70-200mm f2.8...is it a dinosaur?

12/15/2005 08:01:26 PM · #51

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Anybody comment on the fact that the 1ds out resloves all other Canon digitals?

i guess if I printed billboard size prints 82 times a week it would mean something to me, but since I dont its not really important. The 20D is just fine. Also I only shoot medium jpg/ fine :P

you super techie guys crack me up :)

James

sir_bazz

Pentax K-5

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

12/15/2005 08:03:36 PM · #52

Originally posted by jab119:

ok another question.

So why is that

James

Crop factor.

See here.

bazz.

12/15/2005 08:15:24 PM · #53

Originally posted by sir_bazz:

Originally posted by jab119:
ok another question.

So why is that

James

Crop factor.

See here.

bazz.

I understand the crop factor, but a bunch of people say its a FOV change and that there is NO change in your image other than you basically just cut off the edges of your photo with a crop camera.

I have seen printed proof that a 35mm print at 28mm focal length is NOT the same "magnification" as a crop camera at the same 28mm.

I know there is some magnification going on, but other say other wise.

Bear.... can you explain this

James

12/15/2005 08:16:49 PM · #54

Originally posted by sir_bazz:

Originally posted by jab119:
ok another question.

So why is that

James

Crop factor.

See here.

bazz.

sir_bazz

Pentax K-5

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

12/15/2005 08:22:36 PM · #55

Well yeah.

Cutting off the edges will result in reducing the effective fov.

bazz.

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

12/15/2005 08:24:00 PM · #56

the film was not cropped when it was printed. If you printed them at the same print size, there of course will be a big difference in the size of the things in the picture.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

12/15/2005 08:38:09 PM · #57

Originally posted by kyebosh:

the film was not cropped when it was printed. If you printed them at the same print size, there of course will be a big difference in the size of the things in the picture.

then why are people saying a 200mm lens on a 1.6 crop camera is NOT equilivent to 320mm on a 35mm film camera. they are saying its still 200mm just cropped.

This is an old argument I have seen pop back up lately. Guess a lot of people recently got DSLR's about mid year and have started this back up again

James

Message edited by author 2005-12-15 20:38:50.

hsteg

Fujifilm X-T20

12/15/2005 08:42:51 PM · #58

Who cares how old it is, I have some Vivitar 285 flashes, that are pretty old it seems and theyre really good.

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

12/15/2005 08:52:17 PM · #59

Originally posted by jab119:

Originally posted by kyebosh:
the film was not cropped when it was printed. If you printed them at the same print size, there of course will be a big difference in the size of the things in the picture.

then why are people saying a 200mm lens on a 1.6 crop camera is NOT equilivent to 320mm on a 35mm film camera. they are saying its still 200mm just cropped.

This is an old argument I have seen pop back up lately. Guess a lot of people recently got DSLR's about mid year and have started this back up again

James

because it's not equivilent! If you took a 20D sensor, and then took the same sized pixels it has, and made it the size of a 35mm frame and shot two pictures from the same spot on a tripod, and then cropped the file from the 35mm version to a 1.6x crop, you'd have the exact same image that came out of the 20D. There is no more magnification, it just appears that way.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

12/15/2005 09:10:46 PM · #60

Originally posted by kyebosh:

Originally posted by jab119:

Originally posted by kyebosh:
the film was not cropped when it was printed. If you printed them at the same print size, there of course will be a big difference in the size of the things in the picture.

then why are people saying a 200mm lens on a 1.6 crop camera is NOT equilivent to 320mm on a 35mm film camera. they are saying its still 200mm just cropped.

This is an old argument I have seen pop back up lately. Guess a lot of people recently got DSLR's about mid year and have started this back up again

James

because it's not equivilent! If you took a 20D sensor, and then took the same sized pixels it has, and made it the size of a 35mm frame and shot two pictures from the same spot on a tripod, and then cropped the file from the 35mm version to a 1.6x crop, you'd have the exact same image that came out of the 20D. There is no more magnification, it just appears that way.

