|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,458
|
![]()
Greetings;
This is something that has been confusing me a bit... When I discuss lenses with my SLR friends, they always refer to the focal length. (for example using a 15-30mm lens for macro shots.) I do understand the basic principals here (I think) Among digital P&S users, the same basic discussion involves magnification factors instead. (for example a 1.7x zoom lens, or a0.7 wide angle) As a beginner, I do find the latter to be a little easier to understand, but I also understand that these terms are far less precise in terms of the science of camera optics. My camera, a Kodak dx6490 has a primary lens (is that the term?) that has a 35mm equivalent of 38-380mm. There is no way of knowing, outside of the vaguest of guesses, what my actual focal length is for any given zoom. If I add a zoom or wide angle to the equation... I'm lost... (my best guess X 1.7 = your best guess) I'd like to undertand what my camera is doing, so I can understand what it is I need to do to move forward in my photgraphic education. My question is firstly, why is there a difference in the terms of expression between my camera and a SLR/DSLR? Secondly, Is there some form of "conversion chart" that would help to bridge the gap between the terminology? Thirdly, though I'd like to understand lenses/focal lengths more, do I need this knowledge to become a better photographer? Lastly, because I seem to be dwelling on a subject that digital P&S users apparently don't need to know, do I have the wrong camera? I love my 6490. It's my first good camera. Was it a bad choice for me? Regards, Tom, confused on Point Pelee, Canada |
![]() |
![]() |
Sponsored Links |
|
![]() |
#2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 1,707
|
![]()
With (most) SLRs you can remove the lens and pop on another one...you might have a 35-105mm that came with the camera, and buy a 100-300mm for more tele.
On non-SLRs the lens is not removable...you buy a camera with a 38-380mm you are stuck with it. For these cameras there are converter lenses...these lenses screw on the end of your existing lens (usually via a filter tube adapter as most digitals with retracting lenses don't have threads on them since they can't take any weight). These lenses are measured in an "X" factor because they convert the camera's lens by a multiplication factor, and they can be used on different cameras... If I put a 2.2x on a 38-380mm it becomes a 83-830mm. I can put that same tele converter on a 35-105mm and it will become a 77-231mm. If I put a .66x on the same camera it becomes a 25-250mm. If I put that wide-angle converter on a 35-105mm it will be a 23-69mm. When it goes onto different cameras the combination becomes different ranges, but always by the same "X" or multiplication factor. I can also use these on SLR cameras, but why when the proper lens can be attached (although I did use my .66x on my mother's 50mm Canon prime lens to give it more wide angle, 33mm). There are converters for SLRs too, but they go inbetween the body and the lens...you remove the lens, attach the converter, then reattach the lens...it extends the distance between the lens and the film plane giving you longer lenses...I've seen 2x and 3x. As to your other questions...although some of this might be too basic for you, it might answer some of your questions: http://209.196.177.41/ A lot of things come with experience...there are some rules about photography, but many can be broken. Many portrait photographers will use a 100mm lens...others may go more or less. The human eye is said to be 50mm (I have my camera programmed to start at this focal length). Did you choose the wrong camera...all depends on you and what you do. I have a camera similar to the DX6490 in terms of the long lens, but I had always used manual cameras (adjusting shutter speed, aperture, etc. on my own) so miss the easy to dial manual controls (rather than pushing buttons)...I admit I have my eye on a professional dSLR but it costs more than my last car. Go into a camera store and play with the dSLRs...the Canon Rebel is a reasonably priced one (not that I'm recommending it). If you are a point&shooter who wants more zoom, than the DX6490 isn't a bad choice (with the exception of shutter lag; time between pushing the button and the camera taking the picture). |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,458
|
![]()
Hi Mike;
Thanks for your reply to my questions. (actually, I was hoping you'd read my post) Most of the first part of your answer I understood. (most) ...or at least that is what I assumed the answers to be. I'm ealing with new terminology here... DOF, focal length, aperture control, etc... I just thought perhaps I should know more. Still, the question: Is it of value to know the length of my lens in a DX6490? Or is the speed of the lens a more important factor to be weighing? On that topic, I have two conversion lenses for my camera, an Oly tcon17, and the Schneider 0.7. As far as I know, neither of these lenses have any rating as to what effect they have on exposure. I boughtthe Kodak because, for a beginner, it offered some control over aperture and other things I knew little about. It also had a very good automatic setting that helped compensate for my mistakes while I learned. Now that I have a little of that body of knowledge, I find that I am getting some very good results, so I'm not really sorry for my choice. I do wonder about the staying power of the camera as I develop. (no pun intended) Thanks again for your response. There is so much more for me to learn. Next, I'm sure I'll be asking about manual vs automatil metering... but that's another day. Tom, on Point Pelee, Canada P.S. Thanks for the link. I've browsed those lessons before. B.T.W. Though I approach photography mainly through its artistic appeal, I am trying to gain an understanding of the science of its aparatus. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 579
