Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 17, 2006, 9:41 AM   #171
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 91
Default

VTphotog wrote:
Quote:
Mark47 wrote:
Quote:
So when you use a 300mm lens you are collecting light closer to the source where it is less corrupted than it would be if you were using a 200mm lens, not because the lens is ten mm longer. You are not focusing on the actual object itself but on the light travelling towards you.----- So if the capture point or focal point of light for the 300mm lens is 100m, then this means it is capturing all light that is one hundred metres away from the object. The 200mm lens if it is the same distance away as the 300mm, wont capture light until say the 150metre mark, this means that some of the light that is at 100m will not be captured and it has a further 50mm to be corrupted.
Having an obviously primitive and irrational understanding of light, I fail to see how a lens can capture light that hasn't reached it yet. Simple minded person that I am, I cannot conceive of how a lens can do other than work with light which stikes it.

Perhaps when you develop an explanation that we primitives can understand, we will award you one of those Nobel prizes for physics.

signing off this thread--

brian

Quote:
Having an obviously primitive and irrational understanding of light, I fail to see how a lens can capture light that hasn't reached it yet. Simple minded person that I am, I cannot conceive of how a lens can do other than work with light which stikes it.
Thats why you arean idiot, and I am a genius! Simple!




Poor jim is all upset cos his ideas were proved wrong so now he has closed us down and gone back to the convent (cave) with the rest of the nuns (nerds).Now you know how Columbus, Da Vinci, and the Wright Bros felt. Thanks poindexter, flat earth rules!

Quote:
Mark, I see you edited out the last comments you made.

But, I've already warned you guys about keeping it civil.

I don't usually give public warnings, and I've got a pretty thick skin.

But, I'm not going to put up with those kinds of personal comments (including the ones you just made towards me).

Consider this to be a warning, and if you like participating in the forums here, I'd take it seriously.

Jim C.


:blah::??:shock::|:G:?
Quote:
Consider this to be a warning, and if you like participating in the forums here, I'd take it seriously.

Jim C.


I bet you take it any way you can get it poindexter.:G
Quote:
Perhaps when you develop an explanation that we primitives can understand, we will award you one of those Nobel prizes for physics.

You got that right:G









Mark47 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2006, 9:49 AM   #172
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

OK... that's enough guys.

I'm seeing too much in the way of personal comments. If you can't keep the debate civil, take it somewhere else.

This thread is now closed.

Jim C.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2006, 10:33 AM   #173
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Mark47 wrote:
Quote:
Poor jim is all upset cos his ideas were proved wrong so now he has closed us down and gone back to the convent (cave) with the rest of the nuns (nerds).Now you know how Columbus, Da Vinci, and the Wright Bros felt. Thanks poindexter, flat earth rules!
I see you edited out the last comments you made, and decided to make personal comments directed at me instead.

But, I've already warned you guys about keeping it civil.

I don't usually give public warnings, and I've got a pretty thick skin.

But, I'm not going to put up with those kinds of personal comments in our forums (including the ones you just made towards me).

Consider this to be a warning, and if you like participating in the forums here, I'd take it seriously.

Jim C.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2006, 11:32 AM   #174
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

This thread is now reopened, even though I think this issue has been beaten to death.

Anyone willing to particpate in civilized discussion is welcome to do so. But, please keep any personal and inflammatory comments out of it.

We have a friendly community here, and I'd like to see it stay that way.

Thanks

Jim C.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2006, 12:13 PM   #175
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8
Default

Ok, let me ask this then....

My Sony H1 has a 6mm-72mm zoom which is 12x. The listed 35mm equivalent is 36mm-432mm. So if in the 35mm world a 50mm lens is considered the normal view or to put another way, 1x, would my H1's 50mm equivalent be 8.33mm (50/6)? If this is true, then 8.33mm to 72mm should be 8.64x.

With my 7x binocular up to my left eye and the H1 EVF zoomed out to 72mm up to my right eye, looking at a object 1 city block away, the object appears a lot closer (not field of view) thru the 7x binoc's than the 8.64x H1. I add the 1.7x telephoto lens which should bring the magnification to 14.69x (8.33mm-122.4mm) and the 7x binoc's still look closer, but the H1 EVF view w/Teledoes appearabout twice as large as without (which makes sense).

So Question: What is the 1x mm (50mm equivalent) on the my H1? What is the x comparison to my binoc's at full zoom (72mm)?

FWIW I did email Sony camera tech support with the above question and they said they did not have the answer and suggested that I call their support help line and talk to one of them. :-(

tnx

George55
George55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2006, 12:22 PM   #176
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

George:

Ignore the x ratings you see for digital cameras. All they're doing is showing you the difference between the widest and longest zoom settings, and don't tell you anything about the angle of view you have.

For example, a 5-50mm lens would be 10x. A 50-500mm would also be 10x. Yet, the focal length is 10 times as long in the second example. ;-)

The reason your Sony's lens is referred to as a 12x lens is because 72/6 = 12. This doesn't have anything to do with angle of view, focal length, or apparent magnification. It's just a way to let users know how much difference there is between the widest and longest zoom settings

Ignore it for purposes of angle of view/apparent magnification.



JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2006, 2:10 PM   #177
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8
Default

JimC

Yes I understand that, that's why I'm asking my question. I'm trying to figure out what is the 1x position of my zoom, and from that point to the max telephoto position (72mm), how many times closer does the object appear?

My binoculars are 7x35, so they make the object appear 7 times (7x) closer (larger?). How many times closer is the object when I'm zoomed to max (72mm) with my H1?

tnx

George55
George55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2006, 2:19 PM   #178
Moderator
 
Nagasaki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 897
Default

You can work this out from the 35mm equivalents. The lens is quoted as 36 - 432. As you sat 50mm is roughly equivalent to the human eye's field of view so 432/50 gives 8.64 so that is the maginification as compared with the naked eye. As the conversion factor seems to be 6 then the actual focal length of the 'normal' field of viewwill be 8.3mm.
Nagasaki is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:02 PM.