Ka2azman Loc: Tucson, Az

I really enjoy UHH sight and look forward to reading it everyday since I found it.

I am searching for an answer as to what is the difference between, really should say conversion of MM to power or vise versa on lenses. For example a Canon SX50 has up to a 50X lens where as my Canon 100-400L lens is in MM. What's the power of it?

The reason I ask is, I suppose this is really a second question to answer, well no supposing; while out and about shooting birds, looking at them through my 10x binoculars the view seems much larger and closer than when I raise the camera, a Canon T4i with the 100-400L MM lense and take the picture. Yet when put on a computer and viewed at actual pixels the pictures is much larger and closer than the view I had through the binoculars. Why is this?

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

The SX50 goes from 24mm to 1200 mm (in 35mm film equivalent terms), its actually a 4.3mm-215mm lens. Hence 24(mm) x 50 = 1200(mm). In that vein the 100-400mm lens is a 4X lens. Meaning its longest focal capability is 4 times its shortest focal capability. All this is pretty much meaningless without a standard to guage it by though. That is why almosy all camera manufacturers today rate their focal lengths in terms of 35mm film equivalent in relation to that cameras sensor size rather than actual lens focal length.
In the old film days we used to consider a 50mm lens as equivalent to what the eye sees. Therefore a 400mm lens was considered to give you roughly 8X magnification.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

This is a duplicate post, see the reply on your other post.

Ka2azman Loc: Tucson, Az

Thank you MT Shooter. At one time I was told it was about .10 in other words 400MM would equal 40x, but that didn't seem logical when put to the test. I see the logic in what you say, and again thanks.

Ka2azman Loc: Tucson, Az

Don't know how I got two posts. But Thank you.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

It would if you had it on a camera phone with their miniscule sensors, but thats about it.