Reply to Portrait lens for 20D
Terry
It's designd for the digital sensor & 1.6 multiplier. Should I consider the
new 18-55 F/2.8 IS? It is not an L lens, but again it is designed for the
20D sensor. No reviews yet, since it has not been released in the USA.
--
Terry
Remove the rodent from my email address to reply directly.
David Dyer-Bennet
> Thanks to everybody who responded. How about the new Sigma 30MM F/1.4?
> It's designd for the digital sensor & 1.6 multiplier.
No, too short for most people's definition of "portrait lens", which
means you won't get the perspective you want with the framing you want.
> Should I consider the new 18-55 F/2.8 IS? It is not an L lens, but
> again it is designed for the 20D sensor. No reviews yet, since it
> has not been released in the USA.
The 18-55 f2.8 ought to be a very good general purpose lens including
portraits, if it's any good (and mostly when they bother to make it an
f2.8 lens, they do decentlly overall).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
Tropical Treat
"Terry" <ratcaf...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:E5CdnbKnLoq...@comcast.com...
: Thanks to everybody who responded. How about the new Sigma 30MM F/1.4?
:
IN 35mm relationship to focal length, Almost every maker made a "portrait
lens" and it was in the area of 75 to 125 mm focal length. There is no
telephoto effect with a crop factor sensor. All they do when using the same
lens as a 35mm is crop an area in the middle. This leads to many people
assuming they get a 30% telephoto boost when it is just cropping the image.
Sadly crop factor DSLRs do not make for good portrait cameras although I
have no doubt, many people can produce nice portraits take with one. To
obtain the classic 'look' of a portrait, you need to use a telephoto lens.
Some time back when I echoed the writings in a Kodak (and Ilford) guide to
portraiture by saying you get a better perspective with a portrait lens,
zealots and digital fanatics who lurk here waiting for the opportunity to
pounce on such statements with engineering examples to prove the perspective
doesn't change from a 10mm lens to a 100mm lens, will no doubt have a
different view to me. Try them all and use your own judgment in the end.
Getting a better perspective is not about the optical perspective of a lens
but about the "look" obtained when using a short telephoto lens for the job.
You could experiment with a 50 mm lens which crops the image to about the
same area as a 70mm lens but the results will not be the same. I would
recommend you use a 70mm lens at about f2.8 if you intend to focus attention
on one part of the subject. This will blur anything a few mm from the point
of focus. I have used this to conceal wrinkles instead of using a Duto
filter. One aspect of using a crop factor camera and short lens, is the
depth of focus will be greater than if you composed the same picture with a
short telephoto lens. Also the appearance of the subject will be more
distorted than when you use a telephoto lens if you intend the get torso and
full length shots.
As for which lens? Even God can't answer this one. My own preference is for
a fixed "prime" lens but the newer Zoom lenses are getting better every day.
Seeing as you are going to compromise in the camera, you might as well
compromise with the lens too. I use a Sigma 24 to 70, f/2.8, EX, DG lens on
my 5D as a working lens at weddings. You might find one of these will suit
you well if money is a constraint. They are no better or worse than the
Canon flavour, just a trifle nosier in the focus motor and quite soft under
30mm FL. This, incidentally is why I use it. Soft focus can be beneficial
sometimes.
Joseph Meehan
> Thanks to everybody who responded. How about the new Sigma 30MM
> F/1.4? It's designd for the digital sensor & 1.6 multiplier.
Only if you intend to only photography people who like to look like they
have big noses and chins. :-)
The perspective would be unattractive for most portrait uses.
> Should
> I consider the new 18-55 F/2.8 IS? It is not an L lens, but again it
> is designed for the 20D sensor. No reviews yet, since it has not
> been released in the USA.
--
Joseph Meehan
Dia duit
David Dyer-Bennet
> "Terry" <ratcaf...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:E5CdnbKnLoq...@comcast.com...
> : Thanks to everybody who responded. How about the new Sigma 30MM
> : F/1.4? It's designd for the digital sensor & 1.6 multiplier.
> : Should I consider the new 18-55 F/2.8 IS? It is not an L lens,
> : but again it is designed for the 20D sensor. No reviews yet,
> : since it has not been released in the USA.
> IN 35mm relationship to focal length, Almost every maker made a
> "portrait lens" and it was in the area of 75 to 125 mm focal
> length. There is no telephoto effect with a crop factor sensor. All
> they do when using the same lens as a 35mm is crop an area in the
> middle. This leads to many people assuming they get a 30% telephoto
> boost when it is just cropping the image.
>
> Sadly crop factor DSLRs do not make for good portrait cameras
> although I have no doubt, many people can produce nice portraits
> take with one. To obtain the classic 'look' of a portrait, you need
> to use a telephoto lens. Some time back when I echoed the writings
> in a Kodak (and Ilford) guide to portraiture by saying you get a
> better perspective with a portrait lens, zealots and digital
> fanatics who lurk here waiting for the opportunity to pounce on such
> statements with engineering examples to prove the perspective
> doesn't change from a 10mm lens to a 100mm lens, will no doubt have
> a different view to me. Try them all and use your own judgment in
> the end.
