File :-(, x, )
Kavbar !bhcZKibP7.
ITT we post pictures of our gear, instead of arguing about it. I'll start.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelFinePix S6000fdCamera SoftwarePicasa 3.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaMaker Note Version0130Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationUnknownHorizontal Resolution96 dpiVertical Resolution96 dpiImage Created2008:04:21 21:14:27Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/5.7Brightness0.5 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeAverageLight SourceUnknownFlashFlash, CompulsoryFocal Length17.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1024Image Height683RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeUnknownUnique Image IDf5bdce6e6901cf5d2dccfd72c1fa9b9cSharpnessHardWhite BalanceAutoChroma SaturationNormalFlash ModeOnMacro ModeOnFocus ModeAutoSlow Synchro ModeOffPicture ModeManual ExposureContinuous/Bracketing ModeOffBlur StatusOKFocus StatusOKAuto Exposure StatusOK
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> linkiE !ei5A1FPDuk
     File :-(, x)
My glass isn't that spectacular (lolcollege), but I got great deals on the bodies!

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKONCamera ModelE3100Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Focal Length (35mm Equiv)38 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:04:22 00:35:13Exposure Time10/601 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceFlashFlashFlash, AutoFocal Length5.80 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height768RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
I can't take a picture of my camera since it's the only one I have.
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>167106
Mirror(s)?
>> Anonymous
>>167106
>How do I use a mirror?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
all the glass i got atm :(

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 40DMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:04:22 20:52:08Exposure Time1 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias-1/3 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length17.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>167108
>>167110
I took this because I was going to ask why the lens said 5.8-23.2mm on it instead of 35-140mm. I know that 35 is the equivalent, but 5.8 seems so small.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot A520Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.6Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2008:04:16 00:58:08RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure Time1/13 secF-Numberf/2.6Lens Aperturef/2.6Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length5.81 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1600Image Height1200White BalanceAuto
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>167127
The sensor is so impossibly tiny (think pinky-nail) that the focal length is actually 5.8mm at the short end. For real. The tiny sensor allows such a short lens to give an effective focal length of 35mm.
>> Anonymous
>>167128
So larger sensors need a longer focal length? I guess that makes sense. So whenever dpreview bitches about tiny sensors on compacts, the camera makers really have no other choice, huh?
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>167132
lol wut
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
     File :-(, x)
>>167132
arghag;aldkfjasdl noooo

Let's say there are two variables when it comes to figuring out what kind of view you get from your lens - the focal length, which has a very specific scientific meaning I'm not too clear on (this measured in mm and written on the front of your lens), and the size of the sensor (not written anywhere on your camera, most of the time). The sensor is the amount being recorded out of the circular picture the lens projects, as shown in the picture. The two factors COMBINED give a certain viewpoint, so knowing one will not let you the effective viewpoint.

Sensors are pretty frigging expensive, and the price shoots up like mad as you attempt to make bigger sensors. So pocket cameras use really tiny sensors (also other reasons but whatever)

Now, this really tiny sensor would such with an actual 35mm focal length lens - imagine the difference between the 17-40L used on the 5D and 40D in the example, except that the 40D had a pinkynail sized sensor. You'd only be able to take pictures of people's nostrils even when standing meters away, because the sensor only records a teeny bit of what the lens is projecting.

To make up for this, the focal length is changed to a really miniscule amount, like 5.8. Ordinarily you'd expect this to give an ultra ultra wide view, but since only a teeny chunk is taken out of the middle, it pretty much ends up being the same as a 35mm lens on a full frame body.
>> Anonymous
I just realized crop sensors work like digital zoom only not digital. :/
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>167145
That is the stupidest thing I have read all day.

Granted, it's only 7:20am, but still. Here's hoping I don't have to read anything stupider.
>> Anonymous
>>167141
He is right, though. Sometimes they do have no other choice, if the design parameters specify a camera small enough or for it to be small with a certain or a certain range of focal lengths. The Sigma DP1 is a compact with a large sensor, and what do we all bitch at it for? The lens is too short and too slow, i.e. too small.

Something like the Olympus XA for digital (fully self-contained, normal sensor size compact) I'm pretty sure is impossible because of issues with how light interacts with digital sensors when the flange focal distance is small. That's why the M8 had to have all sorts of "offset microlenses" voodoo on its sensor and can't be full frame, and even the M-mount probably has more FFD than a "Digital Olympus XA" would have.
>> Anonymous
Does sensor size affect focal length composition wise? I mean, the whole distance from the background to the foreground thing or is it really just like cropping a photo from a full frame?

