Shoockei wrote:Quality image is of course important as well as.

Excellent image stabililzation, or whatever it's called when yoursubject is in motion and you want a clear picture of them..

Image stabilization is to correct for camera motion. Sharp photos while the subject is in motion requires a high shutter speed..

What's your camera budget?..

Thank you for the correction. A camera under $300 would be great!..

You havent given a lot of information about whether you want a long zoom, wide angle, small pocket camera etc. Ill make a couple of suggestions to get you started..

The Canon A570 is an excellent camera for under $200 online in the US from reliable retailers. It has a 4X optical lens and optical stabilization. With decent ISO 400 quality and stabilization you are good in fairly limited light unless the subject is moving. It has full controls and takes aux lenses and filters with a $23 adapter. It is a great starter camera if you intend getting more seriously into photography. http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_a570-review/.

The Fuji F31 has no stabilization but is excellent in available light for subject motion because of it's high ISO capability. It is a bit harder to use the advanced exposure controls but they are there. I dont much like the lack of an optical viewfinder, but it isnt a deal breaker to most people. I also dont like that the contrast is set a little high and there is no way to lower it. It isnt as bad as the previous models for contrast though. It is probably a good thing it doesnt have stabilization, an optical finder or configurability.

The lens, sensor and processor are excellent. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf31fd/.

Dont dally too much. Figure out what you want and give yourself some time to learn to use it. You dont want to be fiddling with the manual on vacation...

I'm not really sure what a wide angle camera is. But I do want a good zoom, that's why I was considering the Kodak z712 which has a 12x optical zoom but it's size was not very appealing. Would the Canon 570 that you suggested be better than the Canon sd1000 or sd750? Because I am looking into those 2 too...

Of un-zoom..

Zoom (or more precisely telephoto) allows you to "see" more details further away, but decreases camera's field of view, wide angle allows you to fit more of that vista you want in the same frame than normally possible, but may distort it a bit..

Although one well-known photographer said that the best wide-angle is to take a few steps back, I bet that he never photographed cities, - sometimes you just can't....

To tell if camera has or has not wide angle, you need to see numbers next to zoom range like (11X 36-400 (35 mm. equiv) or 10.7X 28-300 (35 mm. equiv)) The first camera in this example zooms in much more than the second, but the first has wide-angle. So, not all 10X zooms are equal..

Also, if we aren't talking SLR actual lens dimensions are much smaller than those "35-x.

Mm" for example my camera has 35-105 lens, which is in fact 5.8-17.4 lens. (if there aren't "35 mm equiv" focal lengths in the manufacturers specs, you can calculate that using uncorrected length and sensor type.).

Now, most compact and superzoom cameras start their zoom at standard focal length of 35 mm +/- couple millimeters, which is standard angle..

Some superzooms start at 28 mm (Like Fuji S6000fd or Olympus SP-550 ), which is medium-wide. You get less zoom-in for that though, obviously..

Most SLR kits start at 18 mm, which is very wide. And if you want tele zoom, you buy another lens..

Buying guide here can filter cameras for that...

Ablack wrote:.

To tell if camera has or has not wide angle, you need to see numbersnext to zoom range like (11X 36-400 (35 mm. equiv) or 10.7X 28-300(35 mm. equiv)) The first camera in this example zooms in much morethan the second, but the first has wide-angle. So, not all 10X zoomsare equal..

Should read as.

To tell if camera has or has not wide angle, you need to see numbersnext to zoom range like (11X 36-400 (35 mm. equiv) or 10.7X 28-300(35 mm. equiv)) The first camera in this example zooms in much morethan the second, but the SECOND one has wide-angle. So, not all 10X zoomsare equal...

Take a look at the Panny TZ3.. 28mm to 280mm lens and I good vacation camera I think. And it is small compared to my Fuji S6000 and even my Sony H2..

GusGet what makes you happy...Anything less makes you less happy!..

Shoockei wrote:.

Excellent image stabililzation, or whatever it's called when yoursubject is in motion and you want a clear picture of them.

Image stabilisation is of little help when your subject is in motion. Its aim is to counteract camera movement resulting from shaky hands. For freezing action you need a fast and accurate autofocus system and a fast shutter speed, the latter of which may require the use of a high sensitivity setting, so it is not a bad idea to look at cameras whose image quality does not deteriorate much when you move up from ISO 100 to 400 or so...

What would be a good min shutter speed for a camera? I've noticed some have as short as 1/2000, when would I have to use something that fast?..

Sure, some can even do 1/16,000 of a second. How much do you actually need? It all depends on the angular velocity of your subject relative to the spot where you are. It is not the actual speed. Remember when you were a kid and thought a bee buzzing across your back yard was much faster than the aeroplane that seemed to be crawling in the sky? Of course the jet is faster - we all know that now that we are adults. But it's angular velocity is lower than the bee's..

For most practical purposes, 1/1,000 of a second should be enough. But again, focussing speed will also be critical. And if the maximum aperture of your lens is not particularly wide, then you might have to raise the sensitivity to ISO 400 too..

Shoockei wrote:.

What would be a good min shutter speed for a camera? I've noticedsome have as short as 1/2000, when would I have to use something thatfast?.

Pbase Supporter..

TZ3 is a very good choice for travelling, I guess.Oo...

Ablack wrote:.

Most SLR kits start at 18 mm, which is very wide. And if you wanttele zoom, you buy another lens..

But unlike the other, fixed-lens cameras you discussed, the convention with dSLRs is to list the ACTUAL FL, not the 35mm equivalent. So, with dSLRs you have to know the "crop factor". It varies from 1 to 2. Most cameras are around 1.5-1.6. Assuming that the subject camera has a "crop factor" of 1.5, that 18mm FL would convert to 27mm. That's still wide, but not as wide as 18mm sounds..

