focal length 28mm to 90mm
Förster vom Silberwald
I am speculating of buying a used Fuji FinePix E500 digital camera
(28mm to 90mm equivalent focal length). I am a total newbie and
somewhat overhelmed with the following: is there any big difference
between 90mm vs. lets 114mm or 120mm equivalent length?
I want to snapshot my model ships. Please can anyone direct me to some
formulas for calculating the difference.
For example if I want to photograph a remote tree: how near will I have
to walk with a Fuji FinePix and 90mm in order to get a similar image
than a one with a digital camera and 120mm focal length.
Thanks,
Schneewittchen
John Fryatt
Image size is in proportion to the focal length.
Using the same camera (or one with the same format, i.e. film size or
sensor size), and shooting from the same spot, a 120mm lens will give an
image 33% bigger than one shot with a 90mm. So, if your tree appeared to
be, say, half the frame height with the 90mm, it would be about 67% of
the fram height with the 120mm.
Förster vom Silberwald
John Fryatt wrote:
> Image size is in proportion to the focal length.
>
> Using the same camera (or one with the same format, i.e. film size or
> sensor size), and shooting from the same spot, a 120mm lens will give an
> image 33% bigger than one shot with a 90mm. So, if your tree appeared to
> be, say, half the frame height with the 90mm, it would be about 67% of
> the fram height with the 120mm.
Thanks for that information.
Sorry for asking a naive question again: does the assumption also hold
in the following situation:
When I want to depict a tree 10 kilometers far away with a 90 mm camera
I will have to approach the tree by around 3 kilometers in order to get
the same effect than with a 120 mm camera?
At which point does an object count as being at a distance at infinity?
Btw: 28 mm focal length: is this useful? I sometimes spot cameras which
start off at 40 mm shortest possible focal length? The test-reports to
the Fuji FinePix E500 state that 28 mm will give you a good
still-panorma.
Thanks,
Schneewittchen
Ernie Willson
image that you would get with a 120 mm focal length then you would have
to get 25% closer. For example the image would be the same size from a
120mm lens at 100 meters as from a 90mm lens at 75 meters.
IMO even 120 mm is somewhat short. I regularly use a 250mm equivelant
lens for my telephoto shots. A lens in the 90 to 120 mm length will be a
good general purpose lens and be good for candids and portraits.
Infinity is defined based on a "circle of confusion" concept which
depends on the f number and focal length of the lens. It is beyond what
I am prepared to discuss here. A complete discussion would take a couple
of pages. For most practical purposes, at the focal lengths you are
talking about, infinity could be considered to be from about 30 meters
and beyond.
A 28mm lens is a good standard wide angle for a 35mm camera, and should
serve you well. With a 28mm lens it is possible to stand in the corner
of a room and almost take the whole room in.
HTH,
EJ in NJ
iws
news:1143224284.9...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Btw: 28 mm focal length: is this useful? I sometimes spot cameras which
> start off at 40 mm shortest possible focal length? The test-reports to
> the Fuji FinePix E500 state that 28 mm will give you a good
> still-panorma.
>
Frankly, I'd much rather have the wide-angle (28 mm) capability than
additional telephoto capability. In casual shooting of people especially
groups, it's very convenient. It also seems to me that the maximum aperture
on the higher focal length end of the zoom lenses suffers.
Förster vom Silberwald
iws wrote:
> Frankly, I'd much rather have the wide-angle (28 mm) capability than
> additional telephoto capability. In casual shooting of people especially
> groups, it's very convenient. It also seems to me that the maximum aperture
> on the higher focal length end of the zoom lenses suffers.
Thanks. Interesting remark.
Actually what prevents me thus far for opting for the Fuju FinePix E500
is the allegd bad shooting performance under low-light conditions. As I
said I cannot remember when I used a camera last time and do not know
what they mean when they talk about bad performance under low light
conditions.
I mean a typical flooded room at night will not let me make any good
images of my ship models with such a Fuji FinePix E500?
Sometimes test reports are over-critical and could be I will not notice
bottlenecks under low lights as a typical user?
Thanks,
Schneewittchen
Förster vom Silberwald
Ernie Willson wrote:
> Infinity is defined based on a "circle of confusion" concept which
> depends on the f number and focal length of the lens. It is beyond what
> I am prepared to discuss here. A complete discussion would take a couple
> of pages. For most practical purposes, at the focal lengths you are
> talking about, infinity could be considered to be from about 30 meters
> and beyond.
>
> A 28mm lens is a good standard wide angle for a 35mm camera, and should
> serve you well. With a 28mm lens it is possible to stand in the corner
> of a room and almost take the whole room in.
Thanks for the pointer. I think it is time for me to reach out for a
book about photography. Nevertheless, how embrassing for me since I
hold a PhD in physics and even built a solar telescope with CCD-camera
in astrophysics.
However, I know a lot about optics and telescopes but was never
interested in photography. Some meanings are still the same but there a
lot of different meanings as well.
Schneewittchen
iws
>
> iws wrote:
>
> > Frankly, I'd much rather have the wide-angle (28 mm) capability than
> > additional telephoto capability. In casual shooting of people especially
> > groups, it's very convenient. It also seems to me that the maximum
aperture
> > on the higher focal length end of the zoom lenses suffers.
>
> Thanks. Interesting remark.
>
> Actually what prevents me thus far for opting for the Fuju FinePix E500
> is the allegd bad shooting performance under low-light conditions. As I
> said I cannot remember when I used a camera last time and do not know
> what they mean when they talk about bad performance under low light
> conditions.
>
> I mean a typical flooded room at night will not let me make any good
> images of my ship models with such a Fuji FinePix E500?
I'm not sure about the Fuji but I suspect the complaint is an added degree
of image noise under low light conditions. Perhaps noisy at higher ISO
numbers. Regardless, for best results you would probably want to set up
additional lighting for your models to avoid unwanted shadows and provide a
daylight type of lighting. Otherwise, you'll spend extra time correcting for
such problems using software like Photoshop. Also you likely want to use a
tripod to eliminate camera movement. I'm not sure how important it is for
your models but if you plan to take closeups showing detail you will want
good macro performance too.
Förster vom Silberwald
potential of delivering an area of 1 inch times 1 inch at close ups.
Schneewittchen
Förster vom Silberwald
iws wrote:
> > Actually what prevents me thus far for opting for the Fuju FinePix E500
> > is the allegd bad shooting performance under low-light conditions. As I
> > said I cannot remember when I used a camera last time and do not know
> > what they mean when they talk about bad performance under low light
> > conditions.
As an ddendum: the test report can be found here:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E500/E5A.HTM
And the excerpt:
==
Night Shots: Very limited low-light shooting capabilities, not even
enough for average city street lighting at night. Poor low-light
autofocus as well. The E500 produced clear, bright, usable images only
down to the one foot-candle (11 lux) light level, and even then only at
the 400 ISO setting. At ISO 200, the target was fairly bright at the
one foot-candle light level, but still a little dim for use. At ISOs 80
and 100, the target is very dark, even at one foot-candle.
... and so on...
==
Regards,
Schneewittchen
iws
room, you'll be well above that. But typical incandescent or fluorescent
lighting will cause color problems as I said. So I don't think the E500
would be a bad choice for what you want to do. Have you considered the Canon
A520 - it has better low light performance but only has a minimum focal
length of 35 mm. Or the A610 with 5 MP.