I mean, if I use the same lens on a crop sensor and a full frame sensor then crop the full frame photo down to 2/3 at the center, will it be exactly the same as the photo on the crop sensor?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>167166
>I mean, if I use the same lens on a crop sensor and a full frame sensor then crop the full frame photo down to 2/3 at the center, will it be exactly the same as the photo on the crop sensor?
Assuming you're standing in the same spot for both pictures, yeah.
>> Anonymous
>>167166
>Does sensor size affect focal length composition wise?

No. Easy proof: Get your hands on a compact with one of those 5.8mm lenses and take a picture. Does it look like it was taken with an ultra-ultra-ultrawide, or with just the moderate 35mm wide it's equivalent to? (The answer's the latter, by the way.)
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>167161
Well yeah, but then all those superzooms would have much bigger sensors if it were that easy to fab them. It's true that you have to shrink the lens and the sensor to make the teeny cameras popular today, but even (physically) big cameras are constrained by sensor expenses.

What>>167132said is kinda sorta true in a misleading way, but is certainly not the main reason why so many cameras have tiny sensors and short focal length lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>167096
sweet lookin' OM
>> Anonymous
>>167170
No, they wouldn't. Why would they? Unless you want it to be the size of an SLR with an 18-200, you need a small sensor to get a 36-400+mm equivalent.

And not just those, look at the DP1: large sensor, too-small lens. I'm convinced they botched the lens to try to keep it compact, when larger would still be smaller than a Leica M.
>> Anonymous
>>167181
Whoops, mean Leica CL, although it would, of course, be smaller than an M.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Look what I got today. Macro bellows + live view = win.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeKONICA MINOLTACamera ModelDiMAGE X60Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.6Focal Length (35mm Equiv)47 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:04:22 17:08:17Exposure Time1/90 secF-Numberf/3.6Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating50Brightness5.7 EVExposure Bias-1 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length7.70 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height768RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeClose View
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
By affecting the photo composition-wise, I meant like this.

Will a 75mm on a full frame look just like a 50mm on a 1.5 crop sensor? and will a 50mm on a full frame photo cropped to 2/3 at the center look just like a 50mm on a crop sensor?

sorry if my questions sound confusing.
>> Anonymous
>>167222
Yes and Yes.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>167096
OM-2 fo' lyfe, yo!

>>167193
Iz dat sum me-1? If so, does it actually make things any brighter? I've been considering one (+ a katz) for my legacy glass, but I've read differing opinions on it, so I'm sceptical. If, however, a fellow anon endorsed it, I'd buy it in a heartbeat, as I indiscriminately believe everything I read on fourchon.

Also, in b4 iso1600 on 4/3, clean your keyboard, etc.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelE-410Camera SoftwareVersion 1.3Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationUnknownHorizontal Resolution72 dpVertical Resolution72 dpImage Created2008:04:22 16:26:52White Point Chromaticity0.3Exposure Time1/8 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating1600Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length14.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1600Image Height1200RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessSoft
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D200Camera SoftwareVer.1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern672Focal Length (35mm Equiv)82 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:02:27 17:27:53Exposure Time1/15 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length55.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessSoftSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSC-V3Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:02:14 10:58:16Exposure Time1/15 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceFlashFlashFlash, Compulsory, Red-Eye Reduce, Return DetectedFocal Length7.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> Anonymous
>>167249


OH LAWD IS DAT SUM NETWORK +
>> Anonymous
>>167248
A magnifier eyecup never makes the viewfinder brighter as it cannot magically create more light. It makes it visually bigger and proportionally dimmer, but due to the way the human eye perceives things, the former is much more noticeable than the latter.

That's a Seculine magnifier, it's better than ME-1 in nearly all aspects (1.35x vs. 1.2x, two interchangeable eyecups, fastened by a screw instead of just sliding on, costs the same or even less). Still, even with this, E-410's viewfinder is a far cry from the viewfinder on my film Nikon FG.
>> Anonymous
>>167250
what's the point of keeping that entire stash of film point-and-shoots?
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>167257
The XA is an awesome camera. Those look like XAs, anyways.
>> Anonymous
>>167256
Sounds good, thanks for the info. Off to buy, then.
>> Anonymous
>>167258
This, and why not? Resale value probably isn't too high, if you want film instead of digital they're useful when a digital compact would be, and I bet they're pretty fun to use, too.

