Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: lens digital equivalents  (Read 8252 times)

Tim Gray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2002
    • http://www.timgrayphotography.com
lens digital equivalents
« on: July 13, 2005, 09:09:16 AM »

Here's a thought expirement:

Imagine a slide projector with an image from a 35mm wide angle film camera on a screen a couple of feet away.

The analogy is the projector is the lens and the screen is the 35mm frame of film.  Now take a sheet of ordinary paper and put it against the screen - a bit extreme, but the difference in what is on the paper vs on the screen represents the difference in what's captured using a 1.5 or 1.6 or 1.3 sensor compared to full frame 35mm.
Logged

jani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1620
    • Øyet
lens digital equivalents
« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2005, 10:41:55 PM »

Quote
do you mean 20d or 10d?
It doesn't matter, the sensor sizes are equivalent.

Quote
i understand the lens doesnt change, just the image we see. and basically, if i understand correctly, it is because the image reflected (or transmitted, i don't know the correct technical term) by the lens is bigger than the sensor that is receiving the image in the case of say, the 20d. so it's like there is an automatic crop...?!?
Yes, that's it. You have a narrower angle of view with that camera than a regular 135 film camera, which makes it easy to think of as though the image was cropped.

The image isn't cropped, though, you get the same angle of view as in what you see in the viewfinder. Except that the 20D only has 95% viewfinder coverage at 0.9x magnification, that is.
Logged
Jan

abaazov

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 173
    • http://
lens digital equivalents
« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2005, 05:31:01 PM »

well i thought i understood depth of field.....wishful thinking i guess. what started out as a circle of confusion is fast becoming circles of confusion. i appreciate you guys taking the time to answer questions that to you are probably elementary.
amnon

p.s.howard do you have a link to that article? is it on this site?
Logged

howard smith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1237
lens digital equivalents
« Reply #3 on: July 14, 2005, 07:38:05 PM »

"The simple fact is that the size of a piece of film or sensor size has NO bearing on DoF at all."

True.  As I suggested, check the link to the DoF calculator and look at the equations for calculating DoF.  Format is not a factor.

My only purpose in bringing this up yet again is to emphasize how DoF is calculated and then the photographer can make whatever assumption s/he desires.
Logged

RBland

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
lens digital equivalents
« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2005, 03:50:41 PM »

Hello All,
I am new to the forum and digital photography.
Is there a formula one can use to get a lens' focal length when used on a digital body. I was told to multiply by 1.5 to get "in the ballpark".
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
RBland
Logged

howard smith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1237
lens digital equivalents
« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2005, 09:26:08 AM »

Tim's example is perfect.  It also shows that an x mm lens is an x mm lens regardless of the film format.
Logged

abaazov

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 173
    • http://
lens digital equivalents
« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2005, 10:39:55 AM »

do you mean 20d or 10d?

i understand the lens doesnt change, just the image we see. and basically, if i understand correctly, it is because the image reflected (or transmitted, i don't know the correct technical term) by the lens is bigger than the sensor that is receiving the image in the case of say, the 20d. so it's like there is an automatic crop...?!?
knowing all this, i guess it all really comes into play when you are choosing a wide angle lens. are there any other factors that need to be considered?
Logged

abaazov

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 173
    • http://
lens digital equivalents
« Reply #7 on: July 14, 2005, 05:32:22 PM »

yes it is..i found it, thank again
Logged

dazzajl

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 71
lens digital equivalents
« Reply #8 on: July 14, 2005, 07:29:17 PM »

Quote
Perhaps dazzajl does understand what he's talking about
Gracious of you to say so  :D

The simple fact is that the size of a piece of film or sensor size has NO bearing on DoF at all.

You are confusing capture size and percentage of enlargement, which is different all together.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9337
lens digital equivalents
« Reply #9 on: July 16, 2005, 08:43:15 AM »

Quote
lets go back to the reason it LOOKS like you have a longer focal length on a digiSLR.
The cropping reduces the 'field of view' so it's the same as that of a longer focal length lens, by a factor of 1.6 in the case of a D60.

A 50mm lens on a D60 produces images with the same FoV as an 80mm lens on a 1DsMkll. You would get identical images if you cropped the 1DsMkll image from a 50mm lens so it was the same size as the D60 with the same lens. Essentially no difference in any way, except the 1DsMkll would have lower noise at high ISO's (so I believe).

But you don't necessarily get identical images if you use different lenses with the same f stop; ie. 50mm on the D60 at f8 and 80mm on the 1DsMkll at f8. The D60 image will then exhibit greater DoF, at print sizes and sufficient 3-dimensionality of scene where it's possible to discern the DoF differences, of course.
Logged

Tim Gray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2002
    • http://www.timgrayphotography.com
lens digital equivalents
« Reply #10 on: June 22, 2005, 04:29:44 PM »

Here a link to a good resource

The method is to take the ratio of the diagonal of the digital sensor to the diagonal of a 35mm frame.

