digital combinations

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by -oo0-GoldTrader-0oo-, Dec 2, 2004.

  1. What digital combination would give the equivalent of a 35mm slr with a
    80 - 200 mm lens.

    I primarily shoot people walking in crowds. I was using a Nikon 35mm
    with a 80-200 zoom to isolate subjects. What is the digital
    equivalent?
    /
    What would you recommend using to shoot people walking, in digital?
     
    -oo0-GoldTrader-0oo-, Dec 2, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. -oo0-GoldTrader-0oo-

    Zinnick Guest

    An AK47!!!
     
    Zinnick, Dec 3, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. -oo0-GoldTrader-0oo-

    Hunt Guest

    This depends on the magnification ratio of your particular digital camera.
    Say, with Nikon's 1.5 ratio, you'd be dealing with 53mm - 133mm for an almost
    exact match. If you have 1.6, then it's 56mm - 125mm. Obviously, your camera's
    mfgr will have something like 50mm - 150mm, or so.

    Hunt
     
    Hunt, Dec 3, 2004
    #3
  4. -oo0-GoldTrader-0oo-

    Harvey Guest

    Is that a Digital AK47? :)
     
    Harvey, Dec 3, 2004
    #4
  5. -oo0-GoldTrader-0oo-

    Hunt Guest

    Yes, they recently replaced the Kalashnikov action with a Foveon sensor!

    Hunt
     
    Hunt, Dec 3, 2004
    #5
  6. -oo0-GoldTrader-0oo-

    Paul Bielec Guest

    Nah, they're not there yet. But you can get a digital M16 no problem.
     
    Paul Bielec, Dec 3, 2004
    #6
  7. Clarification

    In order to do what an Optical zoom lens 80-200 zoom can do on a film
    camera would we still us an 80-200 zoom on a digital?
    Has something changed in the switch from film to digital.
     
    -oo0-GoldTrader-0oo-, Dec 3, 2004
    #7
  8. Yes, on most DSLRs the sensor is smaller than the 24x36cm dimensions of
    standard 35mm film (the 35mm is the size of the film including the sprocket
    holes, 24mm is the size that gets exposed).

    This means when you put a lens designed for a film camera on a DSLR, except for
    the high end DSLRs, you are only using the center of the lens.
     
    Michael Meissner, Dec 4, 2004
    #8
  9. Michael Meissner wrote:
    []
    []

    Even on film SLRs it's only 24 x 36mm!

    <G>

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 4, 2004
    #9
  10. So you are saying, the Nikon 1.5 ratio w/ 133mm is about equal to the
    200mm on a 35mm?
     
    -oo0-GoldTrader-0oo-, Dec 4, 2004
    #10
  11. Well in terms of field of view, yes. However in terms of depth of field, it
    still is a 133mm lens.
     
    Michael Meissner, Dec 4, 2004
    #11
  12. Yep. Thanks!
     
    Michael Meissner, Dec 4, 2004
    #12
  13. -oo0-GoldTrader-0oo-

    Alan Browne Guest

    As DOF goes to how the print will look in the end, it all washes out as if the
    DOF were for the cropped FL, that is to say, shallower.
     
    Alan Browne, Dec 4, 2004
    #13
  14. I went to Comp-usa. The salesman did not know a thing. The batteries
    were all dead. The Camera's did not work.

    The Nikon said optical 7x

    How do I compare a 7x to a 200mm lens?

    There was a lens that had a lot of numbers. The last was something
    like 200 equivalent to 134.

    What do these numbers mean.

    Does the 200 equivalent mean that it is a 134mm lens with the view of a
    200?
     
    -oo0-GoldTrader-0oo-, Dec 6, 2004
    #14
  15. You can't compare. 7x just means that the longest focal
    length is 7 times the shortest focal length. You have to
    know either the short or the long focal length. It has
    nothing to do with 35mm equivalents. I suggest that you
    look at the real focal lengths not equivalents. Second you
    need to look at the size of the sensor. Without knowing
    that you will have no way of really comparing what you might
    get to what a 200mm lens on a 35mm would deliver. If the
    sensor is the same size as you 35mm camera then the camera
    will essentially in all ways handle the same. If the
    sensor is smaller then prints simply need more magnification.

    Let's say you want 4x6 prints. On your 35mm camera the
    prints would be 4x enlargements, on a 6meg camera they might
    be 7.3x enlargements and on my 4 meg they would be 19x
    enlargements. That's because the sensors are much smaller
    than 35mm film and my 4meg sensor is only about 5mm high.

    A 200mm would yield an image size 4x the size of a 50mm
    lens. If my 8mm lens produces about the same image on a 4x6
    as your 50 mm lens (and it does due to the extreme
    enlargement) then, if I zoom the lens out to 4x8 (i.e. 32mm)
    the 4x6 will show the same as your 200mm lens.
     
    George E. Cawthon, Dec 6, 2004
    #15
  16. I know less today than I did yesterday.
    Thanks! You seem to be able to answer this stuff as easily as I answer
    inquires over in misc.invest.futures.

    George E. Cawthon - If the sensor is smaller then prints simply need
    more magnification.

    I think in general the digital sensors are smaller. So would that
    mean, that to get a shot like a 200mm I would need to go to even a
    larger digital telephoto?

