Field of view vs. Angle of view! (Page 2): Seems to me that this whole thread is inconsequential. In any given photo the photographic effect is the same no matter which name you call...

photogeneralist Loc: Lopez Island Washington State

ThreeCee wrote:

I see field of view and angle of view used interch... (show quote)

Seems to me that this whole thread is inconsequential. In any given photo the photographic effect is the same no matter which name you call it by.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

imagemeister wrote:

FOV measured in linear feet/meters from left to right - AOV measured in angular degrees of the light cone described by the diagonal of the sensor/film size......They are very closely related !

This is correct.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

photogeneralist wrote:

Seems to me that this whole thread is inconsequential. In any given photo the photographic effect is the same no matter which names you call it by.

I am certainly not into needless technobabble. I don't always need to "do the math or geometry" every time I shoot. It is good, however, to know the various theories and formulas, optics, etc that may help in finding solutions to problems.

When I started out in commercial photography, I used large-format film cameras. I need to be aware of the format coverage of each lens in order to ensure that I could use all the swings, tilts, and shifts without unwanted vignetting. I cou to just purchase a load of expensive lenses and find out their angle of field and view. One had to have a good idea of these specifications when selecting various lenses.

Nomenclature is not "inconsequential" if you are trying to teach/learn. Especially in online conversations, one needs to use "language" and illustrations that clearly explain concepts.

Of course, if you aren't interested in all these technicalities, they are not essential for your photography. You get a lens, plug it in, look through the viewfinder, see waht it encompasses at various distances, zoom in and out if possible, and you will find out soon enough what it does, OR NOT! Sometimes folks are not satisfied with results or things don't work out as planned and they need to troubleshoot or find a solution- that is where the theory comes in.

Also- there are lots of myths and folklore in photograhy- "old wives' tales" and all kinds of misconceptions. Sometmes just using the wrong terminology exacerbates the confusion.

I try to field lots of questions on this forum. There are many questions that are very rudimentary and may seem unimportant or somewhat elementary but they are not unimportant to the questioner. So, what should folks in the know do- dismiss the question as insignificant or try to furnish a logical answer or good reference material?

At the end of the day- waht is this forum for? Is it like "middle school" where nasty adolescents shame each other, and criticize one another about things that have nothing to do with photography like grammatical errors, lengthy posts, and implying that folks are posting stupid questions or overly complicated answers? Or should we simply share, converse, and help each other out?

If I recommend a book, one can read the entire contents or I COULD say "page 34, paragraph 3" and toss the rest of the book in the garbage. That is up to threader- not me!

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

photogeneralist wrote:

Seems to me that this whole thread is inconsequential. In any given photo the photographic effect is the same no matter which name you call it by.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

I am certainly not into needless technobabble. I don't always need to "do the math or geometry" every time I shoot. It is good, however, to know the various theories and formulas, optics, etc that may help in finding solutions to problems.

When I started out in commercial photography, I used large-format film cameras. I need to be aware of the format coverage of each lens in order to ensure that I could use all the swings, tilts, and shifts without unwanted vignetting. I cou to just purchase a load of expensive lenses and find out their angle of field and view. One had to have a good idea of these specifications when selecting various lenses.

Nomenclature is not "inconsequential" if you are trying to teach/learn. Especially in online conversations, one needs to use "language" and illustrations that clearly explain concepts.

Of course, if you aren't interested in all these technicalities, they are not essential for your photography. You get a lens, plug it in, look through the viewfinder, see waht it encompasses at various distances, zoom in and out if possible, and you will find out soon enough what it does, OR NOT! Sometimes folks are not satisfied with results or things don't work out as planned and they need to troubleshoot or find a solution- that is where the theory comes in.

Also- there are lots of myths and folklore in photograhy- "old wives' tales" and all kinds of misconceptions. Sometmes just using the wrong terminology exacerbates the confusion.

I try to field lots of questions on this forum. There are many questions that are very rudimentary and may seem unimportant or somewhat elementary but they are not unimportant to the questioner. So, what should folks in the know do- dismiss the question as insignificant or try to furnish a logical answer or good reference material?

At the end of the day- waht is this forum for? Is it like "middle school" where nasty adolescents shame each other, and criticize one another about things that have nothing to do with photography like grammatical errors, lengthy posts, and implying that folks are posting stupid questions or overly complicated answers? Or should we simply share, converse, and help each other out?

If I recommend a book, one can read the entire contents or I COULD say "page 34, paragraph 3" and toss the rest of the book in the garbage. That is up to threader- not me!

I am certainly not into needless technobabble. I ... (show quote)

Perhaps this is the wisest answer - just look through the viewfinder to see what each lens does.