The perspective depends solely on the physical relationship between
the camera, subject, and background. There is no such thing as "the
perspective of a lens". This is easily verifiable by simple
experimentation. This can also be found in any decent photography
book.
You do know what "perspective" means in photography, right? It refers
to the size relationships between the objects in the photo.
One sales tool that I've seen in many camera stores over the years is
a counter matt with a sequence of photos on it, taken with the entire
range of some manufacturer's lenses, from one spot, all looking the
same direction. It's very apparent on inspection that all the photos,
with lenses from ultra-wide to super-ultra-telephoto, give the same
perspective. That's what you'd expect, because the position of the
camera hasn't changed and the position of the subject hasn't changed.
ASAAR
but this is in response to him writing:
> One sales tool that I've seen in many camera stores over the years is
> a counter matt with a sequence of photos on it, taken with the entire
> range of some manufacturer's lenses, from one spot, all looking the
> same direction. It's very apparent on inspection that all the photos,
> with lenses from ultra-wide to super-ultra-telephoto, give the same
> perspective. That's what you'd expect, because the position of the
> camera hasn't changed and the position of the subject hasn't changed.
And the position of the camera in those photo sequences is fairly
distant from the subjects. In portraiture the camera is much closer
to the subject. If you take portraits with a 105mm lens, the
features are "flattened". That is, the relative sizes of the nose
and ears are fairly close to what they'd be if they were taken at a
much greater distance using a 1000mm lens. But if a shorter lens is
used, such as 35mm, the subject will be much closer to the camera
and the relative size of the nose to the ears will be noticeably
greater. I think that that's the perspective difference that was
being discussed.
There might even be some of effect in the sequence of shots you
mentioned, but it might not be noticed due to the way the brain
works. We've evolved in a way that probably makes subtle changes in
the size of facial features quite noticeable. Those sequences you
mentioned are often of manmade objects such as city skylines, and
differences in the sizes of buildings in the foreground to others
slightly behind them might not be at all obvious when comparing
shots taken at different focal lengths, where the selling point is
to compare extreme differences in magnification, which might well
swamp the ability to notice any perspective created size
differences. A caliper or ruler might be needed to become aware of
perspective differences for these shots. It's a different matter
with portraits taken with lenses of different focal lengths, since
the face (or bust) will fill the frame with both, making slight
differences in the sizes of some facial features so noticeable that
measurements aren't needed.
David Dyer-Bennet
> On 27 Feb 2006 22:47:25 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet may think I'm nosy,
> but this is in response to him writing:
>
> > One sales tool that I've seen in many camera stores over the years is
> > a counter matt with a sequence of photos on it, taken with the entire
> > range of some manufacturer's lenses, from one spot, all looking the
> > same direction. It's very apparent on inspection that all the photos,
> > with lenses from ultra-wide to super-ultra-telephoto, give the same
> > perspective. That's what you'd expect, because the position of the
> > camera hasn't changed and the position of the subject hasn't changed.
>
> And the position of the camera in those photo sequences is fairly
> distant from the subjects. In portraiture the camera is much closer
> to the subject. If you take portraits with a 105mm lens, the
> features are "flattened". That is, the relative sizes of the nose
> and ears are fairly close to what they'd be if they were taken at a
> much greater distance using a 1000mm lens. But if a shorter lens is
> used, such as 35mm, the subject will be much closer to the camera
> and the relative size of the nose to the ears will be noticeably
> greater. I think that that's the perspective difference that was
> being discussed.
It's not caused by lens focal length; it's caused by camera position.
Mount your camera on a tripod, point it at a person who's holding
still for you, and shoot the shot with both 50mm and 100mm lenses,
then crop the 50mm shot to the exact same size as the 100mm shot, and
you will see that the perspective is identical. (Depending on film or
digital ISO, you may see a difference in texture due to the greater
enlargement of the 50mm shot -- which is why when taking portraits you
want to use a longer lens in the first place.)
> There might even be some of effect in the sequence of shots you
> mentioned, but it might not be noticed due to the way the brain
> works.
The optics of how the images are formed is well-understood. *There is
no such effect*. The focal length of the lens does not change or
alter the perspective in any way.
> We've evolved in a way that probably makes subtle changes in
> the size of facial features quite noticeable. Those sequences you
> mentioned are often of manmade objects such as city skylines, and
> differences in the sizes of buildings in the foreground to others
> slightly behind them might not be at all obvious when comparing
> shots taken at different focal lengths, where the selling point is
> to compare extreme differences in magnification, which might well
> swamp the ability to notice any perspective created size
> differences. A caliper or ruler might be needed to become aware of
> perspective differences for these shots. It's a different matter
> with portraits taken with lenses of different focal lengths, since
> the face (or bust) will fill the frame with both, making slight
> differences in the sizes of some facial features so noticeable that
> measurements aren't needed.