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Thanks for correction..

As I understood, that's because lenses and mounts initially meant for film were re-used for dSLR, and single lens can (in theory) fit dSLRs with different sensor sizes? Makes sense then...

Hi,.

Have a look at the Canon A630, which I'd buy in your situation and with your budget. No so headline -friendly as some others but perfect point to start and get good pictures on holiday..

Regards, David..

Ablack wrote:.

Thanks for correction.As I understood, that's because lenses and mounts initially meant forfilm were re-used for dSLR, and single lens can (in theory) fit dSLRswith different sensor sizes? Makes sense then..

Initially, when reduced-size sensors were first used in dSLRs, yes. However, now that most new dSLR lenses are designed for reduced-size sensors, it's confusing to have two different conventions for describing the FL of camera lenses. I wish everyone would simply use the REAL FL and drop the 35mm equivalent..

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

David Hughes wrote:.

Hi,Have a look at the Canon A630, which I'd buy in your situation andwith your budget. No so headline -friendly as some others but perfectpoint to start and get good pictures on holiday..

Is this "point-to-start" some new class of camera? I guess a sub-P&S? .

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

I think the 35mm-equivalent provides a necessary frame-of-reference for comparison, especially, when you are talking about what distance a photo was shot at. The is wide variation of crop-factors among dSLR with some full-frame units still being produced, and the 4/3 models that are 2x....

You may not always know what crop-factor the shooter's camera has, when you give them instructions.....

Sruli wrote:.

I think the 35mm-equivalent provides a necessary frame-of-referencefor comparison, especially, when you are talking about what distancea photo was shot at. The is wide variation of crop-factors among dSLRwith some full-frame units still being produced, and the 4/3 modelsthat are 2x....

You may not always know what crop-factor the shooter's camera has,when you give them instructions....

I understand that argument. But it fails because there are OTHER issues than field-of-view. Using the 35mm equivalent FL does not help beginners cope with DOF issues..

We have had hundreds of different photo formats since the dawn of photography. Only recently did some genius decide that we need to relate ALL formats to one reference. Gosh, how ever did we manage before about 1997? [sarcasm intended].

I noticed recently that the Canon GL-2 VCR refers to 35mm equivalent focal lengths too! This is insane. Consider that 90% + of the buyers of the GL-2 have never used a 35mm film camera. What purpose does this reference serve? My guess is that Canon's marketing wizards like big numbers better than small numbers when describing SOME things...20X zoom range...40mm to 790mm. But weight and size are parameters that they want to be SMALL, so they use pounds and inches, 'cause using mm and grams would make the numbers too big!.

Http://www.dvwonline.com/...x2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=296.

My conclusion is that this reference to 35mm equivalent FLs is just a marketing thing and is not helpful at all to the owner..

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Well, I don't think that there were ever medium format lenses, for example, that people were using on 35mm cameras. But the inclinination to cnvert and standardize, is stronger here, because so much of the 35mm equipment IS compatible. It makes it easier to talk about. And it is not just field-of-view. Your shutter speed, for example is going to be affected. The rule-of-thumb about 1/x, x=length, will still work with digital, if you convert to 35mm equivalents.

And it is even more important when using P&S, because even the advanced P&S do not normally tell you what your actual extension is, and most of the time they don't even tell you your 35mm equivalent extension either. And in the world of P&S there is major variation in sensor size. With dSLR you know your 35mm equivalent is in the range of 1x - 2x (either 1x, 1.3x, 1.5x, 1.6x, 1.7x or 2x I think that covers all sensor sizes currently being used), but P&S camera design does not limit itself that way, largly because lens compatibilitty is irrelevant. But these P&S cameras, many of them are quite advanced, offering as much, or nearly as much, user control as the dSLRs. How is a user to reckon his settings without even knowing his sensor size.

And perhaps not knowing his lens extension either. So we use 35mm equivalents, since the photographer probably already has familiarity with them. Also, third party lens attachments will also have their specifications in 35mm lens equivalents, especially since many of them were originally designed to be used with 35mm film cameras..

I suppose, that if APS had caught on long enough and firmly enough for most people to be familiar with shooting using APS as their frame-of-reference, then that might be what we would be using now. For one thing, the lenses designed for the APS SLRs would be good choices for many of today's digital SLRs. But that wasn't what happened. If you look at the old APS literature, you will found conversion to 35mm equivalents being used extensively. What happened, as I can see it, is that at first the manufacturers and vendors did not convert. But consumers had no idea what they were talking about; marketing responded and provided 35mm equivalents.

Look at the early literature, and conversions are not very common, manufacturers, vendors, even users, all using the native (true) measurements. And, I suppose the communicaion was too strained, leading, naturally, to the present situation..

Here, think of digital as a "format". Think of ALL of digital as a single format as opposed to thinking of every class of sensor-size as it's own format..

In the world of film, that is how it would be - the sensor size is the film-frame size, so users of each format use the measurements that relate to their format. But how many film formats are there, really? In theory infinite, but at any given time only a few being widely used (not considering large format). And the equipment is not generally compatible between formats..

One day, perhaps, when sensor-sizes have become more standardized, converting back to 35mm equivalents will be more trouble than benefit..

As far as Canon's marketing, again, they do want to sell their machines. If they tell people that the lens is 4.2mm to 84mm, what information is really conveyed, except that after you do the math, you can see that it is 20x? And the truth is, 39.5mm - 790mm conversion is only provided because the camera has a good photo mode. Those 35mm equivalents were not given in the past, when video cameras did not take stills, or at least did not take good stills. (Although I would like to have them for some of my older equipment, if only for my own edification. My camera has 20x zoom, but is 1x "normal"? Or is it a bit wide? With straight optics, 1x is presumed to be "normal", because there is no "wide".) You could look at the 39.5mm-790mm conversion being provided as an example of honesty. If they had just said 20x, I might have assumed that 1x was normal in this case, and that 20x was 20 x normal.



