How to Calculate Zoom

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Dave, Jun 13, 2006.

  1. Dave

    Dave Guest

    Looking a purchasing a new zoom lense for a rebel xt. I see some lenses
    with a 4X or ~7X zoom equil. How do you calculate the ?X zoom
    factor for a zoom lense?

    thanks
     
    Dave, Jun 13, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dave

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Dave <> wrote:

    > Looking a purchasing a new zoom lense for a rebel xt. I see some lenses
    > with a 4X or ~7X zoom equil. How do you calculate the ?X zoom
    > factor for a zoom lense?


    Maximum focal length divided by minimum focal length.

    Most SLR lenses aren't rated that way, though. They usually just give the
    actual focal length numbers, which are a lot more meaningful.

    --
    Jeremy |
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Jun 13, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. > Looking a purchasing a new zoom lense for a rebel xt. I see some
    > lenses with a 4X or ~7X zoom equil.


    ??? This is not how lenses for SLR's are usually labelled. They are
    labelled with the actual focal length range: 18-55, 70-300, 28-80, etc.
    A lens with a range of 18-55 means its focal length is 18mm when zoomed
    "in" and 55mm when zoomed "out". If you wanted to calculate a single
    number to say how much more magnification you can get when zoomed "out"
    versus "in", simply divide. The 18-55 lens that usually comes with the
    camera is basically a 3X zoom. But then, so is a 100-300 zoom - just
    when in which even zoomed "in" provides more magnification than the
    former lens is zoomed "out". A point & shoot camera with a 3x zoom is
    likely to be similar to the 18-55 in terms of what focal lengths it is
    providing.

    ---------------
    Marc Sabatella


    Music, art, & educational materials
    Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
    http://www.outsideshore.com/
     
    Marc Sabatella, Jun 13, 2006
    #3
  4. Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, Dave laid
    this on an unsuspecting readership ...

    > Looking a purchasing a new zoom lense for a rebel xt. I see
    > some lenses
    > with a 4X or ~7X zoom equil. How do you calculate the ?X
    > zoom
    > factor for a zoom lense?
    >

    divide the longest focal length in mm by the shortest - voila! zoom
    ratio! The "equivalent" refers to the smaller frame size for most
    digital cameras requiring you to convert the focal lenghts you want
    for your non-full frame digital to their true visual effect when
    used on a full-frame digital or a 35mm film SLR

    --
    ATM, aka JerryR

    "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can do
    neither, administrate and become 'experts'" - National Education
    Association

    To reply by E-mail, replace "SPAM" with "com"
     
    All Things Mopar, Jun 13, 2006
    #4
  5. "Marc Sabatella" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > > Looking a purchasing a new zoom lense for a rebel xt. I see some
    > > lenses with a 4X or ~7X zoom equil.

    >
    > ??? This is not how lenses for SLR's are usually labelled. They are
    > labelled with the actual focal length range: 18-55, 70-300, 28-80, etc.
    > A lens with a range of 18-55 means its focal length is 18mm when zoomed
    > "in" and 55mm when zoomed "out". If you wanted to calculate a single
    > number to say how much more magnification you can get when zoomed "out"
    > versus "in", simply divide. The 18-55 lens that usually comes with the
    > camera is basically a 3X zoom. But then, so is a 100-300 zoom - just
    > when in which even zoomed "in" provides more magnification than the
    > former lens is zoomed "out". A point & shoot camera with a 3x zoom is
    > likely to be similar to the 18-55 in terms of what focal lengths it is
    > providing.
    >


    Have I had it wrong all these years?

    I have always believed that "zooming in" means that you magnify the picture.
    To do that you use the larger focal length number end of the zoom lens. So
    on a 28 - 200 lens zoomed "in" would be at the 200mm end of the zoom.

    Gerrit
     
    Gerrit 't Hart, Jun 13, 2006
    #5
  6. Dave

    Guest

    In message <mmnjg.900$>,
    Dave <> wrote:

    >Looking a purchasing a new zoom lense for a rebel xt. I see some lenses
    > with a 4X or ~7X zoom equil. How do you calculate the ?X zoom
    >factor for a zoom lense?


    You divide the longest focal length by the shortest.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jun 13, 2006
    #6
  7. > Have I had it wrong all these years?
    >
    > I have always believed that "zooming in" means that you magnify the
    > picture.


    Actually, in that context, that's how I would use the term too. But
    here I was thinking more of the physical action of the lens - one "zooms
    in" on a scene in the sense you mean by twisting the zoom ring to make
    the lens extend "out" from the camera. In any case, the term isn't
    really a technical one, nor is the idea of computing a "zoom ratio
    factor" one that ordinarily concerns SLR photographers - we're generally
    more concerned with the specific focal lengths than what the ratio of
    biggest to smallest is. But in a point & shoot world, where it's assume
    that all cameras will zoom from some sort of wide angle to some sort of
    telephoto, and in which differing sensor sizes make specific focal
    length numbers meaningless for comparison purposes (unless converted to
    35mm equivalents), it is of course a very common marketing metric.