Take your own examples and look for yourself, then.
ASAAR
> It's not caused by lens focal length; it's caused by camera position.
> Mount your camera on a tripod, point it at a person who's holding
> still for you, and shoot the shot with both 50mm and 100mm lenses,
> then crop the 50mm shot to the exact same size as the 100mm shot, and
> you will see that the perspective is identical. (Depending on film or
> digital ISO, you may see a difference in texture due to the greater
> enlargement of the 50mm shot -- which is why when taking portraits you
> want to use a longer lens in the first place.)
But again, this thread is about portraits and photographers do
*not* take them using a fixed lens to subject distance. So the
difference that you note is caused by camera position is the
prime(!) consideration. What you say has validity, but it's not the
way photographers shoot portraits and shows that you either don't
understand or are unwilling to consider the point I've made.
>> There might even be some of effect in the sequence of shots you
>> mentioned, but it might not be noticed due to the way the brain
>> works.
>
> The optics of how the images are formed is well-understood. *There is
> no such effect*. The focal length of the lens does not change or
> alter the perspective in any way.
Yes, it's well understood, but again, you didn't understand what I
wrote, which wasn't about optics. It was about how the brain
perceives objects. One well known example is how you can photograph
a full moon at different positions in the sky and as expected, the
size will be the same in all prints. But when the moon is very low
on the horizon and appears near familiar objects (houses, etc.) most
people are amazed to see a moon that appears far larger than its
normal size. That's primarily due to the way the brain operates,
not to optical laws. In all cases, the camera to subject (moon)
distances are the same, yet the perceived sizes differ.
>> We've evolved in a way that probably makes subtle changes in
>> the size of facial features quite noticeable. Those sequences you
>> mentioned are often of manmade objects such as city skylines, and
>> differences in the sizes of buildings in the foreground to others
>> slightly behind them might not be at all obvious when comparing
>> shots taken at different focal lengths, where the selling point is
>> to compare extreme differences in magnification, which might well
>> swamp the ability to notice any perspective created size
>> differences. A caliper or ruler might be needed to become aware of
>> perspective differences for these shots. It's a different matter
>> with portraits taken with lenses of different focal lengths, since
>> the face (or bust) will fill the frame with both, making slight
>> differences in the sizes of some facial features so noticeable that
>> measurements aren't needed.
>
> Take your own examples and look for yourself, then.
Suit yourself. Believe what makes you most comfortable.
timepixdc
"Terry" <ratcaf...@comcast.net> wrote:
> How about the new Sigma 30MM F/1.4?
Too wide for portraits.
223rem
>
> It's not caused by lens focal length; it's caused by camera position.
In other words, if the optical center of the lens is fixed, changing
focal length is equivalent to changing scale in the image plane.
On the other hand, if you move the lens along the optical axis, the
change in the image plane will be non-linear.
David Dyer-Bennet
> On 28 Feb 2006 09:55:25 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
> > It's not caused by lens focal length; it's caused by camera position.
> > Mount your camera on a tripod, point it at a person who's holding
> > still for you, and shoot the shot with both 50mm and 100mm lenses,
> > then crop the 50mm shot to the exact same size as the 100mm shot, and
> > you will see that the perspective is identical. (Depending on film or
> > digital ISO, you may see a difference in texture due to the greater
> > enlargement of the 50mm shot -- which is why when taking portraits you
> > want to use a longer lens in the first place.)
>
> But again, this thread is about portraits and photographers do
> *not* take them using a fixed lens to subject distance. So the
> difference that you note is caused by camera position is the
> prime(!) consideration. What you say has validity, but it's not the
> way photographers shoot portraits and shows that you either don't
> understand or are unwilling to consider the point I've made.
I think it's an important difference; in particular, that it's key to
learning to be a decent photographer. This is one way in which the
prevalence of zooms has really impoverished many photographer's
ability to see -- if you *have to* move around with your feet, you
figure out pretty quickly what focal length does and what moving to
another spot does; but if you can get something like a shot just by
zooming from where you stand, often you don't figure this out for
years.
And I'm even less sure what the point you've made is now than before.
Originally I thought you were arguing the flat-out false position that
focal length affects perspective; now I'm not sure what you're
arguing.
If you're arguing that a photographer chooses a lens first, and then
moves to get the framing he wants with that lens, and hence the choice
of lens ends up determining the perspective (by determining where he
moves to), there's some truth in that for some photographers. On the
other hand, some photographers go to a position giving the view and
perspective they want, and then choose a lens that gives the framing
they want from that position.
> >> There might even be some of effect in the sequence of shots you
> >> mentioned, but it might not be noticed due to the way the brain
> >> works.
> >
> > The optics of how the images are formed is well-understood. *There is
> > no such effect*. The focal length of the lens does not change or
> > alter the perspective in any way.