Chuxter wrote:.

Sruli wrote:.

I think the 35mm-equivalent provides a necessary frame-of-referencefor comparison, especially, when you are talking about what distancea photo was shot at. The is wide variation of crop-factors among dSLRwith some full-frame units still being produced, and the 4/3 modelsthat are 2x....

You may not always know what crop-factor the shooter's camera has,when you give them instructions....

I understand that argument. But it fails because there are OTHERissues than field-of-view. Using the 35mm equivalent FL does not helpbeginners cope with DOF issues..

We have had hundreds of different photo formats since the dawn ofphotography. Only recently did some genius decide that we need torelate ALL formats to one reference. Gosh, how ever did we managebefore about 1997? [sarcasm intended].

I noticed recently that the Canon GL-2 VCR refers to 35mm equivalentfocal lengths too! This is insane. Consider that 90% + of the buyersof the GL-2 have never used a 35mm film camera. What purpose doesthis reference serve? My guess is that Canon's marketing wizards likebig numbers better than small numbers when describing SOMEthings...20X zoom range...40mm to 790mm. But weight and size areparameters that they want to be SMALL, so they use pounds and inches,'cause using mm and grams would make the numbers too big!.

Http://www.dvwonline.com/...x2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=296.

My conclusion is that this reference to 35mm equivalent FLs is just amarketing thing and is not helpful at all to the owner..

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Sruli wrote:.

I don't agree with almost everything you have said. Have you investigated how many (historical) film formats there are?.

Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format.

I counted 162 movie film formats, 49 still film formats, and 23 still digital image formats. Note that the wikipedia article was not current re digital sensor sizes...things change really fast!.

I still contend that a typical DC purchser doesn't need to know that their little 1/2.7" sensor camera has the same FOV as another camera. In the vast majority of cases, they don't have a clue what a 35mm camera is! It would be much more useful to state that the FOV was 95 degrees or varied from 80 degrees to 12 degrees (in the case of a zoom lens). Telling these people that the camera has a lens that is equivalent to a XXmm 35mm film format lens is confusing and implies that it has ALL the characteristics of that lens...which is not true..

I don't think the early buyers of DC were confused at all. I think that the manufacturers marketing departments started relating everything to the 35mm film format because the resultant FL numbers were big. There was something that bothered those marketing guys about telling a buyer that their camera had a 1.3mm lens. Even an idiot could figure out that was tiny! By calling it eqivalent to a 37mm lens on a 35mm film camera, they avoided using the small FL..

Here, think of digital as a "format". Think of ALL of digital as asingle format as opposed to thinking of every class of sensor-size asits own format..

That's the same as saying to think of all those 162 movie film formats as being a single format! Duh!!!.

In the world of film, that is how it would be - the sensor size isthe film-frame size, so users of each format use the measurementsthat relate to their format. But how many film formats are there,really? In theory infinite, but at any given time only a few beingwidely used (not considering large format). And the equipment is notgenerally compatible between formats..

I don't understand your analogy. As I have stated above, I count 162 + 49 = 211 film formats. I suspect that there are really more than this. You say that the film equipment is not compatible between formats. Is this different than with digital cameas? I have never seen a digital camera that allowed the user to change sensors (other than a few digital backs for MF film cameras...and that is no different than the rare 35mm back that fit on my dad's old 2/25" x 3.25" camera)..

One day, perhaps, when sensor-sizes have become more standardized,converting back to 35mm equivalents will be more trouble than benefit..

We're there already. Nobody USES the data about the equivalent FL of their camera lens..

As far as Canon's marketing, again, they do want to sell theirmachines. If they tell people that the lens is 4.2mm to 84mm, whatinformation is really conveyed, except that after you do the math,you can see that it is 20x? And the truth is, 39.5mm - 790mmconversion is only provided because the camera has a good photo mode..

Huh? It's provided in the hope that the prospective buyer will be impressed!.

Those 35mm equivalents were not given in the past, when video camerasdid not take stills, or at least did not take good stills. (AlthoughI would like to have them for some of my older equipment, if only formy own edification..

All my old movie/video cameras had perfectly useful and REAL FL listed, both in ads and written right on the lens..

My camera has 20x zoom, but is 1x "normal"?.

A zoom range is a RELATIVE thing. It says NOTHING about the FOV, DOF, etc..

Or is it a bit wide?.

Neither..

With straight optics, 1x is presumed to be "normal",because there is no "wide".).

What in the heck is "straight" optics?.

You could look at the 39.5mm-790mmconversion being provided as an example of honesty..

Yes, YOU could, but I look at it as dishonest. 4.2mm to 84mm is the truth..

If they had justsaid 20x, I might have assumed that 1x was normal in this case, andthat 20x was 20 x normal. Actually 1x is a little bit wide here, sothat the zoom is only to about 16 x normal..

Whoa! I agree that stating the zoom range tells us nothing about the absolute FL. It's not designed to do that..

But your contention that "1X" has to be the "normal" FL is WAY out there! It's not that way. Never has been. 1X on camera A is often vastly different than 1X on camera B. I know that a few dumb camera designers show the zoom position as something like "3.7X" instead of showing the FL or FOV. But that doesn't make it right or useful. There are LOTS of dumb things that camera designers do nowadays.



Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Chuxter wrote:.

Sruli wrote:.

I don't agree with almost everything you have said. Have youinvestigated how many (historical) film formats there are?.

Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format.

