would it diminish the picture?

Consider the pixels.
Your screen will be working at a certain resolution. You can change the
resolution of the picture but - at some point - you hit the limit of the
monitor. You cannot have a higher resolution than the number of dots that
make up your monitor screen. Check the specification of your screen.
You might set your computer to a resolution of 1024 x 768. Your monitor
should cope with that. That's 768k pixels. [768x1024/1024]
Now look at your camera specs. You might have a camera that delivers 3M
pixels. As long as you don't use digital zoom that reduces the effective
number of pixels you have enough for 4 screensful [3x1024/768] - or you're
giving youself 4 times as much as you need for one screenful. Put another
way, you could crop by 50% of the height (and width) without reducing the
resolution on screen.

{and if I've made a silly mistake in the arithmetic - someone please
correct me gently! ;-)}

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 5:30:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,uk.rec.photo.misc,aus.photo (More info?)

-oo0-GoldTrader-0oo- wrote:
> I know less today than I did yesterday.
> Thanks! You seem to be able to answer this stuff as easily as I answer
> inquires over in misc.invest.futures.
>
> George E. Cawthon - If the sensor is smaller then prints simply need
> more magnification.
>
> I think in general the digital sensors are smaller. So would that
> mean, that to get a shot like a 200mm I would need to go to even a
> larger digital telephoto?

Possibly, but not really , just enlarge it more
>
> As for the example with prints. I must confess I never use them. You
> cannot do the panoramic beauty of Hawaii any justice in small pictures.
> With 35mm I always shot slides. With the new digital I am pretty much
> aiming at a 15 inch computer screen, aware that I may be using a larger
> Apple screen later.
But how did you view your slides? on a large projection
screen? With a computer screen you are talking pixels and
for many 600 x 800 pixels is a full screen, or you may set
your screen at a higher resolution. Nonetheless any pixel
size greater than the screen means that you have to move a
slider to see the picture. And of course, if it has a lot
of pixels the image will be bigger.

>
> It seems to me that I have two choices when I am shooting a picture. I
> can shoot everything, and then crop it, or I can do the major cropping
> with the telephoto before I shoot, then trim it later.

The latter. You can always sample down to get it to fit the
screen. The former may make it fit the screen, but if you
want to print of any size, it will look bad.
>
> I do not know enough about digital to know. However, cropping and
> blowing up a wide shot, seems to derogate the final picture more than a
> telephoto.

Exactly.

>
> Film pictures cropped from the telephoto might make it. The same shot
> from a wide-angle shot might be unusable. Is digital the same?

If I understand you, the answer is yes, the basics of
photography are no different for film and digital.

>
> George E. Cawthon - A 200mm would yield an image size 4x the size of a
> 50mm lens.
> If this were done by 4x ing it would it diminish the picture?
>
Do you mean enlarging it 4x? By diminish, do you mean lower
the quality? If the answer is yes then my answer is yes.

By the way, I am no expert and haven't been doing digital
for long, but very long for regular photography. So you
might want to consider answers by some of the real experts.
People tend to lose their brains when it comes to digital.
Basically you will never achieve the results of a 200 mm
lens with film unless your digital has a 24mmx36mm sensor
and a 200 mm lens. That isn't very common.

I have a good comparison of my camera at 24mm focal length
compared to my wife's 105mm and 300mm on a 35mm camera.
The results are not entirely intuitive. You would expect
the 24mm image to be about 1/4 the size of a 105mm lens. In
fact, because of the magnification need for a 4x6 print with
my camera, the image size is only about 2x that of the 105mm
lens. The 300 mm as would be expect provide an image size
about 3 times that of the 105 lens and would be expected to
provide an image size 12x larger than the 24mm. In fact, it
is about 4 times larger the 24mm because of the
magnification of the digital image. Nonetheless the effect
is huge as the Great Blue Heron in the 300mm picture is
nearly the total height of the 4" side of the print, while
the bird image gets lost with the 24mm lens. The effect
while looking in the viewfinder is much greater (24mm small
bird, 300mm huge bird).

Confused? Join the crowd. As soon as you see a direct
comparison for yourself, it will become much clearer. It
would be very helpful if you could have a friend with a
digital camera take a picture from the same spot that you
take one with your 200mm lens.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 10:30:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.equipment.35mm, rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, uk.rec.photo.misc, aus.photo (More info?)

You guys have been a great help to me and I am sure other lost sheep.

>But how did you view your slides?

When a screen was not big enough I would show them on a wall.

>friend with a digital camera take a picture from the same spot that
you take one with your 200mm lens.

Yes a direct comparison would be helpful.

>If you want to print it out then aim for 300 dots per inch (if it's to
be printed commercially for a magazine aim for more).

>If it's to be seen on a web site aim for no more (or less) than 90
dots per inch. There's a massive difference!

>You cannot have a higher resolution than the number of dots that
make up your monitor screen.

1280x854, which should be 854 pixels divided by the width of the
screen.