>
> Yes, it's well understood, but again, you didn't understand what I
> wrote, which wasn't about optics. It was about how the brain
> perceives objects. One well known example is how you can photograph
> a full moon at different positions in the sky and as expected, the
> size will be the same in all prints. But when the moon is very low
> on the horizon and appears near familiar objects (houses, etc.) most
> people are amazed to see a moon that appears far larger than its
> normal size. That's primarily due to the way the brain operates,
> not to optical laws. In all cases, the camera to subject (moon)
> distances are the same, yet the perceived sizes differ.
It's a well-known optical illusion, yes.
> >> We've evolved in a way that probably makes subtle changes in
> >> the size of facial features quite noticeable. Those sequences you
> >> mentioned are often of manmade objects such as city skylines, and
> >> differences in the sizes of buildings in the foreground to others
> >> slightly behind them might not be at all obvious when comparing
> >> shots taken at different focal lengths, where the selling point is
> >> to compare extreme differences in magnification, which might well
> >> swamp the ability to notice any perspective created size
> >> differences. A caliper or ruler might be needed to become aware of
> >> perspective differences for these shots. It's a different matter
> >> with portraits taken with lenses of different focal lengths, since
> >> the face (or bust) will fill the frame with both, making slight
> >> differences in the sizes of some facial features so noticeable that
> >> measurements aren't needed.
> >
> > Take your own examples and look for yourself, then.
>
> Suit yourself. Believe what makes you most comfortable.
This isn't about what's comfortable, it's about what's *true*. Move
around with a lens and watch the perspective change!
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
> > It's not caused by lens focal length; it's caused by camera position.
>
>
> In other words, if the optical center of the lens is fixed, changing
> focal length is equivalent to changing scale in the image plane.
Yes.
> On the other hand, if you move the lens along the optical axis, the
> change in the image plane will be non-linear.
And yes again. As anybody who has ever tilted up at a nice
rectangular skyscraper knows!
Joseph Meehan
I should add that most people are uncomfortable when the photographer is
physically very close to them while being photographed. That can result in
images reflecting that discomfort.
ASAAR
> And I'm even less sure what the point you've made is now than before.
> Originally I thought you were arguing the flat-out false position that
> focal length affects perspective; now I'm not sure what you're
> arguing.
>
> If you're arguing that a photographer chooses a lens first, and then
> moves to get the framing he wants with that lens, and hence the choice
> of lens ends up determining the perspective (by determining where he
> moves to), there's some truth in that for some photographers. On the
> other hand, some photographers go to a position giving the view and
> perspective they want, and then choose a lens that gives the framing
> they want from that position.
If you're talking about general principles, then you're right.
One of a good photographer's most important set of tools are his/her
shoes. Position often plays a significant part in the perspective
of the different elements in the photo's composition. But this has
little importance in portrait photography, which is what I thought
we were discussing. It would be different if the portrait contains
several people at different distances, surrounded by additional
objects that are necessarily an integral part of the composition.
But most portraits contain one or a small number of people, and most
portrait photographers really *do* consider the choice of lens to be
of no little importance. That's why 35mm photographers have
considered lenses in the 85mm to 105mm range to be best for
portraiture. Whatever lens they select, they most likely position
the camera's distance from the subject so that the subject occupies
a fairly large portion of the frame. So if a 28mm or 35mm lens was
used, the camera would be much closer to the subject than if a
longer lens was used. And getting very close to the subject *will*
cause perspective differences, magnifying closer objects more than
distant objects. That's what I tried to convey before when I
mentioned noses and ears. Get close to the ground and take a
picture of someone at a beach lying down in the sand. Shoot it with
the camera near the feet and when you look at the photo, you'll see
enormous thighs with a relatively tiny head in the distance. Now use
the same lens, but back off 20 feet and take another shot with the
camera close to the ground. Enlarge that, and the thighs no longer
seem to belong to a pinhead. :)
As I said before, the perspective changes, and it's really the
same thing you've been talking about (above, "photographers go to a
position giving the view and perspective they want"). But with
portraits, whether you say the photographer first chooses the lens
or chooses an advantageous position, it amounts to the same thing.
Either way, the photographer won't end up getting too close to the
subject, which would create a slightly distorted image. An extreme
case would be the way a fisheye or very short WA lens can make the
nose look like it was pumped up to twice its normal size if the
camera gets too close, or "in your face" as it were.
David Dyer-Bennet
> On 28 Feb 2006 14:28:56 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
> > And I'm even less sure what the point you've made is now than before.
> > Originally I thought you were arguing the flat-out false position that
> > focal length affects perspective; now I'm not sure what you're
> > arguing.
> >
> > If you're arguing that a photographer chooses a lens first, and then
> > moves to get the framing he wants with that lens, and hence the choice
> > of lens ends up determining the perspective (by determining where he
> > moves to), there's some truth in that for some photographers. On the
> > other hand, some photographers go to a position giving the view and
> > perspective they want, and then choose a lens that gives the framing
> > they want from that position.