I counted 162 movie film formats, 49 still film formats, and 23 stilldigital image formats. Note that the wikipedia article was notcurrent re digital sensor sizes...things change really fast!.

49 still film formats historically. Over a period of more than 100 years, only 49 still formats were established. And fewer than a dozer were generally in wide use at any one time (concurrently). So, for example, for the past 20 years, we could include, 35mm, APS, 120, 220, and perhaps a few others. Maybe disk film. And some film that is used for scientific and technical applications.



There are dozens of sensor-sizes in use currently. There are probably at least two dozen available in cameras that you can buy today (including P&S). Each film format has it's own FL relationship. Each sensor-size has it's own FL relationship. That is my analogy..

I still contend that a typical DC purchser doesn't need to know thattheir little 1/2.7" sensor camera has the same FOV as another camera.In the vast majority of cases, they don't have a clue what a 35mmcamera is! It would be much more useful to state that the FOV was 95degrees or varied from 80 degrees to 12 degrees (in the case of azoom lens). Telling these people that the camera has a lens that isequivalent to a XXmm 35mm film format lens is confusing and impliesthat it has ALL the characteristics of that lens...which is not true..

It is true that it does not have all of the characteristics of that lens. It probably shares only one. But that is the characteristic that most people would consider most important, especially when they are looking at that statistic. How far can I shoot with this camera?! The other information is available, but when people are purchasing a camera, this is one of the most important pieces of information, by which they narrow their choices. (Again, much more critical for P&S than dSLR.).

I don't think the early buyers of DC were confused at all. I thinkthat the manufacturers marketing departments started relatingeverything to the 35mm film format because the resultant FL numberswere big. There was something that bothered those marketing guysabout telling a buyer that their camera had a 1.3mm lens. Even anidiot could figure out that was tiny! By calling it eqivalent to a37mm lens on a 35mm film camera, they avoided using the small FL..

Yes, because telling somebody that his camera has a 1.3mm lens means nothing to him, he has no frame of reference. Telling him that the 1.3mm lens is a 37mm equivalent relays some useful information. It tells him what his effective vantagepoint as a photographer will be, when he uses this camera..

Here, think of digital as a "format". Think of ALL of digital as asingle format as opposed to thinking of every class of sensor-size asits own format..

That's the same as saying to think of all those 162 movie filmformats as being a single format! Duh!!!.

Yes. In reality we are all using different "formats", frame sizes. But we converse and function as single community, and so use a common frame-of-reference. And much of our equipment is compatible. Medium-format lenses are not generally used on 35mm cameras, and vice-versa. But a lens that can be mounted on a digital camera with a full-frame sensor, may also be mounted on a camera with an APS-sized sensor.

At least, there will be technical aspects in common, because his effective range is equivalent..

In the world of film, that is how it would be - the sensor size isthe film-frame size, so users of each format use the measurementsthat relate to their format. But how many film formats are there,really? In theory infinite, but at any given time only a few beingwidely used (not considering large format). And the equipment is notgenerally compatible between formats..

I don't understand your analogy. As I have stated above, I count 162+ 49 = 211 film formats. I suspect that there are really more thanthis. You say that the film equipment is not compatible betweenformats. Is this different than with digital cameas? I have neverseen a digital camera that allowed the user to change sensors (otherthan a few digital backs for MF film cameras...and that is nodifferent than the rare 35mm back that fit on my dad's old 2/25" x3.25" camera)..

I am talking mostly about the lenses here. Lenses with a common mount will actually be used on cameras with different-sized sensors, and are being marketed with that kind of cross-compatibility in mind..

One day, perhaps, when sensor-sizes have become more standardized,converting back to 35mm equivalents will be more trouble than benefit..

We're there already. Nobody USES the data about the equivalent FL oftheir camera lens..

Sure they do. I do. I don't even KNOW the actual FL of my UZI. But I use the equivalent FL to make estimates for shutter-speed selection, for example. In the exif data, I'd like to have recorded how far away I was when the picture was shot. And, of course, when comparing zoom on cameras prior to making a purchase.

For dSLR, less so, because the sensor-sizes are generally known, and there is less variation. But still useful..

As far as Canon's marketing, again, they do want to sell theirmachines. If they tell people that the lens is 4.2mm to 84mm, whatinformation is really conveyed, except that after you do the math,you can see that it is 20x? And the truth is, 39.5mm - 790mmconversion is only provided because the camera has a good photo mode..

Huh? It's provided in the hope that the prospective buyer will beimpressed!.

Those 35mm equivalents were not given in the past, when video camerasdid not take stills, or at least did not take good stills. (AlthoughI would like to have them for some of my older equipment, if only formy own edification..

All my old movie/video cameras had perfectly useful and REAL FLlisted, both in ads and written right on the lens..

Ah, no. Consumer camcorders generally just gave the zoom numbers, 10x, 12x, 20x. The actual FL was on the lens and in the specs. 35mm FL equivalents were never used..

My camera has 20x zoom, but is 1x "normal"?.

A zoom range is a RELATIVE thing. It says NOTHING about the FOV, DOF,etc..

Or is it a bit wide?.

Neither..

With straight optics, 1x is presumed to be "normal",because there is no "wide".).

What in the heck is "straight" optics?.

I mean optics without attached recording devices. Binoculars, telescopes etc..

You could look at the 39.5mm-790mmconversion being provided as an example of honesty..

Yes, YOU could, but I look at it as dishonest. 4.2mm to 84mm is thetruth..

The actual FL is meaningless to somebody who wants to know how far he can see with the glass in this purchase, without making a calculation involving another number. The 35mm equivalent tells the customer exactly what he wants to know..