    ---------------
    Marc Sabatella


    Music, art, & educational materials
    Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
    http://www.outsideshore.com/
     
    Marc Sabatella, Jun 13, 2006
    #7
  8. Dave

    Jeff Rife Guest

    Marc Sabatella () wrote in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems:
    > But
    > here I was thinking more of the physical action of the lens - one "zooms
    > in" on a scene in the sense you mean by twisting the zoom ring to make
    > the lens extend "out" from the camera.


    Although this is the way it works for probably 99% of zoom lenses, I have
    a Sigma 24-70/f2.8 that is shortest at 60mm. It lengthens very slightly
    (less than 5mm) as you move to 70mm, and lengthens a *lot* (about 40mm)
    when you move to 24mm.

    Yeah, it's weird, but it's a good lens, and in the Minolta AF world,
    there's really nothing else in that range that comes close in quality.

    --
    Jeff Rife |
    | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/RhymesWithOrange/ReadyForADog.jpg
     
    Jeff Rife, Jun 13, 2006
    #8
  9. "Dave" <> wrote in message news:mmnjg.900$...
    > Looking a purchasing a new zoom lense for a rebel xt. I see some lenses
    > with a 4X or ~7X zoom equil. How do you calculate the ?X zoom factor for
    > a zoom lense?
    >
    > thanks



    I think that the answers being given aren't answering the question being
    asked.

    OK lets say some simple point and shoot camera (or any camera/lens that is
    not magnifying/zooming) does not magnify the object you are photographing.
    We will call this Zero Magnification (What we see with the naked eye?).

    The question I want an answer to, is not what the zoom ratio of a lens
    compared to itself, but rather the number of times that "Zero Magnification"
    photograph would be "zoomed" multiplied if that photo were taken with a lets
    say 400mm lens (lets forget the digital crop factor for now, that is an
    easy equation)?

    We all know that a Canon EOS 30D with a 400mm lens zooms in a lot closer
    (magnifies the object many more times) than say a 12x lens on a Kodak P850.

    These point and shoot cameras and big lenses for SLR cameras magnification
    certainly can be compared, as one would compare small and large binoculars
    magnification.

    Does anyone have any way to calculate a base line "Zoom" factor in this
    manor rather than comparing the range of a specific lens?


    Thanks
     
    My Names Nobody, Jun 13, 2006
    #9
  10. Dave

    Guest

    My Names Nobody wrote:
    > "Dave" <> wrote in message news:mmnjg.900$...
    > > Looking a purchasing a new zoom lense for a rebel xt. I see some lenses
    > > with a 4X or ~7X zoom equil. How do you calculate the ?X zoom factor for
    > > a zoom lense?
    > >
    > > thanks

    >
    >
    > I think that the answers being given aren't answering the question being
    > asked.


    (...snip...)

    > Does anyone have any way to calculate a base line "Zoom" factor in this
    > manor rather than comparing the range of a specific lens?


    Sure - but you need to pick a baseline for comparison.

    What you're really looking at here is the angle of view - how much of
    the world in front of you is ending up in the final picture. A very
    long lens / a very powerful zoom will give you a very small angle of
    view - a very small amount of the world in fornt of you ends up on the
    photo, getting "enlarged" in the process.

    The two things that affect angle of view are the lens's focal length
    (measured in mm) and the size of the image sensor or film frame. To
    make things easier to compare, people often talk about "35mm
    equivalent" focal length - comparing the focal length to the focal
    length required to get the same image on a standard 35mm film camera.
    For instance, a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera is roughly equivalent to a
    31mm lens on some DSLR cameras, or an 8.3mm lens on a Canon S3-IS. A
    site like dpreview.com (and some camera spec sheets) will give you the
    35mm equivalent focal lengths for compact cameras: DPReview describes
    the Canon S3 IS as having a "36-432mm equiv." lens (the actual lens is
    6-72mm). The Digital Rebel's 18-55mm kit lens is a 29-88mm equiv. when
    mounted on a Digital Rebel.

    So...once you have 35mm equivalents for all the cameras/lenses you want
    to compare, you need a baseline to work from (assuming you want numbers
    of the type "3X"). A reasonable starting place is 50mm - this is
    generally considered to be a "normal" lens on a 35mm camera.

    Working from that: the Canon S3 IS is 432/60 = 8.6X when zoomed in all
    the way, and 36/50 = 0.7X when zoomed out all the way. The Digital
    Rebel kit lens, mounted on a Digital Rebel, is 1.8X when zoomed in, and
    29/50 = 0.6X when zoomed out.

    But really, once you have 35mm equivalents, there's not much benefit to
    calculating them as numeric "X" factors, especially since they need to
    be calculated from an arbitrary base point. The equivalent focal
    lengths alone are all the information you need, and this is why you'll
    often see them quoted.