|
![]()
Tom Overton wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
CK http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam Nikon Coolpix 950/990/995/2500/4500/5700 and Panasonic FZ-10 User Guides |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,458
|
![]()
Greetings;
Thank you very much for your detailed reply. There is a great deal to digest between yours and Mike's posts. I am pleased that the information is available, though, as you say, not crucial to the art of photography. The DX6490 lens is equivalent to 38-380mm, though it isactually 6.3-63.2mm. That will give you an idea of the relative sensor size. The numbers which may be more important are the lens elements which are rated f/2.8-f3.7. I still don't know what an add-on lens does to those numbers, or if the metered exposure is still accurate when you add lenses... but that's another question. Thanks once again to you and Mike. I am a slow learner, but I do learn. Regards Tom, on Point Pelee, Canada (not that far from MTech) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 579
|
![]()
Tom Overton wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
CK http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam Nikon Coolpix 950/990/995/2500/4500/5700 and Panasonic FZ-10 User Guides |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,458
|
![]()
Thank you once again;
I have seen the results of poorly made converters first-hand. I tested some lenses in NYC in August, and ended up choosing an Olympus TCON-17. The lenses I did not purchase were, if not poor quality, certainly not matched to the existing optics on my camera. My other converter is a Schneider-Kreuznach 0.7 with a massive front element. It gathers quite a bit of light, and is very reliable. The TCON, while a good lens, is a little harder to recieve good results with. I suspect that it does stop down my exposure a couple of steps. Am I correct in assuming, though, that the numbers that are displayed in my viewfinder are correct, regardless of the attachment on the lens. I am beginning to get a handle on this. Considering how little I knew only a few months ago, I think I'm doing ok. Thanks again, Tom, on Point Pelee, Canada |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 1,707
|
![]()
As you zoom in you do lose light, instead of sampling say 500 square feet of light, you might only be sampling 50 sqaure feet, and same goes with adding a teleconverter (some might cost you two stops of light (meaning two clicks of adjustment on the old cameras). And as you zoom in you need a faster shutter speed to compensate for the longer zoom, which is the opposite of what's happening as you zoom in (using automatic settings).
With photography there's always something new to learn...I'm planning to start experimenting with 3-d photography. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 579
|
![]()
Tom Overton wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Tom Overton wrote: Quote:
Variable aperture has nothing to do with metering. It is all about the length of the lens. When light enters the front glass element of the lens, ittravels in the lens barrel, go through the last glass element, and finally hits the sensor. As you may know, the longer a light ray travels, the weaker the intensity it is. This is the basic Newton law of light. More precisely, if the distance between your eyes and a light source is d, the intensity is proportional to 1/(d squared). Now, examine your lens. If you zoom it in, the lens barrel becomes longer, and if you zoom it out, the lens barrel becomes shorter. This means light travels a longer distance at the long focal length end than that of the short focal length end. This implies that the amount of light (oe intensity) that can reach the sensor at the long focal length end is weaker than that of the shorter focal length end. Converting to aperture, the maximum aperture you get at the longer focal length is smaller (larger f-number) than the aperture (smaller f-number) at the shorter focal length end. Hope this explains things well. CK |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,458
|
![]()
Gentlemen;
Thank you so much for your sharing of knowledge. Though much of what has been said I have read before in a more or less general way, it is good to see the same information in regard to specific questions. I do understand that much of this information I do not need for the purposes of my camera, which for all intents and purposes is a glorified point and shoot... Still, I find an understanding of the basic principles of photographic sciences can only help in the long run. Many years ago, when I was an undergrad studying music, renowned pedagogue William Ade spoke to our class. He said that it was essential for all musicians to dilligently practice their technique, regardless of how artistically gifted they may be. He continued to say that in even the most talented musicians' life, there may come a day that the muse fails them. That is the day that their technique studies will reward them, and they may come through the challenge relatively unscathed. (badly paraphrased after nearly 30 years) ...All this to say that thoughI shoot from the heart, even as an amateur photographer, I respect the science and technology that makes this art possible, and study it so that the day I am faced with a challenging opportunity, I may be able to do that subject justice. (sounds like I'm full of hot air) Once again, thank you gentlemen. Regards, Tom, on Point Pelee, Canada |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|