>
> If you're talking about general principles, then you're right.
These aren't the kind of general principles that are rough rules of
thumb. These are general principles like Newton's laws of motion.
This time you said it exactly right -- "gettting very close to the
subject will cause perspective differences". Putting on a 21mm lens
will *not* cause perspective differences -- although it might tempt
you into getting very close, which then will.
I'm not arguing that a 21mm lens is a good choice for 35mm
portraiture, mind you (there's always some exotic famous portrait that
works using about any imaginable lens, but in general 21mm just isn't
the thing, I believe we agree on that completely).
> As I said before, the perspective changes, and it's really the
> same thing you've been talking about (above, "photographers go to a
> position giving the view and perspective they want"). But with
> portraits, whether you say the photographer first chooses the lens
> or chooses an advantageous position, it amounts to the same thing.
> Either way, the photographer won't end up getting too close to the
> subject, which would create a slightly distorted image. An extreme
> case would be the way a fisheye or very short WA lens can make the
> nose look like it was pumped up to twice its normal size if the
> camera gets too close, or "in your face" as it were.
Yep, getting too close is generally very bad for a portrait, I agree
entirely.
ASAAR
>> If you're talking about general principles, then you're right.
>
> These aren't the kind of general principles that are rough rules of
> thumb. These are general principles like Newton's laws of motion.
We're still not in synch. I'm not talking about physics, but the
kind of principles followed by good photographers. I'm tempted to
say that I don't give a fig about Newton, but that would be heresy.
>> As I said before, the perspective changes, and it's really the
>> same thing you've been talking about (above, "photographers go to a
>> position giving the view and perspective they want"). But with
>> portraits, whether you say the photographer first chooses the lens
>> or chooses an advantageous position, it amounts to the same thing.
>> Either way, the photographer won't end up getting too close to the
>> subject, which would create a slightly distorted image. An extreme
>> case would be the way a fisheye or very short WA lens can make the
>> nose look like it was pumped up to twice its normal size if the
>> camera gets too close, or "in your face" as it were.
>
> Yep, getting too close is generally very bad for a portrait, I agree
> entirely.
I had a feeling we'd end in agreement. :)
David J. Littleboy
>
> And the position of the camera in those photo sequences is fairly
> distant from the subjects. In portraiture the camera is much closer
> to the subject. If you take portraits with a 105mm lens, the
> features are "flattened". That is, the relative sizes of the nose
> and ears are fairly close to what they'd be if they were taken at a
> much greater distance using a 1000mm lens. But if a shorter lens is
> used, such as 35mm, the subject will be much closer to the camera
> and the relative size of the nose to the ears will be noticeably
> greater. I think that that's the perspective difference that was
> being discussed.
Well, yes. But if you use a different format, then the absolute numbers
become different. A 105mm lens on 4x5 (where 160mm is normal) would be just
as bad for portraiture as a 35mm lens in 35mm would be _if you positioned
the cameras the same distance from the subject_ .
So "Torpical Treat's" claim that there isn't a "multplier effect" is dead
wrong, stupid, and ridiculous. A 50mm lens on an APS-C camera really is
exactly equivalent to an 80mm lens on a FF camera _if you position the
cameras the same distance from the subject_. The multiplier effect arises
because you enlarge the smaller format image more than the larger format.
Life gets complicated with digital because pixel counts tend to be
different, but if you compare the D2x to the 5D, you'd see that they are
truly functionally equivalent with focal lengths shifted by 1.5x.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
ASAAR
> Well, yes. But if you use a different format, then the absolute numbers
> become different. A 105mm lens on 4x5 (where 160mm is normal)
> would be just as bad for portraiture as a 35mm lens in 35mm would be
> _if you positioned the cameras the same distance from the subject_ .
Understood. That's why in a previous message in this thread (not
the one that you replied to) I added that this lens range applied to
35mm cameras: ("That's why 35mm photographers have considered
lenses in the 85mm to 105mm range to be best for . . .")
> So "Torpical Treat's" claim that there isn't a "multplier effect" is dead
> wrong, stupid, and ridiculous. A 50mm lens on an APS-C camera really is
> exactly equivalent to an 80mm lens on a FF camera _if you position the
> cameras the same distance from the subject_. The multiplier effect arises
> because you enlarge the smaller format image more than the larger
> format.
> Life gets complicated with digital because pixel counts tend to be
> different, but if you compare the D2x to the 5D, you'd see that they are
> truly functionally equivalent with focal lengths shifted by 1.5x.
That's also understood, as well as your opinion of T.T. His
reply here started with a reasonable first sentence, but went
downhill pretty quick. If he reads his own message a month or two
from now I'm not sure if he'll understand what he tried to say. I
don't mean to be too harsh, as it might be due to not proofreading
his replies before hitting [SEND]. When I proof my own messages I
occasionally catch myself writing things that wouldn't even make
sense in a dream. Proofreading is far more effective than wearing
an aluminum foil hat and not bothering to proofread. :)
mrsgator88
Steve
"Terry" <ratcaf...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:E5CdnbKnLoq...@comcast.com...