I think one thing that will be apparent in comparing a 320mm shot from a film camera and a 200mm shot with a 1.6x crop DSLR is the compression in the image. Though they will appear to have the same FOV there will be more compression in the film image since it is actually zoomed to 320mm rather than cropped from a 200mm shot.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

12/15/2005 11:22:48 PM · #61

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by kyebosh:

Originally posted by jab119:

Originally posted by kyebosh:
the film was not cropped when it was printed. If you printed them at the same print size, there of course will be a big difference in the size of the things in the picture.

then why are people saying a 200mm lens on a 1.6 crop camera is NOT equilivent to 320mm on a 35mm film camera. they are saying its still 200mm just cropped.

This is an old argument I have seen pop back up lately. Guess a lot of people recently got DSLR's about mid year and have started this back up again

James

because it's not equivilent! If you took a 20D sensor, and then took the same sized pixels it has, and made it the size of a 35mm frame and shot two pictures from the same spot on a tripod, and then cropped the file from the 35mm version to a 1.6x crop, you'd have the exact same image that came out of the 20D. There is no more magnification, it just appears that way.

I think one thing that will be apparent in comparing a 320mm shot from a film camera and a 200mm shot with a 1.6x crop DSLR is the compression in the image. Though they will appear to have the same FOV there will be more compression in the film image since it is actually zoomed to 320mm rather than cropped from a 200mm shot.

A 100mm lens on my 6x7 would produce a simliar image that a 50mm lens does on a 35mm camera. It's no different. The same holds true for the digital cropped sensor debate.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

12/15/2005 11:47:47 PM · #62

Originally posted by jab119:

Ummm... Having not evaluated your "proof" I can't speak to that, but I can tell you this, absolutely:

Take your camera and put it on a tripod with your zoom mounted. Point it at a scene and shoot the scene at, say, 70mm. Then zoom to 200mm and shoot it again. Now go to photoshop.

Open up the 200mm image, and open up the 70mm image. CROP the 70mm image so it covers exactly the same FOV as the 200mm shot. Now make both images cover the same area on your screen and compare them side by side. Noise/grain/resolution issues aside (the 200mm image will look sharper) there will be no difference between these images. The relationship of the objects within the frame to each other will not change.

This is EXACTLY what happens when you switch a lens between a FF sensor and a cropped sensor: the latter is simply cropping out a section of the larger FF image. Nothing else changes.

Now, exactly what you mean by "magnification" I don't know. But it's simply a fact that lens performance is basically device-independent. A lens throws an image circle that's in focus at a given distance behind the rear element of the lens. The film or sensor is ALWAYS cropping a certain portion of that image circle and recording it.

A Schneider-Kreuznach 210mm large format lens throws an image circle, when focused at infinity, approximately 13 or 14 inches in diameter. Mount your view camera with an 8x10 back and you will "capture" a hefty percentage of that image circle. Mount the same camera with a 4x5 back and you capture a MUCH smaller portion of the circle. In other words, the 210mm lens is "wider" on an 8x10 film than it is on a 4x5 film. The difference is so extreme that 210mm on 8x10 film is what we call a "normal" focal length, and on 4x5 film it's a moderate telephoto. But if you set up the view camera with the 210mm on it and take 2 exposures, one with 8x10 film and one with 4x5 film, and then overlay the 4x5 negative over the 8x10 negative on a light table, you will see that you can get absolutely precise registration of the two images.

Is this what you need to know?

Robt.

Message edited by author 2005-12-15 23:51:38.

12/16/2005 02:50:49 AM · #63

Originally posted by kyebosh:

the film was not cropped when it was printed. If you printed them at the same print size, there of course will be a big difference in the size of the things in the picture.

This is my main subject for banging on about. The increased 'magnification' comes from the whole system, including the print. If you crop the film print down to 1/1.6 and then enlarge it to match the print from the digital, they will be the same. This all comes about, due to an arbitrary print size.

Originally posted by jab119:

As I stated above, the field of view is the same (overall), so it can be considered equivalent in one sense, although the depth of field will be different, as DOF is different for a 200mm lens as compared to a 320mm lens.