On a slightly different note, overall, Olympus is actually probably a better camera designer than Leica. Leica has the ultimate M, but Olympus has the XA, the Pen half-frames, the Pen F half-frame SLR, and the OM system. It's a shame they gambled and lost with 4/3rds.
>> Anonymous
>>167258
xa and xa2 i'd guess

are they really that awesome?
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
>>167274
Yes. It's small and takes sharp photos. Only things I don't like about it are the 2.8 lens (no big deal, though) and its dependence on batteries.
>> Anonymous
>>167105My glass isn't that spectacular (lolcollege), but I got great deals on the bodies!

.... is that sarcasm
>> Anonymous
>>167271
>It's a shame they gambled and lost with 4/3rds

They "gambled and lost" with the Pen system too by this logic. Eh, the 4/3 probably has now more market share and influence than Pen ever had.
>> Anonymous
>>167331
I've always heard the Pen F was a big hit with professionals who needed a small/light kit on occaison.
>> Anonymous
>>167222Will a 75mm on a full frame look just like a 50mm on a 1.5 crop sensor? and will a 50mm on a full frame photo cropped to 2/3 at the center look just like a 50mm on a crop sensor?

Uh.. last time I asked this, fence said it wouldn't look the same because of DOF and perspective.
>> Anonymous
>>167336
Perspective is the same.

Depth of field- shoot at a smaller aperture on full frame. Done.
>> Anonymous
>>167337Perspective is the same.

How exactly is the perspective of a 50mm lens the same as a 75mm one?

Or a 200mm and a 300mm?
>> Anonymous
>>167340
I honestly don't know, but a 50mm lens on a 1.5x crop sensor has the same as a 75. See>>167168.
>> Anonymous
>>167334
A 50/2 lens on full frame cropped to 2/3 at the center will look exactly like a 50/2 lens on 1.5x crop sensor - no caveats here.

If we compare full-size images, a 50/2 lens on a 1.5x crop sensor will look like a 75/3 lens on full frame in terms of DoF, but the exposure will still be calculated using the actual f-number of 2.
>> Anonymous
>>167340
What, is this a joke? The perspective is the same in any given focal length, no matter how you get there. If there was a 2x crop sensor, a 45mm lens would have the same perspective as a 90mm full-frame lens, and the same as a (for example) 28-135mm lens zoomed in at 60mm on a 1.5x crop sensor. Same perspective, just different DOF, which you can compensate with aperture, or even post-processing.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>167343The perspective is the same in any given focal length

Okay, maybe perspective is the wrong word. But the way it looks a lot more compressed in longer focal lengths is what I mean.

How exactly does a 50mm on crop look like a 75mm on full frame?

A 50mm will always be 50mm, it's just cropped at the center. But at 75mm will make things look more compressed.

If this is wrong, please explain.

Pic 1 of 2.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>167348

Pic 2 of 2.
>> Anonymous
Before someone says "lol 50mm vs. 135mm" yes, I realize that. But there's still a jump from 50mm to 75mm and again 200mm to 300mm.

So again, how exactly does a 50mm on crop look like 75mm on full frame?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>167343
>>167349
>>167352
Perspective depends only on the distance from lens to subject, not on the focal length. The reason that telephotos compress perspective is because the scene you're seeing with them is way the fuck far away.

So why does an 80mm lens on full frame act like a 50mm on 1.6x crop perspective-wise? Because when you're shooting with the 50mm on crop, you stand as far away from your subject as you would with an 80 on full-frame.

Like someone else said (and I'm shamelessly stealing his argument, but I've made this argument myself in the past and there's always the chance he stole it from me first): When you're using a little P&S, does the 5mm lens on it have absurdly crazy wild ultra-super-wideangle perspective? No it does not.

(And "perspective" is, in fact, the correct term for how compressed or stretched out things look.)
>> Anonymous
>>167352
You're mentally defective. It looks like it because of the important word "crop", which can be thought of as magnification. If it helps your dumb ass, a 50mm lens, when put on a 1.5x crop camera, MAGICALLY turns the camera into a full-frame camera with a 75mm lens! =O! That's amazing!

Look, I already explained it as best as necessary and possible. And yes, perspective is the right and only word. 150% of 50 is 75. 150% of 200 is 300. It can't get any simpler.
>> Anonymous
>>167352
Also, lol 50mm vs. 135mm, you idiot.
>> Anonymous
>>167352
Ask an expert on optical theory. I don't think there's one on /p/.