    - Darryl
     
    , Jun 13, 2006
    #10
  11. Dave

    DoN. Nichols Guest

    According to My Names Nobody <>:
    >
    > "Dave" <> wrote in message news:mmnjg.900$...
    > > Looking a purchasing a new zoom lense for a rebel xt. I see some lenses
    > > with a 4X or ~7X zoom equil. How do you calculate the ?X zoom factor for
    > > a zoom lense?
    > >
    > > thanks

    >
    >
    > I think that the answers being given aren't answering the question being
    > asked.
    >
    > OK lets say some simple point and shoot camera (or any camera/lens that is
    > not magnifying/zooming) does not magnify the object you are photographing.
    > We will call this Zero Magnification (What we see with the naked eye?).
    >
    > The question I want an answer to, is not what the zoom ratio of a lens
    > compared to itself, but rather the number of times that "Zero Magnification"
    > photograph would be "zoomed" multiplied if that photo were taken with a lets
    > say 400mm lens (lets forget the digital crop factor for now, that is an
    > easy equation)?
    >
    > We all know that a Canon EOS 30D with a 400mm lens zooms in a lot closer
    > (magnifies the object many more times) than say a 12x lens on a Kodak P850.
    >
    > These point and shoot cameras and big lenses for SLR cameras magnification
    > certainly can be compared, as one would compare small and large binoculars
    > magnification.
    >
    > Does anyone have any way to calculate a base line "Zoom" factor in this
    > manor rather than comparing the range of a specific lens?


    Well ... a so-called "normal" lens on full-frame 35mm is a 50mm
    (or close to that), so you can calculate the number you want by dividing
    50 into 400, giving a "magnification factor" of 8.

    However, for a Nikon digital SLR, with a crop factor of 1.5, a
    "normal" lens would be about 33.3mm, so that, divided into 400 would
    give a magnification factor of 12, on *that* camera.

    Since the Cannon seems to more often have a crop factor of 1.6,
    on that camera, a "normal" lens would be closer to 31.25mm, and that,
    dividied into 400mm would give a magnification factor of 12.8

    Of course, this makes a 50mm lens on a Nikon DSLR a mild
    telephoto (giving you the 1.5 crop factor as the magnification factor.)

    So -- you have to re-calculate it for each sensor size.

    But -- you have the tools above to allow you to do so for each
    camer and lens combination you come across.

    I hope that this helps,
    DoN.
    --
    Email: <> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
    (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
    --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
     
    DoN. Nichols, Jun 13, 2006
    #11
  12. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > My Names Nobody wrote:
    >> "Dave" <> wrote in message
    >> news:mmnjg.900$...
    >> > Looking a purchasing a new zoom lense for a rebel xt. I see some
    >> > lenses
    >> > with a 4X or ~7X zoom equil. How do you calculate the ?X zoom factor
    >> > for
    >> > a zoom lense?
    >> >
    >> > thanks

    >>
    >>
    >> I think that the answers being given aren't answering the question being
    >> asked.

    >
    > (...snip...)
    >
    >> Does anyone have any way to calculate a base line "Zoom" factor in this
    >> manor rather than comparing the range of a specific lens?

    >
    > Sure - but you need to pick a baseline for comparison.
    >

    (...snip...)
    > - Darryl
    >


    The baseline for comparison is equipment non specific, ZERO magnification,
    what the naked eye sees.

    Why is it that binocular, rifle scope, spotting scope and video camera
    makers all seem to easily come up with a baseline for comparison, and yet
    that seems to be near impossible for SLR camera people?

    Can't the baseline for comparison be equipment non specific?
    Say a 1 inch bumble bee (or white square) at 30 feet is 1/32 of an inch at
    100% with no magnification (what the naked eye sees). With X lens/camera
    that same 1 inch bumble bee at 30 feet is 1/2 of an inch at 100% 15X zoom?
    Or with X lens/camera that same 1 inch bumble bee at 30 feet is 1 foot at
    100% 384X zoom?

    Then you could rather easily chart that say a 400mm lens is the equivalent
    to 260X (or whatever it is) zoom on a 35 millimeter camera body (isn't that
    the de facto camera body baseline anyway?)
    IE: A 35 millimeter camera body with a 400mm lens is the equivalent to 260X
    (or whatever it is) zoom.

    Seems someone should have already done this?

    Does anyone have any way to calculate a equipment non specific, "Zoom"
    factor in this manor rather than comparing equipment specifics?
     
    My Names Nobody, Jun 13, 2006
    #12
  13. Dave

    Dr. Boggis Guest

    In article <4yEjg.37573$%m5.15520@trnddc04>,
    "My Names Nobody" <> wrote:

    > "Dave" <> wrote in message news:mmnjg.900$...
    > > Looking a purchasing a new zoom lense for a rebel xt. I see some lenses
    > > with a 4X or ~7X zoom equil. How do you calculate the ?X zoom factor for
    > > a zoom lense?
    > >
    > > thanks

    >
    >
    > I think that the answers being given aren't answering the question being
    > asked.
    >
    > OK lets say some simple point and shoot camera (or any camera/lens that is
    > not magnifying/zooming) does not magnify the object you are photographing.
    > We will call this Zero Magnification (What we see with the naked eye?).