If they had justsaid 20x, I might have assumed that 1x was normal in this case, andthat 20x was 20 x normal. Actually 1x is a little bit wide here, sothat the zoom is only to about 16 x normal..

Whoa! I agree that stating the zoom range tells us nothing about theabsolute FL. It's not designed to do that..

But your contention that "1X" has to be the "normal" FL is WAY outthere! It's not that way. Never has been. 1X on camera A is oftenvastly different than 1X on camera B. I know that a few dumb cameradesigners show the zoom position as something like "3.7X" instead ofshowing the FL or FOV. But that doesn't make it right or useful.There are LOTS of dumb things that camera designers do nowadays. Manyof us wonder who these guys are! They obvious know little aboutoptics or photography...and never use their product!.

This is how camcorders, binoculars are marketed and sold. Using zoom multiples. The big numbers on my camcorder are 20x. The actual FL is tiny on the lens. When I made the purchase, zoom number was big on the box and in the ads, the actual FL was buried in the specs. And with binoculars the actual FL is even less available.

X has been standardized in this industry. One needn't be concerned that the zoom binocular that goes from 8-17x may actually be stronger than the zoom bonocular with a range of 12-26x..

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Sruli wrote:.

Chuxter wrote:.

Sruli wrote:.

I don't agree with almost everything you have said. Have youinvestigated how many (historical) film formats there are?.

Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format.

I counted 162 movie film formats, 49 still film formats, and 23 stilldigital image formats. Note that the wikipedia article was notcurrent re digital sensor sizes...things change really fast!.

49 still film formats historically..

Yes. Note that I said "historically"..

Over a period of more than 100years, only 49 still formats were established..

I think it would be correct to say that in 2007, we can identify 49 historical still film formats..

And fewer than a dozerwere generally in wide use at any one time (concurrently)..

Wide? When I was a kid, I think there were probably 2 dozen. Most were quite large..

So, for.

Example, for the past 20 years, we could include, 35mm, APS, 120,220, and perhaps a few others. Maybe disk film. And some film that isused for scientific and technical applications. How many sizes offilm are commercially available today?.

Widely? Probably just a couple, 'cause film is dead..

Or were 20 years ago?.

Just a guess...prolly 15?.

Or 50 years ago?.

Another guess...prolly 25-30?.

There are dozens of sensor-sizes in use currently. There are probablyat least two dozen available in cameras that you can buy today(including P&S). Each film format has it's own FL relationship. Eachsensor-size has it's own FL relationship. That is my analogy..

That's not an analogy...but if it was, it's MY analogy, ie, that each format has a different FL, FOV, DOF relationship and that using a "crop factor" is worthless and confusing. Your analogy is that in spite of the vast differences in formats, you insist that referencing all formats to one "standard" format (as far as FL is concerned) is good and worthwhile..

I still contend that a typical DC purchser doesn't need to know thattheir little 1/2.7" sensor camera has the same FOV as another camera.In the vast majority of cases, they don't have a clue what a 35mmcamera is! It would be much more useful to state that the FOV was 95degrees or varied from 80 degrees to 12 degrees (in the case of azoom lens). Telling these people that the camera has a lens that isequivalent to a XXmm 35mm film format lens is confusing and impliesthat it has ALL the characteristics of that lens...which is not true..

It is true that it does not have all of the characteristics of thatlens. It probably shares only one. But that is the characteristicthat most people would consider most important, especially when theyare looking at that statistic..

Perhaps, but this is the BQF. Those beginners come here to be educated. They are confused by the "crop factor" and we have to help them disconnect it from anything other than FOV. That's why I'm discussing this. We need a better system that doesn't confuse beginners..

How far can I shoot with this camera?!.

The other information is available, but when people are purchasing acamera, this is one of the most important pieces of information, bywhich they narrow their choices. (Again, much more critical for P&Sthan dSLR.).

See next post...Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Sruli wrote:.

Chuxter wrote:.

I don't think the early buyers of DC were confused at all. I thinkthat the manufacturers marketing departments started relatingeverything to the 35mm film format because the resultant FL numberswere big. There was something that bothered those marketing guysabout telling a buyer that their camera had a 1.3mm lens. Even anidiot could figure out that was tiny! By calling it eqivalent to a37mm lens on a 35mm film camera, they avoided using the small FL..

Yes, because telling somebody that his camera has a 1.3mm lens meansnothing to him, he has no frame of reference. Telling him that the1.3mm lens is a 37mm equivalent relays some useful information..

Why do you think that 1.3mm means nothing and magically 37mm means something? I contend that the vast majority have no frame of reference, so neither have any meaning..

It tells him what his effective vantagepoint as a photographer will be,when he uses this camera..

How? He has no understanding of cameras at all. Why would 37mm mean something? I agree that YOU understand what it means, but most of the beginners have no concept of FL vs FOV. That's why it's one of the most asked questions!.

Here, think of digital as a "format". Think of ALL of digital as asingle format as opposed to thinking of every class of sensor-size asits own format..

That's the same as saying to think of all those 162 movie filmformats as being a single format! Duh!!!.

Yes. In reality we are all using different "formats", frame sizes.But we converse and function as single community, and so use a commonframe-of-reference..

OK. So you mis-spoke? You meant to say, "Think of ALL of digital as a.

Single community." Do you really think Nikon users and Canon users can coexist? Do you think users of $150 P&S cameras can get along with users of a Canon 5D system? Heck, when they try, they discover that they have nothing in common and don't speak the same language! This is why websites like this separate their customers in SEPARATE forums!!!.

And much of our equipment is compatible..

Nah. I've got 3 DC's and there is little stuff from one that is useful in the other; a few filters and one flash unit. I even have different size/shape bags for them!.

