If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Digital 17mm Is Not Equivelent 27mm on 35mm Film
Just realised that even though manufactures give 35mm equivalents, it is not
really true. If you shoot tall buildings at 17mm on digital (with 1.6 crop factor), you still get distorted pics just like 17mm lenses on 35mm film cameras. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"A" wrote in message ... Just realised that even though manufactures give 35mm equivalents, it is not really true. If you shoot tall buildings at 17mm on digital (with 1.6 crop factor), you still get distorted pics just like 17mm lenses on 35mm film cameras. The "equivalents" really only apply to *field of view,* since you're really just cropping out the middle portion of the normal 35mm film camera's image. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"A" wrote in message ... Just realised that even though manufactures give 35mm equivalents, it is not really true. If you shoot tall buildings at 17mm on digital (with 1.6 crop factor), you still get distorted pics just like 17mm lenses on 35mm film cameras. The "equivalents" really only apply to *field of view,* since you're really just cropping out the middle portion of the normal 35mm film camera's image. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message news:FL3xd.59115$ka2.18959@fed1read04... "A" wrote in message ... Just realised that even though manufactures give 35mm equivalents, it is not really true. If you shoot tall buildings at 17mm on digital (with 1.6 crop factor), you still get distorted pics just like 17mm lenses on 35mm film cameras. The "equivalents" really only apply to *field of view,* since you're really just cropping out the middle portion of the normal 35mm film camera's image. I assume most of you know this, but I didn't until I read it in a book. If you tilt the camera up when taking a tall building, the resulting 'falling back effect" can be corrected using the deform tool in a photo editor, with some reduction of picture content. Sort of like having an old swing and tilt plate camera (which I bet would do a better job). Dave Cohen |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"A" wrote in message ... Just realised that even though manufactures give 35mm equivalents, it is not really true. If you shoot tall buildings at 17mm on digital (with 1.6 crop factor), you still get distorted pics just like 17mm lenses on 35mm film cameras. It's the biggest misconception in digital photography. People think a smaller sensor somehow changes the optics of the lens. Film or digital -- it's the same light projected through the same lens, you just use a smaller piece of it with the digital. You used the term "crop factor." That's what it's all about. Good shooting, Bob Scott |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"A" wrote in message ... Just realised that even though manufactures give 35mm equivalents, it is not really true. If you shoot tall buildings at 17mm on digital (with 1.6 crop factor), you still get distorted pics just like 17mm lenses on 35mm film cameras. It's the biggest misconception in digital photography. People think a smaller sensor somehow changes the optics of the lens. Film or digital -- it's the same light projected through the same lens, you just use a smaller piece of it with the digital. You used the term "crop factor." That's what it's all about. Good shooting, Bob Scott |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Cohen" wrote in
news:1103417385.c5fa8a62fb815db7e0b4afea6ffddb7d@t eranews: Sort of like having an old swing and tilt plate camera (which I bet would do a better job). Yeah. Somehow using a view camera with it's movements produces a different picture than taking a digital photo and manipulating it. My wild guess is it might have something to do with lens distortion. I have noticed, at least with some images, if you do a simple perspecive change in software, some of the lines that should be parallel with others end up pointing in different directions. Bob -- Delete the inverse SPAM to reply |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Cohen" wrote in
news:1103417385.c5fa8a62fb815db7e0b4afea6ffddb7d@t eranews: Sort of like having an old swing and tilt plate camera (which I bet would do a better job). Yeah. Somehow using a view camera with it's movements produces a different picture than taking a digital photo and manipulating it. My wild guess is it might have something to do with lens distortion. I have noticed, at least with some images, if you do a simple perspecive change in software, some of the lines that should be parallel with others end up pointing in different directions. Bob -- Delete the inverse SPAM to reply |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Cohen wrote: I assume most of you know this, but I didn't until I read it in a book. If you tilt the camera up when taking a tall building, the resulting 'falling back effect" can be corrected using the deform tool in a photo editor, with some reduction of picture content. Sort of like having an old swing and tilt plate camera (which I bet would do a better job). Dave Cohen Not many people know that movements on a LF camera (swing and tilt) introduces distortion into the image, by altering the aspect ratio of the subject. The converging - sometimes diverging - lines can be corrected with movements, but at the expense of the building or whatever being rendered taller, and the foreground over large. Perspective correction can be done in Photoshop with Transform tools, and the image aspect ratio can be corrected as well with Image Size by un-ticking Constrain Proportions, and adjusting either height or width as appropriate. It's up to the operator how he decides when it is correct, but it can be done. Colin |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
It's the biggest misconception in digital photography. People think a
smaller sensor somehow changes the optics of the lens. Film or digital -- it's the same light projected through the same lens, you just use a smaller piece of it with the digital. Bob- Funny you should mention that. Another related misconception is that sensor size is not as important as the number of megapixels. In other words, it is OK to have a small sensor if you have enough megapixels. Thirty years ago lenses were rated in "lines per millimeter". I don't fully understand the more modern modulation transfer ratio (MTR), but I can relate lines to pixels. So, above a certain number, no matter how many pixels you have, the image resolution is limited by the lens resolving power. Fewer sensor millimeters means fewer "lines" in the resulting image. This is another flaw in the claim of 35 mm equivalency since you would divide lines per millimeter by the cropping factor. Perhaps it wasn't a significant factor when sensors were no more than one megapixel, but is certainly is in today's eight to ten megapixel world. Fred |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sad news for film-based photography | Ronald Shu | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 199 | October 6th 04 01:34 AM |
below $1000 film vs digital | Mike Henley | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 182 | June 25th 04 03:37 AM |
What was wrong with film? | George | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 192 | March 4th 04 03:44 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 10:51 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras that use film? | [email protected] | Film & Labs | 20 | January 24th 04 10:51 PM |