But again, if you want proof crop affects perspective, get yourself a little point and shoot. It'll have a short 5mm (as in, five millimeters, as in three times shorter than a 15mm) lens and look like the moderate wide equivalent it is.
>> Anonymous
>>167355Perspective depends only on the distance from lens to subject, not on the focal length.

Those are taken from the same distance to the subject.

And that was the whole point of asking was is not?

TWO cameras, used at the SAME exact distance to subject.

ONE full frame with 75mm, ONE crop with 50mm.

How exactly does the 50mm have the same compressed field of view as the 75mm?

The 50mm is a 50mm no matter what, you are simply cropping the center. That does not change the compressed field of view in any way.
>> Anonymous
>>167355
>>167358

Hive fucking mind.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>167358
>> Anonymous
>>167359
You don't stand the same distance. I mean, you could if you wanted to, but you don't.
>> Anonymous
>>167356If it helps your dumb ass, a 50mm lens, when put on a 1.5x crop camera, MAGICALLY turns the camera into a full-frame camera with a 75mm lens! =O! That's amazing!

No, it doesn't.

It doesn't magically turn it into a 75mm.

It crops out the center part, and gives an apparent field of view of 75mm.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>167348
>A 50mm will always be 50mm, it's just cropped at the center. But at 75mm will make things look more compressed.

If we're talking about perspective, it's dependent on the field of view that your lens gives on this particular camera, and FoV is a function of both focal length and image sensor width (to be precise, horizontal FoV = 2arctan(w/2f), where w is width of the sensor)

A 50mm lens on an 1.5x crop sensor (24 mm wide) has a horizontal FoV of 27 degrees.
A 75mm lens on an full-frame sensor (36mm wide) has a horizontal FoV of 27 degrees.
A 12mm lens on an 1/2.5" type sensor (5.8mm wide) has a horizontal FoV of 27 degrees.
Same FoV = same perspective.
>> Anonymous
>>167359
>Those are taken from the same distance to the subject.
No, they're not.
>The 50mm is a 50mm no matter what, you are simply cropping the center. That does not change the compressed field of view in any way.
Yes, it does, because to have the same proportional scene captured on the film/sensor, you need to change your physical position as the photographer. If you're 10ft away from a bush, and you have a 50-1.5x, you need to step forward or backward (I forget which direction because it's irrelevant to the point) in order for that bush to appear as the same size in the unaltered image on a 75-1.0x. Now go away dummy.
>> Anonymous
>>167364
Read this, fool:
>>167368
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>167359
Those are taken with a 135mm and a 50mm lens, you dumbass. So you're looking at a 75mm-equiv (Nikon/Pentax/Sony crop) vs a 135mm-equiv (full frame)

There's a big perspective jump from 75mm to 135mm. Try it again with a 75mm lens on full frame and a 50mm lens on 1.5x crop
>> Anonymous
>>167367
oops. pic semi-related

one of these shots was taken with a 22mm lens at f/5.6, the second with an 11mm lens at f/2.8 and cropped to 50% of the size. can you tell which is which?
>> Anonymous
>>167370So you're looking at a 75mm-equiv (Nikon/Pentax/Sony crop) vs a 135mm-equiv (full frame)

Wow, what's with the name calling, fucking faggot? How does this degenerate so quickly?

I said I know it's 50mm vs. 135mm. But there's a pretty massive jump from 200mm vs. 300mm as well or any other combination.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>167368
>>Those are taken from the same distance to the subject.
>No, they're not.
This is also a good point, They're not taken with the same distance to the subject. The thingy in the center looks to be pretty much the same size in both shots, which it wouldn't be if you were in the same place for the 75mm-equiv shot and the 135mm-equiv shot. You had to have moved back for the 135.

(Or maybe you cropped one of them, which adds a whole other level of confusion)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Look, you guys are talking about changing your distance from the subject to compensate.

But I'm talking about a fixed position. Look at the neat picture I made.

Assuming we keep subject, camera and distance between everythign the same for both set up. And let's pretend Canon as 1.5x for now.

5D with a 75mm at X ft from subject.
20D with 50mm at same X ft from subject.