>From the above, the digital zoom should not reduce the effective
number of pixels below a few screenfulls so I have room to crop.

I take from this that I am trying to crop down to a final that has more
pixels than my viewing screen.

It looks like the web site resolution is greater than most screens so I
guess I could shoot for a cropped size of about 100 dots per inch to
leave a little cushion.

With screens now being offered at 2560 by 1600, no telling what they
will be in the next few years.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 11:01:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.equipment.35mm, rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, uk.rec.photo.misc, aus.photo (More info?)

You guys have been a great help to me and I am sure other lost sheep.

>But how did you view your slides?

When a screen was not big enough I would show them on a wall.

>friend with a digital camera take a picture from the same spot that
you take one with your 200mm lens.

Yes a direct comparison would be helpful.

>If you want to print it out then aim for 300 dots per inch (if it's to
be printed commercially for a magazine aim for more).

>If it's to be seen on a web site aim for no more (or less) than 90
dots per inch. There's a massive difference!

>You cannot have a higher resolution than the number of dots that
make up your monitor screen.

1280x854, which should be 854 pixels divided by the width of the
screen.

>From the above, the digital zoom should not reduce the effective
number of pixels below a few screenfulls so I have room to crop.

I take from this that I am trying to crop down to a final that has more
pixels than my viewing screen.

It looks like the web site resolution is greater than most screens so I
guess I could shoot for a cropped size of about 100 dots per inch to
leave a little cushion.

With screens now being offered at 2560 by 1600, no telling what they
will be in the next few years.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 1:18:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,uk.rec.photo.misc,aus.photo (More info?)

In article <WA8td.1044738$Gx4.93888@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
George E. Cawthon <GeorgeC-Boise@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Confused? Join the crowd. As soon as you see a direct comparison for
> yourself, it will become much clearer. It would be very helpful if you
> could have a friend with a digital camera take a picture from the same
> spot that you take one with your 200mm lens.

Whether you can see any difference with the result depends on how you view
the result of course. If you want to print it out then aim for 300 dots per
inch (if it's to be printed commercially for a magazine aim for more). If
it's to be seen on a web site aim for no more (or less) than 90 dots per
inch. There's a massive difference!

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 7:13:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,uk.rec.photo.misc,aus.photo (More info?)

>As for the example with prints. I must confess I never use them. You
>cannot do the panoramic beauty of Hawaii any justice in small pictures.
>With 35mm I always shot slides. With the new digital I am pretty much
>aiming at a 15 inch computer screen, aware that I may be using a larger
>Apple screen later.

For a good 15" computer screen, you'll need 1280x1024 or for a really
good screen 1600x1200. Even with the really good screen, you still
only need 2 Megapixels. Anything beyond that will increase the
clarity of the picture only minimally (if that, depending on
software).

So if you shoot full frame with the same lens and take two pictures,
one at 3Mpix and one at 4Mpix, they will look the same.

Alternately, if you have an 8Mpix camera, you can use roughly the
middle third and still get as a good a shot as possible.

This should help you figure out when you need an optical zoom and when
you can crop the picture afterwards.

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 7:20:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc,aus.photo (More info?)

>When a camera manufacturer advertises "7X" (whatever) it is simply a marketing
>number that is not very meaningful in terms of what you really get.

I disagree. In fact, the bigger the range of the zoom, by and large,
the lower the optical quality. So a 7x zoom is bound to be less crisp
and offer less acurate color transmission than an equivalently-priced
3x zoom. (This is borne out on the user lens database at
exc.com/photography ) In my experience, 3x zooms are good enough for
most purposes; 7x zooms are not.

Something I have to get an answer to, though, is the degree to which
these differences, which are crucial for high-quality film
photography, make a difference on lower-end digital cameras. I wonder
if the differences in lens quality are masked by the limitations of
the digital sensors.

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 8:10:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:
> In my experience, 3x zooms are good enough for
> most purposes; 7x zooms are not.

You should be paying more for your 7X zooms!
[cross-posting trimmed]

David
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 1:52:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,uk.rec.photo.misc,aus.photo (More info?)

In article <5pZvd.1041$%B1.440@fe11.lga>, Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:
>>As for the example with prints. I must confess I never use them. You
>>cannot do the panoramic beauty of Hawaii any justice in small pictures.
>>With 35mm I always shot slides. With the new digital I am pretty much
>>aiming at a 15 inch computer screen, aware that I may be using a larger
>>Apple screen later.
>
> For a good 15" computer screen, you'll need 1280x1024 or for a really
> good screen 1600x1200. Even with the really good screen, you still
> only need 2 Megapixels. Anything beyond that will increase the
> clarity of the picture only minimally (if that, depending on
> software).

The cheapest Apple monitor is 1680x1050 - the high end is 2560x1600
pixels native resolution = 4 Mpixels (30 inch)

Don't think Apple is as bad as the PC world, they are a market
leader, at least in innovation and best products.