I don't understand your analogy. As I have stated above, I count 162+ 49 = 211 film formats. I suspect that there are really more thanthis. You say that the film equipment is not compatible betweenformats. Is this different than with digital cameas? I have neverseen a digital camera that allowed the user to change sensors (otherthan a few digital backs for MF film cameras...and that is nodifferent than the rare 35mm back that fit on my dad's old 2/25" x3.25" camera)..

I am talking mostly about the lenses here. Lenses with a common mountwill actually be used on cameras with different-sized sensors, andare being marketed with that kind of cross-compatibility in mind..

All the cameras that have removable lenses are only 10% of the market. OK, Ill admit that Canon has basically 3 different size sensors in their dSLRs and their old, FF lenses will "fit" many of their bodies (but they don't all have the automation that the newer APS-C lenses have). And Nikon has insured that their EL dSLRs only can use the new lenses. But at most, the dSLR cameras that have substantial cross-compatibility, subtend about 4% of the market,.

One day, perhaps, when sensor-sizes have become more standardized,converting back to 35mm equivalents will be more trouble than benefit..

Actually, it's worse when there are 30-40 size sensors and when cameras can choose between several formats (ie, 3:4, 2:3, 9:16, etc)..

We're there already. Nobody USES the data about the equivalent FL oftheir camera lens..

Sure they do. I do. I don't even KNOW the actual FL of my UZI. But Iuse the equivalent FL to make estimates for shutter-speed selection,for example. In the exif data, I'd like to have recorded how far awayI was when the picture was shot. And, of course, when comparing zoomon cameras prior to making a purchase.

For dSLR, less so, because thesensor-sizes are generally known, and there is less variation. Butstill useful..

I respectfully suggest you are NOT "using" the equivalent FL for anything that you could not use the real FL for. You are foolin' yourself. .

See next post....

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Sruli wrote:.

Chuxter wrote:.

All my old movie/video cameras had perfectly useful and REAL FLlisted, both in ads and written right on the lens..

Ah, no. Consumer camcorders generally just gave the zoom numbers,10x, 12x, 20x. The actual FL was on the lens and in the specs. 35mmFL equivalents were never used..

DUH! Go read what I said. You parroted my statement!.

My camera has 20x zoom, but is 1x "normal"?.

A zoom range is a RELATIVE thing. It says NOTHING about the FOV, DOF,etc..

Or is it a bit wide?.

Neither..

With straight optics, 1x is presumed to be "normal",because there is no "wide".).

What in the heck is "straight" optics?.

I mean optics without attached recording devices. Binoculars,telescopes etc..

Oh...the "power" or "magnification" of a telescope, microscope, or binoculars, is not related at all to the zoom range of a camera lens..

You could look at the 39.5mm-790mmconversion being provided as an example of honesty..

Yes, YOU could, but I look at it as dishonest. 4.2mm to 84mm is thetruth..

The actual FL is meaningless to somebody who wants to know how far hecan see with the glass in this purchase, without making a calculationinvolving another number. The 35mm equivalent tells the customerexactly what he wants to know..

No. The customer doesn't know what EITHER number means. The only number that MIGHT help the customer judge "how far the camera can see" is the FOV. Even that will initially be confusing, as the typical customer doesn't have a clue about diddly..

If they had justsaid 20x, I might have assumed that 1x was normal in this case, andthat 20x was 20 x normal. Actually 1x is a little bit wide here, sothat the zoom is only to about 16 x normal..

Whoa! I agree that stating the zoom range tells us nothing about theabsolute FL. It's not designed to do that..

But your contention that "1X" has to be the "normal" FL is WAY outthere! It's not that way. Never has been. 1X on camera A is oftenvastly different than 1X on camera B. I know that a few dumb cameradesigners show the zoom position as something like "3.7X" instead ofshowing the FL or FOV. But that doesn't make it right or useful.There are LOTS of dumb things that camera designers do nowadays. Manyof us wonder who these guys are! They obvious know little aboutoptics or photography...and never use their product!.

This is how camcorders, binoculars are marketed and sold..

Yes, but as I said above, the power/magnification of optical devices is TOTALLY different and unrelated to the zoom range. You appear to be terribly confused?.

Using zoommultiples. The big numbers on my camcorder are 20x. The actual FL istiny on the lens. When I made the purchase, zoom number was big onthe box and in the ads, the actual FL was buried in the specs. Andwith binoculars the actual FL is even less available. But an 8xbinocular is not as strong as a 12x binocular.

One needn't be concerned that the zoombinocular that goes from 8-17x may actually be stronger than the zoombonocular with a range of 12-26x..

Once again, you are confused about the use of "X". It means different things in different contexts. For example:.

"10X zoom range""10X magnification""10X8" print size" .

All mean TOTALLY different things and are not related in any way. For example, a microscope with a zoom eyepiece could be described as having a zoom range of 10X and a range of powers (magnification) of 30X to 100X..

Please don't further confuse the beginners here....

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Get a Canon PowerShot S2IS. Has a goof wide angle for taking landscape and group of people and an excellent Zoom. The price is under $300. However It takes a little time to learn. Good luck.Raul B. Beruff..

Chuxter wrote:.

Sruli wrote:.

Chuxter wrote:.

I don't think the early buyers of DC were confused at all. I thinkthat the manufacturers marketing departments started relatingeverything to the 35mm film format because the resultant FL numberswere big. There was something that bothered those marketing guysabout telling a buyer that their camera had a 1.3mm lens. Even anidiot could figure out that was tiny! By calling it eqivalent to a37mm lens on a 35mm film camera, they avoided using the small FL..

Yes, because telling somebody that his camera has a 1.3mm lens meansnothing to him, he has no frame of reference. Telling him that the1.3mm lens is a 37mm equivalent relays some useful information..