    No magnification would be magnification x1, surely? If it's zero times
    the amount you see with the naked eye, you'd see nothing :p
    --
    -Take out Ron to reply-
    My random photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/boggissimo/
     
    Dr. Boggis, Jun 13, 2006
    #13
  14. Dave

    DoN. Nichols Guest

    According to My Names Nobody <>:
    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >
    > > My Names Nobody wrote:
    > >> "Dave" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:mmnjg.900$...
    > >> > Looking a purchasing a new zoom lense for a rebel xt. I see some
    > >> > lenses
    > >> > with a 4X or ~7X zoom equil. How do you calculate the ?X zoom factor
    > >> > for
    > >> > a zoom lense?
    > >> >
    > >> > thanks
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> I think that the answers being given aren't answering the question being
    > >> asked.

    > >
    > > (...snip...)
    > >
    > >> Does anyone have any way to calculate a base line "Zoom" factor in this
    > >> manor rather than comparing the range of a specific lens?

    > >
    > > Sure - but you need to pick a baseline for comparison.
    > >

    > (...snip...)
    > > - Darryl
    > >

    >
    > The baseline for comparison is equipment non specific, ZERO magnification,
    > what the naked eye sees.


    *Whose* naked eye? The actual size of the image on the retina
    is a function of the size of the individual eye. You are not seeing a
    *size* at a distance, but an *angle*.

    > Why is it that binocular, rifle scope, spotting scope and video camera
    > makers all seem to easily come up with a baseline for comparison, and yet
    > that seems to be near impossible for SLR camera people?


    Quite simple -- the instruments which you make (other than the
    video camera) are designed to go in front of human optical equipment
    (eyes), and they *increase* the size of the image by a specific factor
    on *anybody's* retina.

    And the video cameras are not giving you zoom related to a
    "normal" view, but rather a ratio between the widest and the narrowest
    angles of view.

    35mm camera lenses, are designed to produce an image on a
    sensor. Originally film, and those lenses are now being used to form
    images on the digital sensors of cameras made to accept the same lens
    mount.

    Note that you can't simply hold a telephoto lens in front of
    your eye and see a larger image. It has to be formed on something, even
    a virtual image (in air) with a secondary lens to reformat it for
    feeding into the individual's eye. And if you use the secondary lens,
    the magnification which you see looking though the combination of the
    secondary lens and your camera's lens is going to be a function of both
    the focal length of the camera's lens and the magnification of the
    eyepiece. (This is equivalent to changing the size of the sensor in the
    camera.

    And photographers who have come to this from the 35mm world have
    a natural feel for what a given focal length lens will give them, and
    only have to adjust their expectations for the size of the crop factor
    for their particular camera.

    Now -- there are optical devices for 35mm and DSLR cameras which
    *are* rated with a magnification factor. Those are telextenders, which
    go between the body and the lens which you normally use, and they
    increase the size of the image from a given lens by such a factor. (I
    think that the most common factors are 1.5X and 2.0X.) In the process,
    they also reduce the effective maximum aperture of the lens -- you get
    less light in exchange for greater image size.

    > Can't the baseline for comparison be equipment non specific?
    > Say a 1 inch bumble bee (or white square) at 30 feet is 1/32 of an inch at
    > 100% with no magnification (what the naked eye sees).


    1/32 of an inch on *what*? As I mentioned above, the size of
    the image on the retina of the eye depends on the physical dimensions of
    the individual's eye. The one inch bumble bee at 30 feet is not a
    *size*, it is an angle. In particular, nine minutes, 32 seconds, or
    0.1592 degrees in decimal. The size of the image produced from that
    angle is a function of the focal length of the lens, but "no
    magnification" is meaningless here. In my previous followup elsewhere
    in this thread, I explained how you need to pick a standard 50mm for a
    35mm film camera) which is close to producing the same angle of view (on
    a print of a given size, viewed at a specific distance). It is this
    which defines a "normal" lens for a given sensor. And everything else
    needs to be compared to that.

    > With X lens/camera
    > that same 1 inch bumble bee at 30 feet is 1/2 of an inch at 100% 15X zoom?
    > Or with X lens/camera that same 1 inch bumble bee at 30 feet is 1 foot at
    > 100% 384X zoom?


    Again -- a function of what you call a "normal" for that
    camera/sensor.

    > Then you could rather easily chart that say a 400mm lens is the equivalent
    > to 260X (or whatever it is) zoom on a 35 millimeter camera body (isn't that
    > the de facto camera body baseline anyway?)


    A 50mm focal length lens is considered by most to be "normal" on
    a 35mm film camera body. There are others who prefer something
    somewhere in the range between 42mm and 50mm.

    A normal lens on other cameras is a function of the size of the
    film. IIRC, a "normal" lens on a 2-1/4" square camera (TLR or something
    like a Hasselblad) is 80mm. The lens which came with my 4x5" Crown
    Graphic is 135mm -- certainly within the "telephoto" range for 35mm
    film.

