Stop this crop factor / equivalent focal length nonsense (Page 7): Thank you Pumble!

SteveG Loc: Norh Carolina

Thank you Pumble!

GrandmaG Loc: Flat Rock, MI

repleo wrote:

We could avoid all of this ‘crop factor’ and ‘equi... (show quote)

No one likes change even if it makes more sense and at this stage of life, change is nearly impossible. I read the first page and already you are getting flack for your observations. I can’t believe this conversation went to seven pages!!

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

jdedmonds wrote:

It is so disheartening for this old timer to see t... (show quote)

What exactly is wrong with the people who voted for Trump? What again does this have todo with photography? Keep trying to divide the country! My advice to you is Put down the pitcher you have koolade stains in the corners of your mouth

Very Old Timer

I would just take my camera with the most fitting for the subject lens and go out to take pictures. We are so occupied with the equipment and forget that the main goal is to create the best image we can and with the equipment we have

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

"goodness knows, brain cells are in short supply here on UHH."

Aren't we fortunate that we have yours in ample supply?

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

repleo wrote:

We could avoid all of this ‘crop factor’ and ‘equi... (show quote)

I agree the entire "crop factor" situation is unfortunate. Personally I don't stress over it much. I'm not too sure one can really move from talking focal lengths. Say what angle is 127mm with a 70-250mm zoom lens on a Nikon D7200? I have a pretty good idea what each focal length does for me on each format camera I've used. It is easy enough for me to remember a number of those than to play with math. Example: 35mm, slightly wide on film 35mm and FF digital, normal on CF, super WA on 6x6cm medium format film. 45mm is very wide on a 6x7cm camera, but a short normal on a 35mm film camera. And another issue from having used 4x5" view cameras, a Schneider 90mm symmar, angulon, and super-angulon are not the same lenses and have very different angular coverages all for 4x5". This is because the back and front of the camera has movements; the image circles they throw are very different. The angle of a lens is also a function of its construction it only becomes the same for say all 50mm lenses when the frame is masked to a particular format, say 24x36mm. Image circles vary also by speed of lens, f1.2 vs f/1.8 say, and as stated, format, (Nikon) FX vs DX.

But then name calling is childish. Like Americas politics today.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

CHG_CANON wrote:

Well, you know
We all want to change the world ...

You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know.....

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Silverrails wrote:

As a beginner, I bought my first DSLR camera, the ... (show quote)

....when compared to a “full-frame” digital or 35mm film camera.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Most of this is interesting. I can see where it might help some. For me, however, I am mainly concerned how different focal length lenses (other than 55mm) distort perspective, for good or ill. Here is a shot of the same object with 18mm, 50mm, and 200mm lenses on my Nikon D5000, overlapped in Photoshop. Note how distorted the perspective gets.

(Download)

OviedoPhotos

Thanks for the insult.

You do realize it started with the manufacturers who needed to glamorize their offerings.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

artBob wrote:

Most of this is interesting. I can see where it might help some. For me, however, I am mainly concerned how different focal length lenses (other than 55mm) distort perspective, for good or ill. Here is a shot of the same object with 18mm, 50mm, and 200mm lenses on my Nikon D5000, overlapped in Photoshop. Note how distorted the perspective gets.

Interesting illustration.
I like it!
The lens is not changing the perspective.
You moved the camera, and that changed the perspective.
Shoot all of the images from the same location you used with the 200mm focal length, crop to get the same image size and you’ll see the lens is not the culprit.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

OviedoPhotos wrote:

Thanks for the insult.

You do realize it started with the manufacturers who needed to glamorize their offerings.

Ever use the “Quote Reply” option?
It would really help here...

Stash Loc: South Central Massachusetts

[quote=repleo]
Of course this change in habit would burn up a few brain cells for most ‘old timers’ and goodness knows, brain cells are in short supply here on UHH.

Rude comments and insults. Great way to win people over to your way of thinking. I think not.

Toment Loc: FL, IL

artBob wrote:

Most of this is interesting. I can see where it might help some. For me, however, I am mainly concerned how different focal length lenses (other than 55mm) distort perspective, for good or ill. Here is a shot of the same object with 18mm, 50mm, and 200mm lenses on my Nikon D5000, overlapped in Photoshop. Note how distorted the perspective gets.

I think you have come closest to the real point of all this:
We use a 600mm lens to get detail of an object far away from us. On a crop frame camera the 600mm lens looks like you are using a 900mm as the angle of view has changed. But, do you see any more detail, NO!

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

paulrph1 wrote:

You are correct. When I was raised we were raised to respect our elders and honor the country and the office but things have changed , no more respect and they are the ones who do all of the name calling and someone gets tired of their shenanigans and exposes them for what they are they are the ones they blame. But now you are just supposed to take the insults and forget about what they said.

And don’t forget if you disagree with them you’re also to be called a racist!