Originally posted by kyebosh
because it's not equivilent! If you took a 20D sensor, and then took the same sized pixels it has, and made it the size of a 35mm frame and shot two pictures from the same spot on a tripod, and then cropped the file from the 35mm version to a 1.6x crop, you'd have the exact same image that came out of the 20D. There is no more magnification, it just appears that way. [/quote:

To repeat, it all comes down to the print size. The digital frame which is a 'cropped out' portion of the full frame is viewed at the same print size as the full frame, hence this centre section appears magnified.

[quote=cpanaioti] ]
I think one thing that will be apparent in comparing a 320mm shot from a film camera and a 200mm shot with a 1.6x crop DSLR is the compression in the image. Though they will appear to have the same FOV there will be more compression in the film image since it is actually zoomed to 320mm rather than cropped from a 200mm shot.

This compression is a function of photographer-to-subject distance. Using a 320mm lens on a film camera and a 200mm lens on a digital will result in exactly the same perspective, so long as both shots are taken from the same spot relative to the subject and background. Indeed, perspective will be the same no matter what lens is used, as long as the shots are taken from the same spot.

12/16/2005 02:04:12 PM · #64

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Originally posted by kyebosh:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Anybody comment on the fact that the 1ds out resloves all other Canon digitals?

how does the 1Ds still outresolve the 1DsII? can you show this, or point out some research?

I'm looking for the specific info I read, but I looked at some other sites. Anyway, I might be eating some words if I can't find it. ;o)

All I could find was this //www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/eos1dsm2/

...but it doesn't back up my claim so I have to eat my words. :D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

12/16/2005 03:47:01 PM · #65

Originally posted by AJAger:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
]
I think one thing that will be apparent in comparing a 320mm shot from a film camera and a 200mm shot with a 1.6x crop DSLR is the compression in the image. Though they will appear to have the same FOV there will be more compression in the film image since it is actually zoomed to 320mm rather than cropped from a 200mm shot.

This compression is a function of photographer-to-subject distance. Using a 320mm lens on a film camera and a 200mm lens on a digital will result in exactly the same perspective, so long as both shots are taken from the same spot relative to the subject and background. Indeed, perspective will be the same no matter what lens is used, as long as the shots are taken from the same spot.

Wrong. Compression is a factor in perspective and, as cpanaioti stated, there is a difference in compression between a 320mm lens and a 200mm lens regardless of what body it is mounted on.

ganders

Canon EOS-40D

12/16/2005 05:07:52 PM · #66

That can't be right; surely if you don't move your point of origin your perspective doesn't change regardless of what lens you might be holding?

12/16/2005 05:18:04 PM · #67

Originally posted by ganders:

That can't be right; surely if you don't move your point of origin your perspective doesn't change regardless of what lens you might be holding?

Sure it does. Look through your wide zoom a a subject in relation to the background and then swap lenses and try the same thing at 300mm.

12/16/2005 05:28:52 PM · #68

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by AJAger:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
]
I think one thing that will be apparent in comparing a 320mm shot from a film camera and a 200mm shot with a 1.6x crop DSLR is the compression in the image. Though they will appear to have the same FOV there will be more compression in the film image since it is actually zoomed to 320mm rather than cropped from a 200mm shot.

This compression is a function of photographer-to-subject distance. Using a 320mm lens on a film camera and a 200mm lens on a digital will result in exactly the same perspective, so long as both shots are taken from the same spot relative to the subject and background. Indeed, perspective will be the same no matter what lens is used, as long as the shots are taken from the same spot.

Wrong. Compression is a factor in perspective and, as cpanaioti stated, there is a difference in compression between a 320mm lens and a 200mm lens regardless of what body it is mounted on.

The compression would be the same for both shots. It's the same lens, your just cropping off the edges.

12/16/2005 05:31:44 PM · #69

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by AJAger:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
]
I think one thing that will be apparent in comparing a 320mm shot from a film camera and a 200mm shot with a 1.6x crop DSLR is the compression in the image. Though they will appear to have the same FOV there will be more compression in the film image since it is actually zoomed to 320mm rather than cropped from a 200mm shot.

This compression is a function of photographer-to-subject distance. Using a 320mm lens on a film camera and a 200mm lens on a digital will result in exactly the same perspective, so long as both shots are taken from the same spot relative to the subject and background. Indeed, perspective will be the same no matter what lens is used, as long as the shots are taken from the same spot.