> So if you shoot full frame with the same lens and take two pictures,
> one at 3Mpix and one at 4Mpix, they will look the same.

I do not agree. On a standard PC screen (1600x1200 unless you
got a cheap LCD at 1280x1024) it will make a difference if you
scale a picture to 2/3 or to 1/2 of original size. Generally, the
more you resize down (with the sharper algorithm in Photoshop), the
better the small picture will be.

> Alternately, if you have an 8Mpix camera, you can use roughly the
> middle third and still get as a good a shot as possible.

Wrong. Resizing down helps a lot.

> This should help you figure out when you need an optical zoom and when
> you can crop the picture afterwards.

The important thing is still the lense and the sensor size.
The big sensor size of dSLR gives less grain than film at high
ISOs. Compact cams are worse than film.

I mostly use my dSLR and CanonL / Sigma EX lenses for hobby usage.
--
Povl H. Pedersen - NoSpam@my.terminal.dk (yes - it works)
Fastnet - IP telefoni: 5 kr/md Se http://www.musimi.dk
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 6:38:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,uk.rec.photo.misc,aus.photo (More info?)

>I mostly use my dSLR and CanonL / Sigma EX lenses for hobby usage.

Do you find that the added quality of the L lens makes a difference
with the DRebel? My guess is that the quality difference between the
mid-line Canon lenses and their high-end lenses is masked by the
limitations of the sensor, but I'd like to know for sure.

Any experience one way or the other?

Thanks.

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 11:00:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,uk.rec.photo.misc,aus.photo (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 15:38:13 GMT, joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman)
wrote:

>>I mostly use my dSLR and CanonL / Sigma EX lenses for hobby usage.
>
>Do you find that the added quality of the L lens makes a difference
>with the DRebel? My guess is that the quality difference between the
>mid-line Canon lenses and their high-end lenses is masked by the
>limitations of the sensor, but I'd like to know for sure.

I can only compare with Canon lenses, but I saw a large jump in image
quality when I went from the 75-300 lens to the 70-200 L lens on my
300D.

jc
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 12:55:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,uk.rec.photo.misc,aus.photo (More info?)

In article <F9Ywd.3209$y85.1248@fe11.lga>, Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:
>>I mostly use my dSLR and CanonL / Sigma EX lenses for hobby usage.
>
> Do you find that the added quality of the L lens makes a difference
> with the DRebel? My guess is that the quality difference between the
> mid-line Canon lenses and their high-end lenses is masked by the
> limitations of the sensor, but I'd like to know for sure.

Went from Canon 75-300mm to Sigma EX 100-300mm f/4 HSM. What I got was
a bigger heavier lens, but no purple fringing, not even on an antenna
against bright skies. Clearly sharper images with more details. Very
fast auto-focus. Got rid of my 75-300mm. I thought of keeping it for
travel (size/weight issues) but decided I would not be happy with the
quality.

6 Mpixels is about as good or better than most film cameras will
be able to give you.

Recently upgraded to the 20D.

> Any experience one way or the other?

Side by side there is lots of difference, and especially with tele
lenses. The cheap 18-55mm from Canon is ok at f/8, so I am not
sure it was worth it for me to get the Canon 17-40 f/4L. But
I have not used it much yet, so a decision is still to be made.
I would like more WA, like Sigma EX 15-30, 12-24 or maybe the
Canon 10-22mm (which I do not really like because of bad corners)

--
Povl H. Pedersen - NoSpam@my.terminal.dk (yes - it works)
Fastnet - IP telefoni: 5 kr/md Se http://www.musimi.dk
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 6:09:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc,aus.photo (More info?)

Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:

> I wonder
> if the differences in lens quality are masked by the limitations of
> the digital sensors.

Be assured that they are not. The difference in color, contrast and
sharpness between consumer grade zoom lenses on the one side and good
primes and high grade zooms on the other, is much greater than most
seem to assume.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 12:39:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,uk.rec.photo.misc,aus.photo (More info?)

In message <F9Ywd.3209$y85.1248@fe11.lga>,
joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote:

>>I mostly use my dSLR and CanonL / Sigma EX lenses for hobby usage.

>Do you find that the added quality of the L lens makes a difference
>with the DRebel? My guess is that the quality difference between the
>mid-line Canon lenses and their high-end lenses is masked by the
>limitations of the sensor, but I'd like to know for sure.

>Any experience one way or the other?

1) If the camera is the main resolution bottleneck, then a teleconverter
get get more out of the optics, if you desire a narrower field of
view.

2) Even if the lens itself can resolve more line pairs per unit of
measure than the sensor can deliver, such sharpness can be
appreciated in terms of the contrast of the highest resolution the
sensor itself can resolve. The higher the contrast, the snappier the
images, and the less sharpening that is needed, sharpening the noise
in the image less, as well.

3) Many of the non-L lenses (and even some of the L lenses) are the main
limiting factor of resolution, especially wide-open, and/or at the
unoptimized end of a zoom range.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
!