Will it look the same or not is my question? And last time I asked, fence said, no because DOF is narrower on full frame and because perspective is different. The 50mm will be less compressed because it's a 50mm and the other is a 75mm.
>> Anonymous
>>167096
>instead of arguing about it.
I just thought I'd sit back and lol about that for a while. Don't mind me, I'm part of the argument, I just like being existentially covalent sometimes.
>> Anonymous
>>167381
Perspective would be the exact same, because x is the same. BUT THE SUBJECT WOULD APPEAR A LOT LARGER AND YOU WOULDN'T HAVE AS MUCH BACKGROUND ON THE CROP SENSOR, DURRRRRR, YOU MORON.
>> Anonymous
>>167367
Was this taken with the camera at the same distance?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>167381
o hai I corrected your image.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>167375
>Wow, what's with the name calling, fucking faggot? How does this degenerate so quickly?
Lord knows I normally try to keep things civil, but sometimes I just can't help myself when someone
1. Completely fails to grasp a simple argument and
2. Replies with his own argument that is, at even the most casual glance, clearly invalid on multiple levels.

You posted two pictures which you claim were taken from the same distance (clearly false, since even in the optically incorrect world posited by you here you don't deny the fact that crop factor magnifies the subject) and with different crop-adjusted focal lengths and claim that it's some kind of proof that crop factor doesn't affect perspective.

>I said I know it's 50mm vs. 135mm. But there's a pretty massive jump from 200mm vs. 300mm as well or any other combination.
Prove it.
>> Anonymous
>>167389

Why? Same distance, the object/subject should look the same through your eyes.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>167381
>Will it look the same or not is my question?
Yes. At the same subject-to-camera distance, perspective will look the same on a 50mm/1.5x-crop as it wil with a 75mm/1.0x-crop.
>> Anonymous
>>167390

Please explain>>167381then, oh almighty all-knowing ac.

I got the original answer from fence, which I would trust with confidence a lot more than you.

>> Prove it.

I don't have a full frame camera.

But are you saying there's no compression when you increase focal length?
>> Anonymous
>>167393
Crop sensor. Don't you understand what that means? Why do you have to be so stupid. The subject is projected onto the image as being larger. If two cameras, both 10mp (fucking digital age), camera A being 1.5x and camera B being 1.0x crop, the subject would take up 50% more pixels on the same 10mp image area. Same perspective as always, since distance is the same. To make the subject the same size, like in the 50 vs 135 shots you posted, you need to STEP THE FUCK BACK, WHICH CHANGES YOUR DISTANCE, WHICH CHANGES YOUR PERSPECTIVE.

If that doesn't clear it up, you're literally hopeless, and just a troll.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>167381
Here, I upgraded your picture.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>167389
Crop factor does not make distant objects physically shrink when you look at them. Fail.
>> Anonymous
>>167395
>Please explain>>167381
O hi again retard, not ac but I already explained it here>>167389
you fuckall moron.
>> Anonymous
>>167399
Did I reverse which is which? Because crops make subjects larger. Also don't be a faggot when I'm on your side, my argument is clearly valid.
>> Anonymous
>>167394Yes. At the same subject-to-camera distance, perspective will look the same on a 50mm/1.5x-crop as it wil with a 75mm/1.0x-crop.

Then you're saying a 50mm and a 75mm has the same compressed look? And there is no difference as you increase focal length.
>> Anonymous
>>167395
>But are you saying there's no compression when you increase focal length?
There's no compression if you increase the focal length AND the size of the sensor simultaneously.
Which is EXACTLY the case with 5D+75mm vs. 20D+50mm.
>> Anonymous
>>167403
50mm on 20D, 75mm on 5D, 12mm on an ELPH/IXUS and 150mm on a fucking Hasselblad have the same compressed look.
>> Anonymous
>>167404There's no compression if you increase the focal length AND the size of the sensor simultaneously.

Compression is a property of the sensor size now?

I was explained compression was property of the focal length.
>> Anonymous
>>167407
Dear idiot, read this:
>>167396


No one post anything more for this kindergartener to get confused about. Just wait.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>167402
You're really just confusing the issue. That guy wasn't putting forth an argument, he was asking a question (which I'll correct for the actual crop factors):

Given the same subject-to-camera distance, will a 20D (1.6x crop) with a 50mm lens look the same as a 5D (1.0x crop) with an 80mm lens in terms of perspective.

And the answer is yes.

>>167395
Again, that is not something to *explain*, that is a question to be *answered*. Look at the image and read his post again. He's not putting forth an argument, he's asking a question.

I'm pretty sure that Fence misunderstood the question when you asked it before. Got a link to the thread? It doesn't seem to be in this one. I vaguely recall thinking "Huh. He misunderstood the question" but being too lazy to point it out.