    As for the example with prints. I must confess I never use them. You
    cannot do the panoramic beauty of Hawaii any justice in small pictures.
    With 35mm I always shot slides. With the new digital I am pretty much
    aiming at a 15 inch computer screen, aware that I may be using a larger
    Apple screen later.

    It seems to me that I have two choices when I am shooting a picture. I
    can shoot everything, and then crop it, or I can do the major cropping
    with the telephoto before I shoot, then trim it later.

    I do not know enough about digital to know. However, cropping and
    blowing up a wide shot, seems to derogate the final picture more than a
    telephoto.

    Film pictures cropped from the telephoto might make it. The same shot
    from a wide-angle shot might be unusable. Is digital the same?

    George E. Cawthon - A 200mm would yield an image size 4x the size of a
    50mm lens.
    If this were done by 4x ing it would it diminish the picture?
     
    -oo0-GoldTrader-0oo-, Dec 6, 2004
    #16
  17. Consider the pixels.
    Your screen will be working at a certain resolution. You can change the
    resolution of the picture but - at some point - you hit the limit of the
    monitor. You cannot have a higher resolution than the number of dots that
    make up your monitor screen. Check the specification of your screen.
    You might set your computer to a resolution of 1024 x 768. Your monitor
    should cope with that. That's 768k pixels. [768x1024/1024]
    Now look at your camera specs. You might have a camera that delivers 3M
    pixels. As long as you don't use digital zoom that reduces the effective
    number of pixels you have enough for 4 screensful [3x1024/768] - or you're
    giving youself 4 times as much as you need for one screenful. Put another
    way, you could crop by 50% of the height (and width) without reducing the
    resolution on screen.

    {and if I've made a silly mistake in the arithmetic - someone please
    correct me gently! ;-)}
     
    John Cartmell, Dec 6, 2004
    #17
  18. Possibly, but not really , just enlarge it more
    But how did you view your slides? on a large projection
    screen? With a computer screen you are talking pixels and
    for many 600 x 800 pixels is a full screen, or you may set
    your screen at a higher resolution. Nonetheless any pixel
    size greater than the screen means that you have to move a
    slider to see the picture. And of course, if it has a lot
    of pixels the image will be bigger.
    The latter. You can always sample down to get it to fit the
    screen. The former may make it fit the screen, but if you
    want to print of any size, it will look bad.
    If I understand you, the answer is yes, the basics of
    photography are no different for film and digital.
    Do you mean enlarging it 4x? By diminish, do you mean lower
    the quality? If the answer is yes then my answer is yes.

    By the way, I am no expert and haven't been doing digital
    for long, but very long for regular photography. So you
    might want to consider answers by some of the real experts.
    People tend to lose their brains when it comes to digital.
    Basically you will never achieve the results of a 200 mm
    lens with film unless your digital has a 24mmx36mm sensor
    and a 200 mm lens. That isn't very common.

    I have a good comparison of my camera at 24mm focal length
    compared to my wife's 105mm and 300mm on a 35mm camera.
    The results are not entirely intuitive. You would expect
    the 24mm image to be about 1/4 the size of a 105mm lens. In
    fact, because of the magnification need for a 4x6 print with
    my camera, the image size is only about 2x that of the 105mm
    lens. The 300 mm as would be expect provide an image size
    about 3 times that of the 105 lens and would be expected to
    provide an image size 12x larger than the 24mm. In fact, it
    is about 4 times larger the 24mm because of the
    magnification of the digital image. Nonetheless the effect
    is huge as the Great Blue Heron in the 300mm picture is
    nearly the total height of the 4" side of the print, while
    the bird image gets lost with the 24mm lens. The effect
    while looking in the viewfinder is much greater (24mm small
    bird, 300mm huge bird).

    Confused? Join the crowd. As soon as you see a direct
    comparison for yourself, it will become much clearer. It
    would be very helpful if you could have a friend with a
    digital camera take a picture from the same spot that you
    take one with your 200mm lens.
     
    George E. Cawthon, Dec 7, 2004
    #18
  19. Whether you can see any difference with the result depends on how you view
    the result of course. If you want to print it out then aim for 300 dots per
    inch (if it's to be printed commercially for a magazine aim for more). If
    it's to be seen on a web site aim for no more (or less) than 90 dots per
    inch. There's a massive difference!
     
    John Cartmell, Dec 7, 2004
    #19
  20. You guys have been a great help to me and I am sure other lost sheep.
    When a screen was not big enough I would show them on a wall.
    you take one with your 200mm lens.

    Yes a direct comparison would be helpful.
    be printed commercially for a magazine aim for more).
    dots per inch. There's a massive difference!
    make up your monitor screen.

    1280x854, which should be 854 pixels divided by the width of the
    screen.
    number of pixels below a few screenfulls so I have room to crop.

    I take from this that I am trying to crop down to a final that has more
    pixels than my viewing screen.

    It looks like the web site resolution is greater than most screens so I
    guess I could shoot for a cropped size of about 100 dots per inch to
    leave a little cushion.

    With screens now being offered at 2560 by 1600, no telling what they
    will be in the next few years.
     
    -oo0-GoldTrader-0oo-, Dec 7, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.