Tropical Treat
"David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote in message
news:du2umq$23t$1...@nnrp.gol.com...
:
: So "Torpical Treat's" claim that there isn't a "multplier effect" is dead
: wrong, stupid, and ridiculous. A 50mm lens on an APS-C camera really is
: exactly equivalent to an 80mm lens on a FF camera _if you position the
: cameras the same distance from the subject_. :
:
This is where human logic clouds into folklore. I'm not surprised to see you
have resorted to personal insults because you can't grasp some simple facts.
Why do you think APS size sensor cameras are called *CROP FACTOR* cameras
and not multiplier cameras?
All that happens with a (for example) 2x crop factor camera is that a 50mm
lens only has 50% of it's area used for the picture so it is as the
description suggests a *CROP* factor resulting in the field of view you
would get with a 100mm lens but not the multiplication or 'zoom' factor.
Depth of field is still the same as is the less than flat field of view.
Which incidentally is the reason for using a telephoto lens for portraiture
in the first place. All you get is exactly what you would have if you shot
with a 50mm lens on a FF camera and later cropped the picture in Photoshop
to 50% of it's size.
I suppose one day David, you will discover for yourself the plethora of
things which go to make up a traditional portrait. Not the least being an
understanding of the effect different lenses have on the final picture. And
you shoot 645, you say? Seems like a waste of equipment if you don't
understand the relationship between a lens and the results it produces. Take
some advice and stop trying to gain points with insults and belittlement.
It's not doing you any good, you know?
David J. Littleboy
> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
> :
> : So "Torpical Treat's" claim that there isn't a "multplier effect" is
> dead
> : wrong, stupid, and ridiculous. A 50mm lens on an APS-C camera really is
> : exactly equivalent to an 80mm lens on a FF camera _if you position the
> : cameras the same distance from the subject_. :
> :
> This is where human logic clouds into folklore. I'm not surprised to see
> you
> have resorted to personal insults because you can't grasp some simple
> facts.
Since I'm right, you're the one who's not grasping the simply facts. Here's
a starter.
The 24mm lens on APS-C, the 35mm lens on FF, my 55/2.8 on my 645, and my
65/4.0 on my 6x7 all produce exactly the same problematic portrait (when
used at the same subject distance and an appropriate f stop), or exactly the
same rather nice landscape.
> Why do you think APS size sensor cameras are called *CROP FACTOR* cameras
> and not multiplier cameras?
>
> All that happens with a (for example) 2x crop factor camera is that a 50mm
> lens only has 50% of it's area used for the picture so it is as the
> description suggests a *CROP* factor resulting in the field of view you
> would get with a 100mm lens but not the multiplication or 'zoom' factor.
> Depth of field is still the same as is the less than flat field of view.
> Which incidentally is the reason for using a telephoto lens for
> portraiture
> in the first place.
Oh, man. You are so completely wrong I don't know where to start.
DOF is a perceptual phenomenon that only makes sense when compared on prints
of the same size. The idea that there's "DOF" on the film or sensor is
silly, because our customers don't look at our film, they look at our
prints. At which point, the enlargement to the print from the film reduces
the DOF from the cropped camera _when the same focal length is used_. That's
where the extra magnification comes in. But DOF is inversely proportional to
the square of the focal length. So if you take the same shot with 35mm and
APS-C (that is, with lenses with the same angle of view for the same
composition), the extra magnification decreases DOF by a factor of 1.6, and
the shorter focal length increases DOF by a factor of 1.6^2. Making the
smaller format have 1.6x the DOF of the larger format. In the print.
Sheesh, Doug, haven't you noticed that P&S dcams have more DOF than 35mm
cameras? And you never bothered to think about it?
> All you get is exactly what you would have if you shot
> with a 50mm lens on a FF camera and later cropped the picture in Photoshop
> to 50% of it's size.
Surprise! You got something correct. But you've completely misunderstood the
implications of cropping; If you shoot the same picture from the same place
with an 80mm lens and a 50mm lens, and crop the 50mm lens image, _and then
print both at the same size_, you'll see exactly the same perspective/depth
rendering in both prints.
Again, the 24mm lens on APS-C, the 35mm lens on FF, my 55/2.8 on my 645, and
my 65/4.0 all produce exactly the same problematic portrait, or exactly the
same rather nice landscape.
> I suppose one day David, you will discover for yourself the plethora of
> things which go to make up a traditional portrait. Not the least being an
> understanding of the effect different lenses have on the final picture.
Since you're the one who doesn't understand the geometry of rectilinear
projection (and thus the fact that different focal lengths have no effect on
the relationship between the relative magnifications with which objects at
different distances are projected onto the film), you need to take your own
advice.
