Are IS lenses doomed ?

Talking angle of view.....

Does anyone know what is the current practice in the television industry -
do they tend to talk focal length or angular field of view?

David

"David J Taylor"
wrote in message . ..
Talking angle of view.....

Does anyone know what is the current practice in the television industry -
do they tend to talk focal length or angular field of view?

David


Focal length...

Jay Beckman
Freelance Technician
NASCAR on FOX / TNT

Jay Beckman wrote:
"David J Taylor"
wrote in
message . ..
Talking angle of view.....

Does anyone know what is the current practice in the television
industry - do they tend to talk focal length or angular field of
view? David


Focal length...

Jay Beckman
Freelance Technician
NASCAR on FOX / TNT

Thanks, Jay. How do they handle the differing sensor sizes? Simply by
knowing the focal length required on a particular sensor size for a
particular FoV?

David

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 21:36:58 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Bill Funk" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 07:39:19 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

If you're defending the use of the nonsense term "crop factor," just tell
me, please, what do you do with the "crop factor," the actual number? I
have
asked this question about 13,482 times and no "crop factorist" seems able
to
answer -- probably because they just don't have the intellectual honesty
to
simply answer, "I multiply the actual focal length with it."

Neil

It would seem that you do understand "crop factor" just fine.

Everything except the ridiculous term "crop factor," which is my only
objection to the thing.

Neil


I find this amusing.
You know what "crop factor" means, everyone else knows what it means,
but you object (at length) to the term because, according to you, it
means the wrong thing.

--
California's Assembly prepared
Monday to move the state's
primary up to February. An early
California primary has unique
advantages. It gives each candidate
the chance to spend all their money
to finish third behind Gary Coleman
and a porn star.

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 00:07:25 +0000, Prometheus
wrote:

In article , Bill Funk
writes
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 07:48:35 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

Nothing is cropped. To crop means to remove part(s) of an existing image.

What do you think is formed at the sensor plane?

The image on the sensor is the full image, not a crop of it, unless you
want to argue that a 35mm frame being less that a 4x5in frame it is also
a crop.

And, once again, someone who wants to bring LF into a 35mm thread.
Get over it.

--
California's Assembly prepared
Monday to move the state's
primary up to February. An early
California primary has unique
advantages. It gives each candidate
the chance to spend all their money
to finish third behind Gary Coleman
and a porn star.

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 22:02:18 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Bill Funk" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 07:48:35 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

Nothing is cropped. To crop means to remove part(s) of an existing image.

What do you think is formed at the sensor plane?

An image, *on the sensor*. No other image is being formed anywhere, so
"that's all there is, there ain't no more."

And here you prove to what lengths you will go to attempt to continue
your inane agenda.
The image formed at the sensor plane is most definitely *NOT* the
image on the sensor, unless you have a sensor shaped to fill the image
formed at the sensor plane.
Which you don't.
Get over it.

Neil


--
California's Assembly prepared
Monday to move the state's
primary up to February. An early
California primary has unique
advantages. It gives each candidate
the chance to spend all their money
to finish third behind Gary Coleman
and a porn star.

"Bill Funk" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 21:36:58 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Bill Funk" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 07:39:19 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

If you're defending the use of the nonsense term "crop factor," just
tell
me, please, what do you do with the "crop factor," the actual number? I
have
asked this question about 13,482 times and no "crop factorist" seems
able
to
answer -- probably because they just don't have the intellectual honesty
to
simply answer, "I multiply the actual focal length with it."

Neil

It would seem that you do understand "crop factor" just fine.

Everything except the ridiculous term "crop factor," which is my only
objection to the thing.

Neil


I find this amusing.
You know what "crop factor" means,

I have no idea what it might mean. I have asked repeatedly, How can you crop
1.5 of anything? No one yet has been able to answer this simple question.


everyone else knows what it means,

If "everyone else," or even a single person knows what it means, they or he
or she should be able to answer the question. What many of them evidently
*think* it means is lens focal length conversion factor, a concept that
cannot by any reasonable use of the language be called a "crop factor."


but you object (at length) to the term because, according to you, it
means the wrong thing.

My objection is that it's a nonsense term. It doesn't "mean the wrong
thing," it doesn't mean anything.

Words mean things. Certain combinations of words however are gibberish, such
as "crop factor."

Neil

"Rebecca Ore" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

For the
uses to which I put such cameras (mostly snapshots, family get-togethers
etc.) I find small digitals even with their tiny sensors to be much
*superior* to 35mm, when making standard 4 x 6 prints on the Wal-Mart
machines. And of course they are far more than adequate for snapshots for
e-mailing to relatives and that sort of thing. But these are all low-ISO
situations where the little sensors don't run into trouble.

Well, you certainly don't have to worry about the depth of field and so
focus is quite easy because you're shooting with extreme wide angle
lenses.

No, the ultracompacts that I use typically have 35-105mm (equiv.) lenses or
thereabouts, like most such cameras.

I do like extreme wide angles on other cameras, though. My Nikon 8400 has a
24-85mm (equiv.) lens, and I have a converter that widens that to 18mm
(equiv.). And I have the 10.5mm fisheye for my Nikon dSLRs.

Neil

"Bill Funk" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 00:07:25 +0000, Prometheus
wrote:

In article , Bill Funk
writes
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 07:48:35 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

Nothing is cropped. To crop means to remove part(s) of an existing
image.

What do you think is formed at the sensor plane?

The image on the sensor is the full image, not a crop of it, unless you
want to argue that a 35mm frame being less that a 4x5in frame it is also
a crop.

And, once again, someone who wants to bring LF into a 35mm thread.
Get over it.

It's not a 35mm thread, and this isn't a 35mm newsgroup. LF is no more off
topic than 35mm is.

Neil

"Bill Funk" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 22:02:18 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Bill Funk" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 07:48:35 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

Nothing is cropped. To crop means to remove part(s) of an existing
image.

What do you think is formed at the sensor plane?

An image, *on the sensor*. No other image is being formed anywhere, so
"that's all there is, there ain't no more."

And here you prove to what lengths you will go to attempt to continue
your inane agenda.
The image formed at the sensor plane is most definitely *NOT* the
image on the sensor,

Of course it is. Where else is an image formed?


unless you have a sensor shaped to fill the image
formed at the sensor plane.

Whatever fits on the sensor is the image. An image *by definition* is
something you can see. Anything off the sensor can't be seen, reproduced,
adjusted, modified, saved, or anything else.

You seem to be confusing "image circle" with "image." The image circle only
determines where you *may* have an image. It is not itself an image.


Which you don't.

Sure I do. The sensor and the image are a perfect fit, and cannot be
otherwise.


Get over it.

Learn that words mean things. They are not a form of Jell-O.

Neil