    > IE: A 35 millimeter camera body with a 400mm lens is the equivalent to 260X
    > (or whatever it is) zoom.


    Actually -- it is closer to an 8X magnification -- when compared
    to a 50mm lens.

    > Seems someone should have already done this?


    It seems to me that the normal users of SLRs have found that the
    existing information -- the actual focal length range of the zoom -- is
    much more usable information.

    And remember that the built-in zoom lenses in digital cameras
    are rated not in magnification relative to "normal", but rather
    magnification change from widest to narrowest field of view.

    > Does anyone have any way to calculate a equipment non specific, "Zoom"
    > factor in this manor rather than comparing equipment specifics?


    You *must* include equipment specifics to get the kind of number
    which you are looking for. Anything else is meaningless.

    Enjoy,
    DoN.
    --
    Email: <> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
    (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
    --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
     
    DoN. Nichols, Jun 13, 2006
    #14
  15. Dave

    Steve Leo Guest

    Wouldn't you divide the "normal" lens for your camera (in the case of Full
    Frame Camera -- 50MM into the longest zoom say 300mm & get 6X zoom? Or in
    the case of a 1.6 sensor which has a "normal" lens of about 30mm divided
    into 300mm would give you a 10X zoom. I believe that is what the OP wanted
    to know. Of course I could be wrong on this.

    "All Things Mopar" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns97E0D580E183ReplyScoreTag@216.196.97.131...
    > Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, Dave laid
    > this on an unsuspecting readership ...
    >
    >> Looking a purchasing a new zoom lense for a rebel xt. I see
    >> some lenses
    >> with a 4X or ~7X zoom equil. How do you calculate the ?X
    >> zoom
    >> factor for a zoom lense?
    >>

    > divide the longest focal length in mm by the shortest - voila! zoom
    > ratio! The "equivalent" refers to the smaller frame size for most
    > digital cameras requiring you to convert the focal lenghts you want
    > for your non-full frame digital to their true visual effect when
    > used on a full-frame digital or a 35mm film SLR
    >
    > --
    > ATM, aka JerryR
    >
    > "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can do
    > neither, administrate and become 'experts'" - National Education
    > Association
    >
    > To reply by E-mail, replace "SPAM" with "com"
     
    Steve Leo, Jun 14, 2006
    #15
  16. Dave

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    My Names Nobody <> wrote:

    > Why is it that binocular, rifle scope, spotting scope and video camera
    > makers all seem to easily come up with a baseline for comparison, and yet
    > that seems to be near impossible for SLR camera people?


    It's not impossible, it's just not a useful metric, so no one does it.

    > Can't the baseline for comparison be equipment non specific?


    Yes, it can, but for YOU to figure out the optical magnification given
    a lens and camera spec, you need to define 1x magnification in terms of
    something you know. So you start with the "normal" lens focal length
    for the format, which is 1x magnification, and then you can figure out
    the magnification factor provided by a given focal length.

    > Then you could rather easily chart that say a 400mm lens is the equivalent
    > to 260X (or whatever it is) zoom on a 35 millimeter camera body (isn't that
    > the de facto camera body baseline anyway?)
    > IE: A 35 millimeter camera body with a 400mm lens is the equivalent to 260X
    > (or whatever it is) zoom.


    Camera lenses are *never* specified with that kind of magnification factor,
    so no, you can't do that kind of comparison. When a P&S camera is said to
    have a "10x zoom", that does *not* mean 10x magnification; it means that
    the longest focal length is 10x the shortest focal length.

    If you do the above procedure to figure out the optical magnification, the
    resulting number is not useful for comparison with any camera's zoom specs.

    --
    Jeremy |
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Jun 14, 2006
    #16
  17. "Dr. Boggis" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <4yEjg.37573$%m5.15520@trnddc04>,
    > "My Names Nobody" <> wrote:
    >
    >> "Dave" <> wrote in message
    >> news:mmnjg.900$...
    >> > Looking a purchasing a new zoom lense for a rebel xt. I see some
    >> > lenses
    >> > with a 4X or ~7X zoom equil. How do you calculate the ?X zoom factor
    >> > for
    >> > a zoom lense?
    >> >
    >> > thanks

    >>
    >>
    >> I think that the answers being given aren't answering the question being
    >> asked.
    >>
    >> OK lets say some simple point and shoot camera (or any camera/lens that
    >> is
    >> not magnifying/zooming) does not magnify the object you are
    >> photographing.
    >> We will call this Zero Magnification (What we see with the naked eye?).