Why do you think that 1.3mm means nothing and magically 37mm meanssomething? I contend that the vast majority have no frame ofreference, so neither have any meaning..

Okay... 1) If *I* were buying a camera, and was told that it had a 1.3mm lens, the useful information that I would come away with would be little. If I were informed that the lens on this camera gives the 35mm equivalent of 37mm, I would at least have some useful information. Having to choose between just one of these two numbers, with no other information, I would surely choose the second..

2) The starting post concerned camera *purchase*. This is when the 35mm equivalent of the FL is most valuable. I may have no experience with this camera. I may never have used a film camera in my life. But I can compare one aspect of the camera with another camera with a different sensor-size. An aspect that most people buying P&S consider important.

When you buy a film P&S, you still look at these numbers and you know that a camera that extends to 155mm is not quite as "strong" as one that extends to 190mm. (Although I pay very close attention to other lens factors when buying such a camera.) I was a beginner not that long ago (maybe I still am?) and I remember how I purchased my equipment, what I knew, and what I really did not understand yet..

It tells him what his effective vantagepoint as a photographer will be,when he uses this camera..

How? He has no understanding of cameras at all. Why would 37mm meansomething? I agree that YOU understand what it means, but most of thebeginners have no concept of FL vs FOV. That's why it's one of themost asked questions!.

Okay. But the manufacturers can't explain to the customer that the 1.7mm lens on this camera, is wider than the 1.4mm lens on the other camera, because the sensor-size is different. There may be a class of novices who do not know what a 37mm FL looks like. But there is a large class of intermediates who can take some semantic value from that information and use it. Almost NOBODY would know what the 1.7mm FL implied..

Here, think of digital as a "format". Think of ALL of digital as asingle format as opposed to thinking of every class of sensor-size asits own format..

That's the same as saying to think of all those 162 movie filmformats as being a single format! Duh!!!.

Yes. In reality we are all using different "formats", frame sizes.But we converse and function as single community, and so use a commonframe-of-reference..

OK. So you mis-spoke? You meant to say, "Think of ALL of digital as asingle community." Do you really think Nikon users and Canon userscan coexist? Do you think users of $150 P&S cameras can get alongwith users of a Canon 5D system? Heck, when they try, they discoverthat they have nothing in common and don't speak the same language!This is why websites like this separate their customers in SEPARATEforums!!!.

But we do look at the other forums. And there are some forums which cross makes. If you read a camera magazine, or a book on technique, the common Frame of Reference is important. For dSLR much less important. But with P&S, the numbers being so small besdies, with decimals, and so disparate, they have little meaning. I do not know anybody who uses even the most advanced P&S who uses the actual FL.

I think it's recorded in the exif. And what will that information tell anybody years from know when the camera is gone, but the file is still around?.

And much of our equipment is compatible..

Nah. I've got 3 DC's and there is little stuff from one that isuseful in the other; a few filters and one flash unit. I even havedifferent size/shape bags for them!.

Again, my experience differs from yours. I also have a few cameras. And when purchasing a new one, I look for cross-compatibility. I do have a few adapters..

I don't understand your analogy. As I have stated above, I count 162+ 49 = 211 film formats. I suspect that there are really more thanthis. You say that the film equipment is not compatible betweenformats. Is this different than with digital cameas? I have neverseen a digital camera that allowed the user to change sensors (otherthan a few digital backs for MF film cameras...and that is nodifferent than the rare 35mm back that fit on my dad's old 2/25" x3.25" camera)..

I am talking mostly about the lenses here. Lenses with a common mountwill actually be used on cameras with different-sized sensors, andare being marketed with that kind of cross-compatibility in mind..

All the cameras that have removable lenses are only 10% of themarket. OK, Ill admit that Canon has basically 3 different sizesensors in their dSLRs and their old, FF lenses will "fit" many oftheir bodies (but they don't all have the automation that the newerAPS-C lenses have). And Nikon has insured that their EL dSLRs onlycan use the new lenses. But at most, the dSLR cameras that havesubstantial cross-compatibility, subtend about 4% of the market,.

One day, perhaps, when sensor-sizes have become more standardized,converting back to 35mm equivalents will be more trouble than benefit..

Actually, it's worse when there are 30-40 size sensors and whencameras can choose between several formats (ie, 3:4, 2:3, 9:16, etc)..

We're there already. Nobody USES the data about the equivalent FL oftheir camera lens..

Sure they do. I do. I don't even KNOW the actual FL of my UZI. But Iuse the equivalent FL to make estimates for shutter-speed selection,for example. In the exif data, I'd like to have recorded how far awayI was when the picture was shot. And, of course, when comparing zoomon cameras prior to making a purchase.

For dSLR, less so, because thesensor-sizes are generally known, and there is less variation. Butstill useful..

I respectfully suggest you are NOT "using" the equivalent FL foranything that you could not use the real FL for. You are foolin'yourself. .

I couldn't use the real FL on my advanced P&S. That information is not available. (Well the extremes are available, they're on the front of the lens. But I can get the FL in 35mm equivalent in the viewfinder. Even if I could see the actual FL, I probably wouldn't use it.) And since I use a few cameras, I would have to keep remembering what the different FLs meant on each one. AND I still burn a lot film, where those numbers are legit.



See next post....

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Chuxter wrote:.

Sruli wrote:.

Chuxter wrote:.

All my old movie/video cameras had perfectly useful and REAL FLlisted, both in ads and written right on the lens..

Ah, no. Consumer camcorders generally just gave the zoom numbers,10x, 12x, 20x. The actual FL was on the lens and in the specs. 35mmFL equivalents were never used..

DUH! Go read what I said. You parroted my statement!.

My camera has 20x zoom, but is 1x "normal"?.