Canon 1DSII  is 1
Canon 1DII is 1.3 (or maybe 1.25 if I recall the exact number)
the 20D and Rebel is 1.6

(pre edit - typo on the 1DSII - said 0 , should be 1)
Logged

Tim Gray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2002
    • http://www.timgrayphotography.com
lens digital equivalents
« Reply #11 on: July 13, 2005, 09:07:27 AM »

Here's a thought expirement:

Imagine a slide projector with an image from a 35mm wide angle film camera on a screen a couple of feet away.

The analogy is the projector is the lens and the screen is the 35mm frame of film.  Now take a sheet of ordinary paper and put it against the screen - a bit extreme, but the difference in what is on the paper vs on the screen represents the difference in what's captured using a 1.5 or 1.6 or 1.3 sensor compared to full frame 35mm.
Logged

howard smith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1237
lens digital equivalents
« Reply #12 on: July 13, 2005, 10:04:46 AM »

abaazov, be careful with the words.  The 70-200mm lens is still a 70-200mm lens.  When you look in the view finder of your 10D, the image will "appear" the same as the scene viewed with a 112-320mm lens on a regular 35mm camera.
Logged

abaazov

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 173
    • http://
lens digital equivalents
« Reply #13 on: July 14, 2005, 09:08:18 AM »

yes it does make sense. thanks guys.

amnon
Logged

howard smith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1237
lens digital equivalents
« Reply #14 on: July 14, 2005, 10:23:26 AM »

abaazov, yes and no.

The information per square cm is the same, so, no.

The number of square cm is less, so, yes.  Some of the information will fall outside the smaller sensor and not be recorded.
Logged

Craig Arnold

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 219
    • Craig Arnold's Photography
lens digital equivalents
« Reply #15 on: July 14, 2005, 12:32:47 PM »

Quote
Quote
I was thinking of magnification where the 20D and 35mm camera have the same size view finder image.

I know, I was just trying to add on to what you were saying.  :)  

Many people talk about 200mm lenses becomming a 320 on some digi SLR and so on but as we know that's not the case. There are many times we might choose to move back from a subect and use a longer lens to shrink the depth of field to get a desired look. Changing from a full size sensor to a smaller one will of course not change the DoF at all.
Oh dear! - You've got hold of the wrong end of the stick I'm afraid.

The DOF equation has 4 variables:
1. Sensor/film size
2. Focal length of lens
3. Aperture
4. Distance to subject

If you keep 2,3,4 constant, the DOF increases with a decrease in sensor size - by precisely the value that is usually quoted as the crop factor.

So that 70-200mm lens will give 1.6 time greater DOF on the 20D as it would on the 1DsMkII.

Here's a link to a handy calculator so that you can experiment with the variables.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

abaazov

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 173
    • http://
lens digital equivalents
« Reply #16 on: July 14, 2005, 03:52:40 PM »

was the term circle of confusion intended as a pun???
what is circle of confusion in the photography world???
Logged

Craig Arnold

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 219
    • Craig Arnold's Photography
lens digital equivalents
« Reply #17 on: July 14, 2005, 06:31:02 PM »

boku

You are of course quite correct, but as an empirical matter as you say COC is determined in the calculator by a lookup table, which in the DSLR world correlates generally very well with the sensor size, print size and viewing conditions are of course assumed to remain constant for the calculation too.

Perhaps dazzajl does understand what he's talking about, but the way he expressed himself it sounded like he was saying that if you keep 2,3,4 constant and switch from a 20D to a 1DsMkII that the DOF would remain constant, which is not correct. And he also doesn't seem to understand that when you crop an image and enlarge it to give the same print size you do in fact change the DOF.

As you say though, this subject has been done to death on these forums.

That's my last word on the matter, I have no desire to have THE last word here however. (Edit - And besides it's been weeks since we had a DOF thread  :p )

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9337
lens digital equivalents
« Reply #18 on: July 14, 2005, 10:41:53 PM »

Quote
"The simple fact is that the size of a piece of film or sensor size has NO bearing on DoF at all."

True.  As I suggested, check the link to the DoF calculator and look at the equations for calculating DoF.  Format is not a factor.
The mathematical link between format and DoF is through the CoC. The DoF calculations are only useful in relation to a specific format and intended print size. CoC is only meaningful in relation to a print size and a degree of enlargement which is directly related to format size.

Since CoC is a required mathematical input to calculate DoF, then 'format' clearly does have a bearing on DoF. I think it might be described as a 'modifier' of input values.
Logged

drh681

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39
lens digital equivalents
« Reply #19 on: July 16, 2005, 05:48:04 AM »

circles of confusion  

that about covers it  

lets go back to the reason it LOOKS like you have a longer focal length on a digiSLR.

when you make your  prints, say 4x6, from a 35mm neg that is a 4x enlargement.
from a 15mmx 22.5mm sensor that same 4x6 is a 6.66x enlargement.(ackkk!!! digital is the devil's work!!!) :laugh:
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up