    >
    > No magnification would be magnification x1, surely? If it's zero times
    > the amount you see with the naked eye, you'd see nothing :p
    > --
    > -Take out Ron to reply-
    > My random photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/boggissimo/


    Zero times? I wrote zero magnification, not zero times.
    As defined by the dictionary, zero magnification is correct, surely?

    magnification
    noun
    1 The act of magnifying or the state of being magnified.
    2 The process of enlarging the size of something, as an optical image.
    3 Something that has been magnified; an enlarged representation, image, or
    model.
    4 The ratio of the size of an image to the size of an object.
    5 A photographic print that has been enlarged

    zero
    noun
    1 A cardinal number indicating the absence of any or all units under
    consideration
    2 An ordinal number indicating an initial point or origin
    Zero magnification means just what is says, What we see with the naked eye
    is not magnified, not enlarged.

    Can you add any input as to a way to calculate a universal, equipment non
    specific, "Zoom" factor?
     
    My Names Nobody, Jun 14, 2006
    #17
  18. Dave

    Guest

    My Names Nobody wrote:
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >
    > > My Names Nobody wrote:
    > >> Does anyone have any way to calculate a base line "Zoom" factor in this
    > >> manor rather than comparing the range of a specific lens?

    > >
    > > Sure - but you need to pick a baseline for comparison.
    > >
    > > - Darryl
    > >

    >
    > The baseline for comparison is equipment non specific, ZERO magnification,
    > what the naked eye sees.
    >
    > Why is it that binocular, rifle scope, spotting scope and video camera
    > makers all seem to easily come up with a baseline for comparison, and yet
    > that seems to be near impossible for SLR camera people?


    Because you look through a telescope, but you print out a photo. When I
    look through a pair of binoculars, I am enlarging the image on my
    retina, to be (say) 10x the size of the original. "Huh," I say, "these
    binoculars have 10x magnification."

    But when I take a picture, I can print it at wallet size, or 4x6, or
    8x10, or 20x30. I can look at it from six inches away or from the other
    side of the room. Every time I do that, the image changes size on my
    retina, occupying more (or less) of my field of view.

    Now, this doesn't mean you can't define a 1x magnification. I could
    (watch me!) arbitrarily say that "A 1x lens will allow me to take a
    photo of a tree, print it out at 8"x10", hold it in landscape
    orientation at arm's length, and have the resulting image look exactly
    the same size as it did when I was standing there."

    No problem; we can do that. Assuming your arm is one metre long, that
    10" wide photo is going to take up about 10 degrees of your field of
    view ( atan(17.5 cm / 100 cm) = 9.93 degrees ). So, if the camera lens
    had a 10 degree field of view, I should be able to print out the
    picture, hold it in front of me, and have it blend seamlessly into the
    surroundings. Tada, it's 1x magnification! As it turns out, a 200mm
    lens on a 35mm camera has about a 10-degree field of view, so without
    further ado:

    A 200mm lens on a 35mm camera is a 1x lens
    A 50mm lens on a 35mm camera is a 0.25x lens
    A 200mm lens on a 35mm camera is a 1.5x lens
    A 18mm lens on a APS-C camera is a 0.14x lens
    A 6mm lens on a Canon S3 IS is a 0.18x lens

    As it turns out, these are pretty silly numbers; more less than 1x than
    greater. So apparantly I picked bad assumptions; maybe assuming an
    11x14 print at half a meter would have given me numbers more in line
    with what we're looking for.

    But that's the problem right there. The size of the print, and the
    distance at which the print is viewed, changes the apparant
    magnification of the image. A telescope doesn't have this problem: You
    look through it, and your eye is always in the same place with respect
    to the lens. Nothing changes size, nothing changes distance.

    That doesn't mean it's not possible; I've just proven that it is. But
    it's arbitrary. Change the assumptions you make about print size and
    viewing distance, and you change the magnification numbers you get. And
    when you examine the process, you realize that all those assumptions
    did is tell me that a 200mm lens on a 35mm camera is 1x, and all the
    other calculations were made off of that. This is exactly what I
    originally suggested: You need to pick a baseline for comparison. My
    original choice of a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera was based on a common
    photographic tradition; my new choice is based on some calculations
    made from arbitrary assumptions.

    So instead, we measure lens magnification based on the lens's focal
    length. This is an inherent property of the lens. A 35mm photographer
    will know that a 100mm lens makes things big and a 28mm lens makes
    things small. As odd-sized digital sensors got common, the idea of a
    "35mm equivalent" focal length gained popularity, exactly so that
    people had a good non-ambiguous way of understanding the optical
    effects of their lenses when combined with their cameras.

    > Can't the baseline for comparison be equipment non specific?


    Not really; if nothing else, the camera is important. I have a 50mm
    lens that I use on my Digital Rebel. If I took a picture with it, and
    then gave the lens to my sister, she could take a picture with it with
    her 35mm film camera from the same location, and when we printed the
    pictures, hers would look more "zoomed out" than mine. Canon can't
    stamp a big "1x" on the side of the lens, because it's going to behave
    differently depending on the camera you put behind it. But they can
    engrave "50mm" on the lens; that never changes, and it's up to the
    photographer to understand what that means when it's combined with his
    or her camera.