A zoom range is a RELATIVE thing. It says NOTHING about the FOV, DOF,etc..

Or is it a bit wide?.

Neither..

With straight optics, 1x is presumed to be "normal",because there is no "wide".).

What in the heck is "straight" optics?.

I mean optics without attached recording devices. Binoculars,telescopes etc..

Oh...the "power" or "magnification" of a telescope, microscope, orbinoculars, is not related at all to the zoom range of a camera lens..

I disagree. There is a relationship. Here is the relationship: An 8x model will make things look 8x closer than looking at them with your naked eye. On a 35mm camera, the FL that gives the same view as looking with your naked eye, is around 50mm. So my 8x binocular will give me a view similar to what I might see with a FL of 400mm on a 35mm camera. So I can say that with regard to binoculars 1x may be equivalent to ~50mm on a 35mm camera..

With cameras, the starting point is usually wide. "x" has a lower value. So although the fact that this camera has 5x optical zoom does give me some information, I understand more from knowing that the zoom range is the equivalent of 35-175mm..

You could look at the 39.5mm-790mmconversion being provided as an example of honesty..

Yes, YOU could, but I look at it as dishonest. 4.2mm to 84mm is thetruth..

The actual FL is meaningless to somebody who wants to know how far hecan see with the glass in this purchase, without making a calculationinvolving another number. The 35mm equivalent tells the customerexactly what he wants to know..

No. The customer doesn't know what EITHER number means. The onlynumber that MIGHT help the customer judge "how far the camera cansee" is the FOV. Even that will initially be confusing, as thetypical customer doesn't have a clue about diddly..

I buy cameras. I take some useful information from 35mm equivalent FL. The zoom power is useful too, but the FL equivalent lets me compare it with my other optics. The actual FL would have no significance to me, when making a purchase..

If they had justsaid 20x, I might have assumed that 1x was normal in this case, andthat 20x was 20 x normal. Actually 1x is a little bit wide here, sothat the zoom is only to about 16 x normal..

Whoa! I agree that stating the zoom range tells us nothing about theabsolute FL. It's not designed to do that..

But your contention that "1X" has to be the "normal" FL is WAY outthere!.

That is not my contention. I was saying that many people ASSUME that (as we see on this forum all the time). But it is true with binoculars. I do not know if it was ever true with camcorders, but since the zoom power is often the only hard number you have when making the purchase, I bet a lot of people think that that is what it means..

Although it might be a nice convention to use. Then we could say that the camera goes from .5x-2.5x. What do you think? ("This camera has a zoom range of .5x - 2.5x, while this camera zooms up to 5x, but the wide side is only .7x").

It's not that way. Never has been. 1X on camera A is often.

Vastly different than 1X on camera B. I know that a few dumb cameradesigners show the zoom position as something like "3.7X" instead ofshowing the FL or FOV. But that doesn't make it right or useful.There are LOTS of dumb things that camera designers do nowadays. Manyof us wonder who these guys are! They obvious know little aboutoptics or photography...and never use their product!.

This is how camcorders, binoculars are marketed and sold..

Yes, but as I said above, the power/magnification of optical devicesis TOTALLY different and unrelated to the zoom range. You appear tobe terribly confused?.

Using zoommultiples. The big numbers on my camcorder are 20x. The actual FL istiny on the lens. When I made the purchase, zoom number was big onthe box and in the ads, the actual FL was buried in the specs. Andwith binoculars the actual FL is even less available. But an 8xbinocular is not as strong as a 12x binocular.

One needn't be concerned that the zoombinocular that goes from 8-17x may actually be stronger than the zoombonocular with a range of 12-26x..

Once again, you are confused about the use of "X". It means differentthings in different contexts. For example:.

"10X zoom range""10X magnification""10X8" print size" .

All mean TOTALLY different things and are not related in any way. Forexample, a microscope with a zoom eyepiece could be described ashaving a zoom range of 10X and a range of powers (magnification) of30X to 100X..

There is at least a perceived relationship between binocular magnification and camera zoom range, as I explained above. The conversion is not too difficult and can be usefull. I did not discuss microscopes or print sizes..

Please don't further confuse the beginners here....

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Chuxter wrote:.

...but most of the beginners have no concept of FL vs FOV. That's whyit's one of the most asked questions!.

Do you mean here on dpreview? Or someplace else?.

In my personal - obviously not all inclusive - experience dealing with beginners: from friends wanting to know about which camera to buy, to teaching a handful of digital photography classes these past few months made up of rank beginners using older point & shoots, newer point & shoots, entry level DSLRs, and intermediate level DSLRs - this question has not come up once..

Good Day,Roonal.

'Money doesn't buy happiness, but it makes for an extravagant depression' by golf tournament sportscaster..

Roonal wrote:.

Chuxter wrote:.

...but most of the beginners have no concept of FL vs FOV. That's whyit's one of the most asked questions!.

Do you mean here on dpreview? Or someplace else?.

Here on DPR. Often they don't know how to word the question, as they don't know the terms FL and FOV. But it's often asked on this forum...they want to know if they can take the picture they have in mind with a specific lens/camera. Mostly it's asked about distant objects, like birds, football players, racing cars, etc..

In my personal - obviously not all inclusive - experience dealingwith beginners: from friends wanting to know about which camera tobuy, to teaching a handful of digital photography classes these pastfew months made up of rank beginners using older point & shoots,newer point & shoots, entry level DSLRs, and intermediate level DSLRs- this question has not come up once..

Perhaps you need to include that in your curriculum? .

Once a camera is in their hands, they can TELL (gut feel) what the range of views is and they don't need to ask this question? But I see potential purchasers of dSLRs struggling with lens selection all the time..

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..