John McWilliams
> On 28 Feb 2006 16:44:00 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>
>>> If you're talking about general principles, then you're right.
>>
>>These aren't the kind of general principles that are rough rules of
>>thumb. These are general principles like Newton's laws of motion.
>
>
> We're still not in synch. I'm not talking about physics, but the
> kind of principles followed by good photographers. I'm tempted to
> say that I don't give a fig about Newton, but that would be heresy.
>
--
John McWilliams
Even if you learned to speak English perfectly, whom would you speak it to?
ASAAR
>> We're still not in synch. I'm not talking about physics, but the
>> kind of principles followed by good photographers. I'm tempted to
>> say that I don't give a fig about Newton, but that would be heresy.
>>
> Me, too, ever since Nabisco bought 'em.
Hmm. I can't recall them ever not being Nabiscuits. No matter, I
rarely have them any more ever since I discovered fresh fig bars.
Fresh : more taste.
Newtons: less filling.
Stacey
>
> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote in message
> news:du2umq$23t$1...@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> :
> : So "Torpical Treat's" claim that there isn't a "multplier effect" is
> : dead wrong, stupid, and ridiculous. A 50mm lens on an APS-C camera
> : really is exactly equivalent to an 80mm lens on a FF camera _if you
> : position the cameras the same distance from the subject_. :
> :
> This is where human logic clouds into folklore. I'm not surprised to see
> you have resorted to personal insults because you can't grasp some simple
> facts. Why do you think APS size sensor cameras are called *CROP FACTOR*
> cameras and not multiplier cameras?
>
> All that happens with a (for example) 2x crop factor camera is that a 50mm
> lens only has 50% of it's area used for the picture so it is as the
> description suggests a *CROP* factor resulting in the field of view you
> would get with a 100mm lens but not the multiplication or 'zoom' factor.
There is no "zoom factor". It's all about FOV (field of view).
>
> I suppose one day David, you will discover for yourself the plethora of
> things which go to make up a traditional portrait. Not the least being an
> understanding of the effect different lenses have on the final picture.
> And you shoot 645, you say? Seems like a waste of equipment if you don't
> understand the relationship between a lens and the results it produces.
> Take some advice and stop trying to gain points with insults and
> belittlement. It's not doing you any good, you know?
And your insults did what, make you look any better?
--
Stacey
David J. Littleboy
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 10:50:59 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
>> Well, yes. But if you use a different format, then the absolute numbers
>> become different. A 105mm lens on 4x5 (where 160mm is normal)
>> would be just as bad for portraiture as a 35mm lens in 35mm would be
>> _if you positioned the cameras the same distance from the subject_ .
>
> Understood. That's why in a previous message in this thread (not
> the one that you replied to) I added that this lens range applied to
> 35mm cameras: ("That's why 35mm photographers have considered
> lenses in the 85mm to 105mm range to be best for . . .")
Yes. Sorry seeming to be yelling at you when I really was yelling at
Tropical Treat.
Tropical Treat
"Stacey" <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:46l3amF...@individual.net...
:
: And your insults did what, make you look any better?
:
: --
:
: Stacey
They made me look thinner, Stacey.
Sort of opposite to the distortion of a portrait shot with a 30mm lens.
ASAAR
>>> Well, yes. But if you use a different format, then the absolute numbers
>>> become different. A 105mm lens on 4x5 (where 160mm is normal)
>>> would be just as bad for portraiture as a 35mm lens in 35mm would be
>>> _if you positioned the cameras the same distance from the subject_ .
>>
>> Understood. That's why in a previous message in this thread (not
>> the one that you replied to) I added that this lens range applied to
>> 35mm cameras: ("That's why 35mm photographers have considered
>> lenses in the 85mm to 105mm range to be best for . . .")
>
> Yes. Sorry seeming to be yelling at you when I really was yelling at
> Tropical Treat.
Thanks but, uh, if there was any yelling I didn't notice it It
seemed to be one of your kinder, gentler replies. :)
mark.t...@gmail.com
"Sadly crop factor DSLRs do not make for good portrait cameras"
camera..!
Here's the best current examples of Douglas' portrait expertise on the
web:
http://www.photosbydouglas.com/kiss.htm
http://www.photosbydouglas.com/kissonpier.htm
Note the phenomenal posing expertise, the mastery of d-o-f and
perspective...... (I'm *so* trying not to laugh...)
"All you get is exactly what you would have if you shot with a 50mm
lens
on a FF camera and later cropped the picture in Photoshop to 50% of
it's size."
Well, Dougie, most folk would move in a little closer rather than crop
by 50%.. and THAT is where the 'perspective' changed. Interestingly,
Douglas proved HIMSELF wrong here (as usual) - because as David said,
if Douglas followed his own advice and took a shot with a 10mm fish
eye, and then an 80mm telephoto *from the same position* and then
cropped them and printed them to show the same subject at the same
size, the perspective and dof would be effectively *identical*, given
equal apertures)
"They made me look thinner, Stacey."