    Looking at it another way: 35mm equivalent focal lengths -are-
    equipment non-specific. Every lens/body combination has a 35mm
    equivalent focal length, which describes exactly how much "zoom" you
    will get. Why 35mm? Why not? Most photographers are familiar with it,
    and those that aren't can learn it or convert it to some system they
    know better (like APS-C equivalent, or
    angle-of-view-when-printed-at-8-x-10-and-held-a-meter-away equivalent).

    > Say a 1 inch bumble bee (or white square) at 30 feet is 1/32 of an inch at
    > 100% with no magnification (what the naked eye sees). With X lens/camera
    > that same 1 inch bumble bee at 30 feet is 1/2 of an inch at 100% 15X zoom?


    This goes back to the bulk of my response, up above: 1/2 an inch on
    what size print? On the film negative (or digital sensor) itself? The
    frame is rather small, and is almost always enlarged to at least some
    degree before you actually look at it.

    > Then you could rather easily chart that say a 400mm lens is the equivalent
    > to 260X (or whatever it is) zoom on a 35 millimeter camera body (isn't that
    > the de facto camera body baseline anyway?)


    It's only the common baseline among people that use 35mm cameras,
    compact digital cameras, and DSLRs. Talk to a medium- or large-format
    photographer (I am neither) and I'd be very surprised if they use 35mm
    equivalents when discussing their lenses.

    > Seems someone should have already done this?


    I just did, results are above, free for the world to use :) I think
    they suck, though. Really, 200mm as a 1x lens? That's just silly.
    Improvement on this is left as an exercise for the reader...

    > Does anyone have any way to calculate a equipment non specific, "Zoom"
    > factor in this manor rather than comparing equipment specifics?


    I've only seen this in one photographic context: Macro lenses. They're
    commonly quoted as being 0.5x (low-end ones), 1x (most decent ones),
    and I've seen as high as 5x. This is comparing the size of the object
    in real life to the size of the image on the film/sensor. This means,
    though, that when a print is made from a picture taken with a 1x macro
    lens, the image on the print will be larger than the object actually is
    in reality. The 1x is very counterintuitive here. They're also
    described as ratios (e.g. 1:2, 1:1, 5:1), possibly to try to avoid
    exactly this confusion.

    - Darryl
     
    , Jun 14, 2006
    #18
  19. Dave

    Guest

    My Names Nobody wrote:
    > "Dr. Boggis" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >
    > > No magnification would be magnification x1, surely? If it's zero times
    > > the amount you see with the naked eye, you'd see nothing :p

    >
    > Zero times? I wrote zero magnification, not zero times.
    > As defined by the dictionary, zero magnification is correct, surely?
    >
    > Zero magnification means just what is says, What we see with the naked eye
    > is not magnified, not enlarged.
    >


    Well, to have any type of coherent discussion, it's pretty important to
    agree on the basic terms.

    Magnification is a ratio. 1:1 magnification is no magnification; the
    final image is the same size as the starting image. 2:1 magnification
    makes the final image twice as big as the initial image, etc. Those
    ratios are equivalent to magnification factors of 1.0 and 2.0; a
    magnification of 1.0, or 1:1, or 1x, or however you write it, is indeed
    "no magnification".

    The problem with writing "zero magnification" is that, while it's
    perfectly valid on its own (i.e. it's synonymous with "no
    magnification"), the usage of a number opens the door to potential
    confusion. The phrase "0.5 magnification" is commonly understood to
    mean "half the size"...this raises the question of what "0
    magnification" should be.

    The phrase "zero magnification" has a perfectly valid meaning according
    to the strict dictionary definition, but in this context something like
    "1x magnification" or "no magnification" is less likely to cause
    confusion.

    - Darryl
     
    , Jun 14, 2006
    #19
  20. > The baseline for comparison is equipment non specific, ZERO
    > magnification, what the naked eye sees.


    That might be the baseline *you'd* like to use for comparison, but it is
    *not* the baseline actually used when you see cameras with zoom lenses
    quote magnification ratios. A point & shoot camera that advertises a
    "7X" zoom is not saying that it magifies things seven times more than
    "what the naked eye sees", but rather, that its maximum magnification is
    seven times its minimum magnification. Most likely, the minimum
    magnification is a little more than half "what the naked eye sees" (to
    the extent it makes sense to define this at all - see below), and the
    maximum magnification three to four times "what the naked eye sees".
    Whereas another zoom lens might be only "4X", but that might mean
    minimum is twice "what the naked eye sees" and the maximum is eight
    times "what the naked eye sees". Meaning the 4X zoom would actually
    magnify more than the 7X. That's why you don't see SLR lenses using
    ratios like these. You see real, hard numbers to give focal length.
    The 7X zoom I mentioned would actually be sold as 28-200, the 4X as
    100-400. Then we could compare the focal length ranges directly to see
    that the former did a lot more at the wide angle end of the range but
    the latter did a lot more at the telephoto end. This is all relevant
    information, and that's why camera lenses are labelled with all of it.

    > Why is it that binocular, rifle scope, spotting scope and video camera
    > makers all seem to easily come up with a baseline for comparison, and
    > yet that seems to be near impossible for SLR camera people?