>>167403
Yes, that is precisely what I'm saying.
>> Anonymous
>>167407
Compression is a property of the recorded angle of view. Which is a function of focal length and sensor size. Do you even read what's posted in the thread? See>>167367
>> Anonymous
>>167408camera A being 1.5x and camera B being 1.0x crop, the subject would take up 50% more pixels on the same 10mp image area

Why would you say one image has the subject taking up 50% more pixels? You just said both would look the same. You just contradicted yourself.
>> Anonymous
ITT: Successful trolling
>> Anonymous
>>167411
>You just said both would look the same.
No, I didn't. Subject size and perspective are two incredibly different things. Please learn to grasp the English language and basic photography concepts first.
>> Anonymous
>>167409

It was a month or so ago. I didn't bother making a picture so I typed it out.

He replied and I went on my way preaching his word.

So if you are saying a 50mm and a 75mm have the same compressed look and there is no difference as you increase focal length. Why are longer focal lenths more suited for portraiture and the compressed look?
>> Anonymous
>>167414
You keep randomly inserting and removing the mathematical factor of sensor size, and I hate you for it. You're doing it on purpose because you're a troll, and I hope you die in front of your mother.
>> Anonymous
>>167413if two cameras, both 10mp (fucking digital age), camera A being 1.5x and camera B being 1.0x crop, the subject would take up 50% more pixels on the same 10mp image area. Same perspective as always, since distance is the same.

Explain your post better then.

I read it.

>> Same perspective
>> if two cameras, both 10mp (fucking digital age), camera A being 1.5x and camera B being 1.0x crop, the subject would take up 50% more pixels on the same 10mp image area.

Something taking up 50% more pixels = larger in just about anyone's book.
>> Anonymous
>>167416
>Something taking up 50% more pixels = larger in just about anyone's book.
Right. Read this:
>>167413
Like I said, subject size and perspective are wholly different. Perspective is the subject in relation to other objects, size is the subject in relation to itself.
>> Anonymous
>>167418

Dude. You said, both images will look the same, yes?

Then you say one has the subject taking 50% more pixels. That means it's larger in the frame.

Then how exactly does that make them the same?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>167414
>So if you are saying a 50mm and a 75mm have the same compressed look and there is no difference as you increase focal length. Why are longer focal lenths more suited for portraiture and the compressed look?
Because when you have a longer focal length lens on your camera, you have to move back to get all of your subject in frame.

If you shoot a model from the same spot with a 50mm lens and a 200mm lens, you'll have exactly the same look with regards to compression of perspective. Just that with the 200mm lens, all you'll be seeing is the pores on her nose so you won't be able to tell.

See how easy that was?
>> Anonymous
>>167419
>Then how exactly does that make them the same?
They have the same perspective. They are the same relative to other objects in the scene. How many times is your stupid ass going to ask this same question?
>> Anonymous
>>167419
>Like I said, subject size and perspective are wholly different. Perspective is the subject in relation to other objects, size is the subject in relation to itself.
>> Anonymous
in b4 a retard that finally grasps the basic concept people of normal intelligence have been trying to teach him goes "haha u all got trolled lol"
>> Anonymous
>>167421They have the same perspective. They are the same relative to other objects in the scene. How many times is your stupid ass going to ask this same question?

He said they have the same perspective, but one has the subject taking 50% more pixels. And he keeps on quoting himself not explaining anything.

If something takes up 50% more pixels in one frame, that makes it larger. And that makes both pictures different.
>> Anonymous
>If something takes up 50% more pixels in one frame, that makes it larger. And that makes both pictures different.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
>> Anonymous
>>167420

At the same distance, the 50mm on crop has the same compression as a 75mm on full frame because sensor size affects compression?
>> Anonymous
>>167426

SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE (COMPRESSION).
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE (COMPRESSION).
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE (COMPRESSION).
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE (COMPRESSION).
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE (COMPRESSION).
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE (COMPRESSION).
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE (COMPRESSION).
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE (COMPRESSION).
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE (COMPRESSION).
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE (COMPRESSION).
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE (COMPRESSION).
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE (COMPRESSION).
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE (COMPRESSION).
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE (COMPRESSION).
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE (COMPRESSION).
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE (COMPRESSION).
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE (COMPRESSION).
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE (COMPRESSION).
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE (COMPRESSION).
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE (COMPRESSION).
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE (COMPRESSION).
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>167424
He explained himself about four times, you just weren't paying attention.