"Sort of opposite to the distortion of a portrait shot with a 30mm
lens."
And again, Doug brilliantly shoots his own foot.. I just shot a whole
pile of portraits using my 30mm lens, which, on the realtively small
sensor I was using, gave a view exactly equivalent to a 120mm tele on
35mm. It gives, of course, a lovely portrait effect BECAUSE I have to
stand back (just as far as you do with a 120 on a 35mm slr)...
And I used the aperture carefully to give me the d-o-f I wanted..
In other words, perspective is NOT about the focal length - except
indirectly in that you will change your distance to the subject...
It is ALL about distance to the subject.
The shorter/longer focal length simply lets you get a more (or less!)
appropriate distance to the subject to get the perspective you want (or
don't want!) relative to the field of view.
And the focal length in itself is no guide, unless you know the size of
the sensor. Douglas just proved it himself. Until he grasps this
concept, he will continue to sprout this rubbish. And he won't ever
grasp it, trust me - just look at the history of his posts - for anyone
wishing to continue arguing, please do a Google groups search on
"ryadia perspective" or "pixby perspective".
Yes, it's the same twit, different name - as you can probably tell by
the language.
Enough said. Don't waste any more of your time.
223rem
> if Douglas followed his own advice and took a shot with a 10mm fish
> eye, and then an 80mm telephoto *from the same position*
You are very wrong. Fish-eye lenses distort (bend straight lines). Imaging
through a fish-eye is not perspective projection.
mark.t...@gmail.com
Perhaps I shouldn't have used the term fisheye, as it denotes a lens
that by *design choice* introduces extra distortion.
However my point stands. If you crop the central part of a
10mm-eye-view to equal that of an 80mm *from the same distance*, the
perspective will still be effectively identical, fish eye or not.
Have a good long look at a fisheye view, then imagine the small crop in
the centre that would be equivalent to a portrait lens. Now be honest,
is there much distortion in *that area*? Do I really need to post
examples?
mark.t...@gmail.com
http://www.treklens.com/gallery/North_America/United_States/South/Tennessee/photo51309.htm
Note the guy in the middle - suffers from distortion BECAUSE he is very
close to the lens. But look at the guy just right of centre. If you
cropped that image to just include his head and shoulders, you wouldn't
have a clue it was from a fisheye.
And this image also shows where the majority of the distortion is, in a
fish eye view - it is NOT at the centre of field. The guy at extreme
right suffers from that non-rectilinear distortion, but that is because
he is towards the outer edges of the field of view. If the camera was
panned around to centre him (keeping him at the same distance) he would
look fine, simply because he is far enough away.
If you get a fisheye lens, try it for yourself.
David J. Littleboy
> ...And here's a link to demonstrate.
> http://www.treklens.com/gallery/North_America/United_States/South/Tennessee/photo51309.htm
>
> Note the guy in the middle - suffers from distortion BECAUSE he is very
> close to the lens. But look at the guy just right of centre. If you
> cropped that image to just include his head and shoulders, you wouldn't
> have a clue it was from a fisheye.
Nah, you still have your foot in your mouth, despite having the right idea:
fisheyes are simply a digression here; the fisheye projection exacerbates
the too-close portrtait problem.
The bottom line is that the claim that cropped cameras can't take decent
portraits is simply dead wrong; other than image quality (and DOF, which
only differs by about a stop and can be easily compensated for by a
competent photographer) there simply isn't any difference.
Funny that I, someone who thinks that FF is much better than cropped, should
be defending cropped sensors from the scurrilous insults of geometrically
challenged charletans.
mark.t...@gmail.com
>fisheyes are simply a digression here; the fisheye projection exacerbates
>the too-close portrtait problem.
Yes. I AGREE!!!
David, please re-read my posts a little more carefully - I'm on *your*
side and was posting an example to show *exactly* that point.. Aim
your vitriol more carefully, please. (O:
David J. Littleboy
<mark.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...And here's a link to demonstrate.
> http://www.treklens.com/gallery/North_America/United_States/South/Tennessee/photo51309.htm
Sorry about sounding like I was shooting at you: I realize we agree.
To make amends, I've fixed the above image for you.
http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/56752632/original
mark.t...@gmail.com
(O:
mark.t...@gmail.com
>http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/56752632/original
..ps, it's not my image (oops, I should have said!)... The owner might
object to your treatment, but I like it!
(O:
David J. Littleboy
Oops. I'll take it down shortly.
John McWilliams
> <mark.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>To make amends, I've fixed the above image for you.
>>
>>>http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/56752632/original
>>
>>..ps, it's not my image (oops, I should have said!)... The owner might
>>object to your treatment, but I like it!
>
>
> Oops. I'll take it down shortly.
>
"Bad Image Reference
The Image ID specified in the URL does not exist. It was probably
deleted, but verify the URL."