    Video camera zoom ratios are exactly like point & shoot zoom ratios.
    That is, they aren't telling you how much a camera magifies comared to
    what the naked eye sees, but simply telling how its maximum
    magnification compares to its minimum magnification. As for binoculars
    and scopes, it is possible to come up with a definitive number for these
    because the images are being projected on the same screen: your retina.
    Now, if you want to take the lens off your camera and hold it up to your
    eye like a telescope, you could similar come up with an absolute number
    to measure the magnification. But that number would only be meaningful
    when projecting the image onto your retina. It would cease to have
    meaning when projecting the image onto a piece of film or a camera
    sensor. Because in order for that image to eventually get on to your
    retina, it's going to have to be displayed or printed somehow, and you
    have no way of knowing how much it is going to be magnified in the
    process of displaying or printing it.

    > Can't the baseline for comparison be equipment non specific?


    Not really, at least, not in the way you want. See below. The best
    convention we have is that of a "normal" lens, which as has been
    mentioned here, is considered around 50mm on a 35mm film camera, or
    around 30-35mm on most digital SLR's. What is relevant in making this
    "normal" isn't so much magnification, since any picture can be blown up
    bigger, but rather, angle of view - how much you can actually take in at
    once without moving your eyes. A normal lens is one that approximates
    the angle of view that we typically see. Of course, that differs
    between people, and since our vision isn't constant across our field of
    view but rather drops off toward the edges (and at different rates for
    things close up than things far away, most likely), there is some leeway
    in defining even for a given person what his angle of view is. But
    there is general agreement that somewhere around 50mm is a "normal"
    focal length for most people when projecting an image onto a piece of
    35mm film. And since most digital sensors are smaller than that, a
    correspondingly smaller focal length is "normal". Of course, it order
    for that image to actually *look* normal, we'd have to project them onto
    a wall that just barely fills out field of vision. When looking at the
    image printed 4x6, we sort of have an inutive sense of what looks
    "normal" and what looks like it was taken with a longer or shorter focal
    length length, but this can be deceiving. It can be hard to tell the
    difference between an object taken with a 50mm from 10 feet away versus
    the same object taken with a 200mm from 40 feet away (actually, I'm not
    sure I have the math right there - it might be 20 feet, or some other
    number involving the square root of 2, to get the object to appear the
    same size on a same sized print, but whatever). Still, the notion of a
    "normal" lens is the closest you're going to get to "what the naked eye
    sees".

    So if you want to compute a "magification" factor in this way, divide
    the focal length by, say, 33 for most digital SLR's or 50 for a 35mm
    film SLR or "full frame" digital. Thus, the aforementioned 28-200 zoom
    would not be called a "7X" zoom, but rather, a ".6X - 4X" zoom on a 35mm
    camera, or a ".8X - 6X" on most digital SLR's. That is, you'd list the
    magnifications at both ends of the zoom range, not just the ratio
    between those magnifications. And indeed, one *could* do this. But I'm
    not sure I have any intuitve sense of what ".6X" or "4X" looks like.
    The only way to know would be get a feel for it through experience. And
    one can develop a feel for what "200mm" looks like just as surely as one
    can what "4X" looks like. So I don't see what is gined by this
    approach.

    > Say a 1 inch bumble bee (or white square) at 30 feet is 1/32 of an
    > inch at 100% with no magnification (what the naked eye sees).


    1/32 of an inch where? On your retina? If you hold out a ruler at
    arm's length? This is problem #1 with computing what sort of
    magnification we are talking about in absolute terms.

    > With X lens/camera that same 1 inch bumble bee at 30 feet is 1/2 of
    > an inch at 100% 15X zoom?


    1/2 an inch where? On the camera sensor? When you display it on your
    comuter screen? When you make a 4x6 print? When you project it on a
    wall? That's problem #2 with computing what sort of magification we are
    talking about in absolute terms.

    > Does anyone have any way to calculate a equipment non specific, "Zoom"
    > factor in this manor rather than comparing equipment specifics?


    No, because such a thing is quite impossible to do for the reasons
    described. Howeve,r it is trivially simple to divde focal length by 50
    or 33 to get something resembling what you are talking about if calling
    a 200mm lens a "4X" zoom has more meaning to you than simply calling it
    a 200mm lens.

    ---------------
    Marc Sabatella


    Music, art, & educational materials
    Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
    http://www.outsideshore.com/
     
    Marc Sabatella, Jun 14, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    10
    Views:
    393
  2. link-pan
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    260
    link-pan
    Apr 9, 2006
  3. Ivano

    Video production value. How to calculate

    Ivano, Sep 13, 2003, in forum: Professional Video Production
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    227
    Ivano
    Sep 13, 2003
  4. Mardon
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    218
    JC Dill
    Apr 25, 2004
  5. Jim Garner

    How to calculate depth of focus?

    Jim Garner, Jul 10, 2004, in forum: Digital Cameras
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    236
    Boris Harss
    Jul 11, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page