Wrong. Compression is a factor in perspective and, as cpanaioti stated, there is a difference in compression between a 320mm lens and a 200mm lens regardless of what body it is mounted on.

The compression would be the same for both shots. It's the same lens, your just cropping off the edges.

That was what I said.

12/16/2005 05:35:43 PM · #70

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by AJAger:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
]
I think one thing that will be apparent in comparing a 320mm shot from a film camera and a 200mm shot with a 1.6x crop DSLR is the compression in the image. Though they will appear to have the same FOV there will be more compression in the film image since it is actually zoomed to 320mm rather than cropped from a 200mm shot.

This compression is a function of photographer-to-subject distance. Using a 320mm lens on a film camera and a 200mm lens on a digital will result in exactly the same perspective, so long as both shots are taken from the same spot relative to the subject and background. Indeed, perspective will be the same no matter what lens is used, as long as the shots are taken from the same spot.

Wrong. Compression is a factor in perspective and, as cpanaioti stated, there is a difference in compression between a 320mm lens and a 200mm lens regardless of what body it is mounted on.

The compression would be the same for both shots. It's the same lens, your just cropping off the edges.

That was what I said.

Not wrong. The lens itself does not affect the compression. It is purely a function of the camera-to-subject distance. If any two shots are taken using any two cameras and any two lenses from exactly the same spot, then perspective (call it compression, if you will) will be exactly the same. The difference will arise when the cameras are shifted, so that the framing is the same in both shots.

Message edited by author 2005-12-16 17:37:56.

12/16/2005 05:38:25 PM · #71

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Great minds... :D

12/16/2005 05:46:35 PM · #72

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by AJAger:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
]
I think one thing that will be apparent in comparing a 320mm shot from a film camera and a 200mm shot with a 1.6x crop DSLR is the compression in the image. Though they will appear to have the same FOV there will be more compression in the film image since it is actually zoomed to 320mm rather than cropped from a 200mm shot.

This compression is a function of photographer-to-subject distance. Using a 320mm lens on a film camera and a 200mm lens on a digital will result in exactly the same perspective, so long as both shots are taken from the same spot relative to the subject and background. Indeed, perspective will be the same no matter what lens is used, as long as the shots are taken from the same spot.

Wrong. Compression is a factor in perspective and, as cpanaioti stated, there is a difference in compression between a 320mm lens and a 200mm lens regardless of what body it is mounted on.

The compression would be the same for both shots. It's the same lens, your just cropping off the edges.

That was what I said.

Great minds... :D

I might be misunderstanding things here Brent, but, when I read your post, I thought that you were agreeing with the fact that the compression will be the same, rather than different as nsbca7 propounded. Perhaps it's too late at night for me.

12/16/2005 05:48:20 PM · #73

Originally posted by AJAger:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by AJAger:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
]
I think one thing that will be apparent in comparing a 320mm shot from a film camera and a 200mm shot with a 1.6x crop DSLR is the compression in the image. Though they will appear to have the same FOV there will be more compression in the film image since it is actually zoomed to 320mm rather than cropped from a 200mm shot.

This compression is a function of photographer-to-subject distance. Using a 320mm lens on a film camera and a 200mm lens on a digital will result in exactly the same perspective, so long as both shots are taken from the same spot relative to the subject and background. Indeed, perspective will be the same no matter what lens is used, as long as the shots are taken from the same spot.

Wrong. Compression is a factor in perspective and, as cpanaioti stated, there is a difference in compression between a 320mm lens and a 200mm lens regardless of what body it is mounted on.

The compression would be the same for both shots. It's the same lens, your just cropping off the edges.

That was what I said.

Great minds... :D

I might be misunderstanding things here Brent, but, when I read your post, I thought that you were agreeing with the fact that the compression will be the same, rather than different as nsbca7 propounded. Perhaps it's too late at night for me.

Yes the compression would be the same since it's the same lens, just cropped by the sensor.

12/16/2005 05:53:23 PM · #74

Originally posted by AJAger:

I don't remember propounding. If it is the same lens the compression will be the same regardless of the body it is mounted on or the "crop factor". If the lens is a different focal length the compression will change.