When we say perspective, we're referring to how close things in the foreground appear to things in the background. This is distinct from subject size, which is how big your subject is. I know that last sentence sounds dumb, but so do you, so I thought I'd spell it out.
>> Anonymous
>>167425

Dude, you keep repeating that but you're not explaining yourself.

You said:

1. Both images look the same.
2. Perspective looks the same.
3. But one picture has the subject taking 50% more pixels.

You've spammed >> SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.

Fine. But something, anything taking 50% more pixels in one picture, means the image looks different.
>> Anonymous
>>167432
>You said:
>
>1. Both images look the same.
>2. Perspective looks the same.
I only said #2, and if I ever said #1, it was in direct reference to #2. Again,
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>167432
He didn't say both images looked the same. He said perspective was the same. Go reread the post:>>167396
>> Anonymous
>>167431 No, because sensor size affects field of view, which affects where you stand when you're taking the picture.

You just said a 50mm on crop from X distance has the same look as a 75mm on full frame from X distance.

>> Given the same subject-to-camera distance, will a 20D (1.6x crop) with a 50mm lens look the same as a 5D (1.0x crop) with an 80mm lens in terms of perspective.

Now you're saying they don't?
>> Anonymous
>>167439

SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
SIZE IS NOT PERSPECTIVE.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>167426
>At the same distance, the 50mm on crop has the same compression as a 75mm on full frame because sensor size affects compression?
Yes they will have the same compression, but NOT because sensor size affects compression. It's because sensor size affects field of view (i.e., how big your subject looks), which affects where you stand. And THAT effects perspective.
>> Anonymous
>>167442
Give it up ac, he's clearly too stupid, and will probably result to abandoning the thread or calling himself a troll to save the embarrassment. It's not worth it lol
>> Anonymous
ac, don't be so easily trolled
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>167439
I realized after posting that I worded that poorly. I deleted the post to reword, but apparently not quickly enough.

See>>167442

The "no" in my post was regarding the reasoning (i.e., that sensor size affects compression) not the conclusion (i.e., that same equivalent-focal-lengths will give you the same perspective at the same camera-to-subject distance)
>> Anonymous
Why did you delete your post?

Both from distance X, 50mm on crop and 75 mm on full frame. Both images will look the exact same, minus DOF.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>167447
Yeah, I know. Sorry.

I really fucking hate people sometimes, you know?
>> Anonymous
THREAD DERAILED
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>167451
See>>167448
>> Anonymous
>>167452
As you should. All ignorant people should be hated.
>> Anonymous
>>167446Give it up ac, he's clearly too stupid, and will probably result to abandoning the thread or calling himself a troll to save the embarrassment. It's not worth it lol

Wow, does it make you feel any better about yourself when you say things like that? Giddy like a school girl?

Christ, fucking elitist faggots.

I'm asking a question and all you want to do is I'M SMRAT LOL
>> Anonymous
>>167451Both from distance X, 50mm on crop and 75 mm on full frame. Both images will look the exact same, minus DOF.

Can I get a final answer?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>167459
Yes, you can get a final answer.

Yes, given the same subject-to-camera distance, a 50mm on a 1.5x crop will look the same as a 75mm on a 1.0x crop, other than DoF.
>> Anonymous
>>167456
>I'm asking a question
That was answered in
>>167355
>>167356
>>167367
>>167368
>>167370
>>167376
>>167384
>>167389
>>167390
>>167394
>>167396
>>167397
>>167399
>>167400
>>167404
>>167408
>>167409
>>167413
>>167415
>>167418
>>167420
>>167425
>>167428
>>167429
>>167435
>>167441
and many other posts. If that's not the definition of an idiot, that word doesn't exist.

I know that misdirection (towards pointing out foul language) is one of the last refuges of a failing troll, so just give it up you fucking moron.
>> Anonymous
>>167462

Again, does it make you feel any better to post that?

It started out as a civil thing and just about anyone would get thrown off when the very first replies you get is obscenities and filth. How the fuck is that a troll?

>> He's not putting forth an argument, he's asking a question.

I had good faith on fence and took his word for it and believed every thing he said.

I ask a question and faggots like you show up.

