Professional Web Applications Themes

digital combinations - Photography

What digital combination is the equivalent to a 35mm with a 80 to 200 zoom lens....

Sponsored Links
  1. #1

    Default digital combinations

    What digital combination is the equivalent to a 35mm with a 80 to 200
    zoom lens.

    Sponsored Links
    -oo0-GoldTrader-0oo- Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: digital combinations

    "-oo0-GoldTrader-0oo-" <nomads_05> writes:
    > What digital combination is the equivalent to a 35mm with a 80 to 200
    > zoom lens.
    On a Canon 300D/10D/20D DSLR, a 50-125mm lens will be equivalent to 80-200mm on
    a 35mm film camera.

    On a Canon 1D/1D mark2 DSLR, a 61-154mm lens will be equivalent to 80-200mm on
    a 35mm film camera.

    On a Canon 1Ds/1Ds mark2 DSLR, a 80-200mm lens will be equivalent to 80-200mm
    on a 35mm film camera :-).

    On a Nikon D70, Minolta D7S, or Pentex *st DSLR, a 53-134mm lens will be
    equivalent to 80-200 on a 35mm film camera.

    On an Olympus E1/E300, a 40-100mm lens will be equivalent to 80-200mm on a 35mm
    film camera.

    --
    Michael Meissner
    email: [email]mrmnewsthe-meissners.org[/email]
    [url]http://www.the-meissners.org[/url]
    Michael Meissner Guest

  3. #3

    Default digital combinations

    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- Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: digital combinations

    In article <1102010510.293499.244860f14g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
    [email]nomads_05[/email] (-oo0-GoldTrader-0oo-) wrote:
    > *From:* "-oo0-GoldTrader-0oo-" <nomads_05>
    > *Date:* 2 Dec 2004 10:01:50 -0800
    >
    > What digital combination is the equivalent to a 35mm with a 80 to 200
    > zoom lens.
    >
    >
    Depends on which digital body you're using.

    Peter
    Peter Hirons Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: digital combinations

    > What would you recommend using to shoot people walking, in digital?
    An AK47!!!




    Zinnick Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: digital combinations

    In article <1102019070.769939.244220c13g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>, nomads_05
    says...
    >
    >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?
    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 Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: digital combinations


    "Zinnick" <someonesomewhere.com> wrote in message
    news:41afba7f$1dnews.tpgi.com.au...
    >
    >> What would you recommend using to shoot people walking, in digital?
    >
    > An AK47!!!
    >
    Is that a Digital AK47? :)


    Harvey Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: digital combinations

    In article <z5Prd.1519$TV.1340newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>, [email]harveynot.ntlworld.com[/email]
    says...
    >
    >
    >"Zinnick" <someonesomewhere.com> wrote in message
    >news:41afba7f$1dnews.tpgi.com.au...
    >>
    >>> What would you recommend using to shoot people walking, in digital?
    >>
    >> An AK47!!!
    >>
    >
    >Is that a Digital AK47? :)
    Yes, they recently replaced the Kalashnikov action with a Foveon sensor!

    Hunt

    Hunt Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: digital combinations


    "Harvey" <harveynot.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
    news:z5Prd.1519$TV.1340newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
    >
    > "Zinnick" <someonesomewhere.com> wrote in message
    > news:41afba7f$1dnews.tpgi.com.au...
    > >
    > >> What would you recommend using to shoot people walking, in digital?
    > >
    > > An AK47!!!
    > >
    >
    > Is that a Digital AK47? :)
    >
    >
    Nah, they're not there yet. But you can get a digital M16 no problem.


    Paul Bielec Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: digital combinations

    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- Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: digital combinations

    "-oo0-GoldTrader-0oo-" <nomads_05> writes:
    > 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.
    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
    email: [email]mrmnewsthe-meissners.org[/email]
    [url]http://www.the-meissners.org[/url]
    Michael Meissner Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: digital combinations

    Michael Meissner wrote:
    []
    > Yes, on most DSLRs the sensor is smaller than the 24x36cm dimensions
    > of standard 35mm film
    []

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

    <G>

    David


    David J Taylor Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: digital combinations

    So you are saying, the Nikon 1.5 ratio w/ 133mm is about equal to the
    200mm on a 35mm?

    Hunt wrote:
    > In article <1102019070.769939.244220c13g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
    nomads_05
    > says...
    > >
    > >What digital combination would give the equivalent of a 35mm slr
    with a
    > >80 - 200 mm lens.
    -oo0-GoldTrader-0oo- Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: digital combinations

    "-oo0-GoldTrader-0oo-" <nomads_05> writes:
    > So you are saying, the Nikon 1.5 ratio w/ 133mm is about equal to the
    > 200mm on a 35mm?
    Well in terms of field of view, yes. However in terms of depth of field, it
    still is a 133mm lens.

    --
    Michael Meissner
    email: [email]mrmnewsthe-meissners.org[/email]
    [url]http://www.the-meissners.org[/url]
    Michael Meissner Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: digital combinations

    "David J Taylor" <david-taylorinvalid.com> writes:
    > Michael Meissner wrote:
    > []
    > > Yes, on most DSLRs the sensor is smaller than the 24x36cm dimensions
    > > of standard 35mm film
    > []
    >
    > Even on film SLRs it's only 24 x 36mm!
    Yep. Thanks!

    --
    Michael Meissner
    email: [email]mrmnewsthe-meissners.org[/email]
    [url]http://www.the-meissners.org[/url]
    Michael Meissner Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: digital combinations

    Michael Meissner wrote:
    > "-oo0-GoldTrader-0oo-" <nomads_05> writes:
    >
    >
    >>So you are saying, the Nikon 1.5 ratio w/ 133mm is about equal to the
    >>200mm on a 35mm?
    >
    >
    > Well in terms of field of view, yes. However in terms of depth of field, it
    > still is a 133mm lens.
    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.


    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: [url]http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm[/url]
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: [url]http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm[/url]
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: [url]http://www.pbase.com/shootin[/url]
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Browne Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: digital combinations

    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- Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: digital combinations

    -oo0-GoldTrader-0oo- wrote:
    > 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?
    >
    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 Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: digital combinations

    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
    ing 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- Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: digital combinations

    In article <1102346765.409237.182270f14g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
    -oo0-GoldTrader-0oo- <nomads_05> wrote:
    > 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
    > ing 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?
    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 john followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
    Qercus magazine & FD Games [url]www.finnybank.com[/url] [url]www.acornuser.com[/url]
    Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines
    John Cartmell Guest

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Possible combinations
    By girmalemu in forum Coldfusion - Getting Started
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: October 20th, 03:02 PM
  2. new to digital - ISO
    By Harry Weiss in forum Photography
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 1st, 09:44 PM
  3. Looking for my first digital cam...
    By J-Dawg in forum Photography
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 1st, 03:35 AM
  4. combinations
    By Rob Dixon in forum PERL Beginners
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 5th, 11:34 AM
  5. digital
    By Miro in forum Photography
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 28th, 01:26 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139