edutilos-
Senior Member
There is good, there is subjective, and there is obviously bad. :bsmilie:
one lens for all
- Thread starter BTBFM2
- Start date
There is good, there is subjective, and there is obviously bad. :bsmilie:
SilentSeth
New Member
14-200 f1.4? the guests will pose next to it rather than having their picture taken using it 
BTBFM2
Deregistered
so it is indeed possible. One lens for all.
F2.8 on a small sensor vs F2.8 on a large sensor. Do you know the difference?
with technology... a small sensor can have very clean noise...
dof cannot be help... hahaha...
BTBFM2
Deregistered
yes, there is bound to be limits in the physics, esp when the aperture is at its widest.
pardon my ignorance, but i understand that the actual physical aperture size [the diameter] for the same f2.8 is proportionally smaller than that for the larger sensor. Wonder if that would improve the physics a little.
but then again, cramping 12M of pixels into a much smaller sensor may have other problems. However looking at the sample pics at full zoom seems quite acceptable.
One thing i am not sure, however, is how significant would be the impact on enlarged print? Though as mentioned digital onscreen image looks ok.
DOF is different. And yes, it is very very significant on small or large prints or digital onscreen image...
F2.8 on Fullframe
F2.8 on APS-C
Last edited:
BTBFM2
Deregistered
yes, there is bound to be limits in the physics, esp when the aperture is at its widest.
pardon my ignorance, but i understand that the actual physical aperture size [the diameter] for the same f2.8 is proportionally smaller than that for the larger sensor. Wonder if that would improve the physics a little.
but then again, cramping 12M of pixels into a much smaller sensor may have other problems. However looking at the sample pics at full zoom seems quite acceptable.
One thing i am not sure, however, is how significant would be the impact on enlarged print? Though as mentioned digital onscreen image looks ok.
Just take a look at the above 2 pictures. From FF to 1.5x crop the DOF is already so much deeper... imagine for a small sensor cam like the Panasonic FZ200? The deeper DOF will give the photographer less options in terms of subject isolation and composition..
It is plain physics. If you want a 24-300/2.8 lens, it is going to be huge and very heavy. No two ways around it.
Last edited:
BTBFM2
Deregistered
DOF is different. And yes, it is very very significant on small or large prints or digital onscreen image...
F2.8 on Fullframe
F2.8 on APS-C
are these taken at the same focal length?
DOF would depend not only on f-number but also the focal length and the distance from subject.
Almost the same FOV. First picture is shot at 55mm. Second picture is shot at 36mm (FOV 54mm)
The simple way to calculate is:
a F2.8 lens, on a 1.5x crop sensor will have dof of a F2.8 x1.5 = F4 lens on FF at the same FOV.
a F2.8 lens, on a 2x crop sensor (like m43 cams) will have dof of a F5.6 lens on FF at the same FOV.
what is the crop factor of the FZ200? Crop factor of FZ200 is 5.55. So a F2.8 FZ200 lens will give you dof of a F15 lens on FF at the same FOV.
Last edited:
one eye jack
Senior Member
For the sake of knowledge sharing and intelligent conversation ,international visitors of clubsnap would prefer substance over humour.
Electronic noise as is generally termed is the inherent "friction" between atomic structures and whatever noise is electromagnetically
induced between two electrical conductors when a current is passing through either conductor.So in this 3D reality,it's unavoidable.If you understand basic physics,everything that is physical,that has size and weight has a resonant frequency or sound energy.What is energy? According to physicists,all matter,including your physical body,when you go down to atomic or subatomic level is vibrating energy of light or photons.Here you see the connection between photography,for without light reality does not exist.A normal person will ask,if that is so howcome I can touch and feel solid objects in total darkness,is this not reality and not the void or "emptyness".This is because the light energy is in a 3D format so to speak.Remember Einstein's E=MC2 ( energy= mass x the speed of light squared, the atomic bomb,exponential
energy released in the form of heat and light,remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki,Japan in world war2).Physicists are excited by talk of
finding evidence of the "god particle, Hick's boson" ,smallest known subatomic thing that can provide answers to the secret of life or existence.
Enough of the dry stuff,there is talk nano technology may provide breakthough to present engineering problems of electrical conductivity.
Just using a string of atoms to do the job done by "gigantic" material like copper wire.Say you manage to shrink a camera sensor to a pin head size,then what about the old technology of lenses and light photons that are bigger than this pin head sensor.It's like FF and crop sensor again.One of real world interfacing different physical quantity to make things sensible or perceptable to human eyes.How do you translate light photons of an image to small format the size of a pin head? LPPL. By that way of reasoning if a camera system is the size of a button,how do you even trigger the shutter release when your finger is larger? Thought energy/brain wave?
Food for thought,hope this is entertaining.
BTBFM2
Deregistered
sensor size stated as 1/2.33" (6.08 x 4.56 mm).
goodness, this is really small.
However, i think your way of calculation may not be exactly right. My opinion, don't flame me.
Your calculation assume that the only variable is the sensor size. That is you are assuming the lens physical characteristics [actual aperture diameter and actual focal length etc] remain unchanged. The lens used in the FZ has a different set of actual physical focal length and actual aperture diameter that give the same f-number of f2.8. Remember that the f-number is just a dimensionless number indicating the ratio of focal length to aperture diameter. So, a totally different set of lens [physically] would give the same f-number if the ratio of the actual physical focal to the actual aperture diameter fits that number.
don't get confused. The 25-600mm zoom spec that they give is the "equivalent" of a 35mm sensor. The actual physical focal length is different.
As i said, there is, however, a physical limit to the sensor size reduction before other optical problems kicks in.
BTBFM2
Deregistered
seems that for the 2nd pic, you are much further away from the subject as compared to the first. [or if you were to zoom in further to make the subject appears as close to the first pic, then you FOV would be much different]. Also, the choice of the background may not be a good comparison.
Similar threads