Get the fuck out, troll.
>> Anonymous
>>167464
>when the very first replies you get is obscenities and filth.
No, they came after you were answered politely. Prove otherwise.
>I ask a question
That got answered literally two dozen or more times. But your stupid ass kept asking it! Haha.
>Get the fuck out, troll.
Oooh, the ad-hominem mirror argument. You've been studying on how to be a troll, haven't you. Good for you, do something with your time, since photography certainly won't become one of them.
>> Anonymous
The joke is kind of on you as well because you've posted just as much as I did, eh.
>> Anonymous
Wow, I posted the question>>167166then got this answer>>167167then clarified my question>>167222and got same answers then I go outside and grab a bite to eat and snap a few photos then come home and fap then when I get back on /p/ ALL FAGGOTRY ENSUES ending in the same>>167460fucking thing I got 300 posts earlier.

SRSLY /p/ WHAT THE FUCK
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>167473
'Cause we got trolled.

I wrote up a little copypastable Guide to Perspective that I can use next time.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Summary!
>a. What's perspective/compression?
How close things in the foreground look to things in the background
>b. Is it dependent on focal length?
Not exactly. It's dependent on camera to subject distance.
>c. I've heard it's dependent on focal length
It's not. Focal length changes apparent subject size, but not perspective
>d. Then why does the perspective on a wide angle look different from a telephoto?
Because when you shoot with a telephoto, you move away from the subject, and when you shoot with a wide, you move closer to the subject
>e. I don't believe you
You don't have to! If you have a zoom lens, you can test it yourself! Using the 18-55 kit lens standard on most DSLRs, for instance, emulating a 2x sensor crop factor is easy:
1. Put the camera on a tripod
2. Take a picture at 18mm
3. Without moving anything but the zoom knob, take the picture at 36mm
4. Open up the shot taken at 18mm and take a 2x crop (i.e., half size. Any good image editor should be able to do this)
5. Compare perspective to the 36mm-shot. It'll look the same (although the 18mm will be lower resolution, because you cropped it)
>f. I still don't believe you. I've always been told that smaller focal lengths give weird perspective
That's a useful rule of thumb, yes, but it's not actually true. As another example, Point & shoot digital cameras have very large crop factors and very short actual focal lengths. By this logic, a Canon PowerShot G9 (with 7.4-44.4mm zoom lens) would only be capable of super-mega-ultrawide to slightly-wide perspectives.
>g. But how could a 50mm lens have different perspective when it's on a crop camera as it does on a full-frame camera? It's still the same lens!
Because focal length doesn't affect perspective. When you put the 50 on the crop sensor, to get the same picture, you take a few steps backwards to accomodate the crop factor.
>h. I still don't get it
Then you're hopeless.
>> Anonymous
>>167496
Saved for future reposting
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>167496

ac, your a genius :P
>> Anonymous
I'm just glad the troll shut up and stopped posting solely because I ordered him to. Yay me.
>> Anonymous
>>167503

No, I'm still here. NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH TROLLLLL
>> Anonymous
I wasn't trolling, by the way.
>> Anonymous
>>167502

doesn't it feel good when tripfags masturbate each other? mmmmmm
>> Anonymous
you can also demonstrate change in perspective without changing focal length by holding up a finger and focusing on it with one eye then move your head forward and back. Watch as the finger begins to cover more of the background as you get closer.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>167512
It does. It's all tingly and sweaty. Unf unf unf unf yeaaaaaah.

Seriously, you should try it.
>> dingleberry jones !.ER2KPDVC.
>>167515

you're so smart and handsome ac you make such great posts don't i make great posts too huh omg i love you <3 look at these hearts i type out aww they're perfectly in-place on an internet forum aw <3 your so great
>> Anonymous
>>167515
do you by any chance have a DeviantArt? I'd be glad to take part in a circlejerk with you.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>167512

Just a compliment, sorry to dissapoint.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
HAY GUIEZ MOAR GEAR LESS RETARDISTRY

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 10DMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.5Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaLens Size28.00 - 135.00 mmFirmware VersionFirmware Version 2.0.1Serial Number0620313840Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2008:01:01 19:27:13White Point Chromaticity0.3Exposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/4.5ISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/4.5Exposure Bias0 EVFlashFlash, Compulsory, Red-Eye ReduceFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width3072Image Height2048RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeTv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeSharpnessNormalSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeAI ServoDrive ModeContinuousFlash ModeRed-Eye Reduction (On)Compression SettingFineMacro ModeUnknownSubject Distance0.071 mWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed160Image Number336-3653
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Oh hai.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 20DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsPhotographerMatthew SutterMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:04:22 15:10:23Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length40.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width533Image Height800RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>167595
Rollei high five, Mr. Sutter
>> Anonymous
>>167614
Hah, Capture One put my name on my camera. Yes, Rollei are win.