kodak dx6490's , happy but....

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by pomodorojimmy, Oct 7, 2004.

  1. Hi, I purchased a kodak dx6490 a few weeks ago and am mostly pleased.
    Colors are great, just like film and I have hardly needed to correct
    any pictures, unlike the olympus cameras I tried which give very
    unnatural skin tones. However, the zoom specs dont seem too accurate
    to me. The specs say that the equivalent 35mm focal length is
    38-380mm. Now I still have my Pentax SFX SLR and although my largest
    zoom goes only to 210mm, some quick calculations , based on the size
    of an image in both view finders, tells me that the 380mm is more like
    260-270mm on the pentax. No way is it anywhere near 400!
     
    pomodorojimmy, Oct 7, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. pomodorojimmy

    Big Bill Guest

    On 6 Oct 2004 23:35:31 -0700, (pomodorojimmy)
    wrote:

    >Hi, I purchased a kodak dx6490 a few weeks ago and am mostly pleased.
    >Colors are great, just like film and I have hardly needed to correct
    >any pictures, unlike the olympus cameras I tried which give very
    >unnatural skin tones. However, the zoom specs dont seem too accurate
    >to me. The specs say that the equivalent 35mm focal length is
    >38-380mm. Now I still have my Pentax SFX SLR and although my largest
    >zoom goes only to 210mm, some quick calculations , based on the size
    >of an image in both view finders, tells me that the 380mm is more like
    >260-270mm on the pentax. No way is it anywhere near 400!


    In the viewfinder; well, viewfinders don't always show what's in the
    image.
    Try taking pics with both cameras from the same spot, and see what the
    actual differences are.

    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
     
    Big Bill, Oct 7, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Big Bill wrote:
    >
    > On 6 Oct 2004 23:35:31 -0700, (pomodorojimmy)
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Hi, I purchased a kodak dx6490 a few weeks ago and am mostly pleased.
    > >Colors are great, just like film and I have hardly needed to correct
    > >any pictures, unlike the olympus cameras I tried which give very
    > >unnatural skin tones. However, the zoom specs dont seem too accurate
    > >to me. The specs say that the equivalent 35mm focal length is
    > >38-380mm. Now I still have my Pentax SFX SLR and although my largest
    > >zoom goes only to 210mm, some quick calculations , based on the size
    > >of an image in both view finders, tells me that the 380mm is more like
    > >260-270mm on the pentax. No way is it anywhere near 400!

    >
    > In the viewfinder; well, viewfinders don't always show what's in the
    > image.
    > Try taking pics with both cameras from the same spot, and see what the
    > actual differences are.
    >
    > Bill Funk
    > Change "g" to "a"


    That isn't going to prove much. The digital camera image will be much
    smaller than pmn a 35mm camera. The whole concept of 35mm equivalency
    is bogus and means nothing. What they are saying is that based on a
    normal lens for the 35mm and the digital camera, the digital lens
    extended will give a certain enlargement and then they multiply that
    factor times the 35mm normal lens focal length.

    Confused? Of course you are cause the equivalency is bogus.

    The true answer to the OP's question is simple. find out the digital
    lens' focal length, e.g. my camera lens is 8mm to 24 mm. Then find
    out the diagonal of the camera sensor, e.g. my sensor is 1/1.8 and it
    has a diagonal of 8.93mm. That means that my normal lens would be
    8.93 and if you divide the 24mm by 8.93 mm you get a 2.69 factor for
    the 24mm length. To convert that to 35mm camera you need to know that
    the 35mm camera has normal lens of 50 mm, so multiply 50mm by 2.69
    will give 135mm. The manufacture says that the equivalency is 114mm
    because they consider 42mm to be the normal for 35mm (technically
    correct since the diagonal is 43mm).

    Again, all of this is bogus because the size of an image will be the
    same regardless of the size of the film or the size of the sensor. My
    electronic camera with the lens set at 24mm provides the same size
    image as I would get with a 24mm lens on my 35mm camera. Tiny, to be
    specific.

    What the manufactures could do is to simply determine the
    magnification compared to the normal focal length. e.g. 3x. If
    they left it at that it would be ok.

    BTW, if the manufacture doesn't tell the size of sensor check here:


    dpreviewhttp://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/Sensor_Sizes_01.htm
     
    George E. Cawthon, Oct 8, 2004
    #3
  4. pomodorojimmy

    Ron Hunter Guest

    George E. Cawthon wrote:
    >
    > Big Bill wrote:
    >
    >>On 6 Oct 2004 23:35:31 -0700, (pomodorojimmy)
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Hi, I purchased a kodak dx6490 a few weeks ago and am mostly pleased.
    >>>Colors are great, just like film and I have hardly needed to correct
    >>>any pictures, unlike the olympus cameras I tried which give very
    >>>unnatural skin tones. However, the zoom specs dont seem too accurate
    >>>to me. The specs say that the equivalent 35mm focal length is
    >>>38-380mm. Now I still have my Pentax SFX SLR and although my largest
    >>>zoom goes only to 210mm, some quick calculations , based on the size
    >>>of an image in both view finders, tells me that the 380mm is more like
    >>>260-270mm on the pentax. No way is it anywhere near 400!

    >>
    >>In the viewfinder; well, viewfinders don't always show what's in the
    >>image.
    >>Try taking pics with both cameras from the same spot, and see what the
    >>actual differences are.
    >>
    >>Bill Funk
    >>Change "g" to "a"

    >
    >
    > That isn't going to prove much. The digital camera image will be much
    > smaller than pmn a 35mm camera. The whole concept of 35mm equivalency
    > is bogus and means nothing. What they are saying is that based on a
    > normal lens for the 35mm and the digital camera, the digital lens
    > extended will give a certain enlargement and then they multiply that
    > factor times the 35mm normal lens focal length.
    >
    > Confused? Of course you are cause the equivalency is bogus.
    >
    > The true answer to the OP's question is simple. find out the digital
    > lens' focal length, e.g. my camera lens is 8mm to 24 mm. Then find
    > out the diagonal of the camera sensor, e.g. my sensor is 1/1.8 and it
    > has a diagonal of 8.93mm. That means that my normal lens would be
    > 8.93 and if you divide the 24mm by 8.93 mm you get a 2.69 factor for
    > the 24mm length. To convert that to 35mm camera you need to know that
    > the 35mm camera has normal lens of 50 mm, so multiply 50mm by 2.69
    > will give 135mm. The manufacture says that the equivalency is 114mm
    > because they consider 42mm to be the normal for 35mm (technically
    > correct since the diagonal is 43mm).
    >
    > Again, all of this is bogus because the size of an image will be the
    > same regardless of the size of the film or the size of the sensor. My
    > electronic camera with the lens set at 24mm provides the same size
    > image as I would get with a 24mm lens on my 35mm camera. Tiny, to be
    > specific.
    >
    > What the manufactures could do is to simply determine the
    > magnification compared to the normal focal length. e.g. 3x. If
    > they left it at that it would be ok.
    >
    > BTW, if the manufacture doesn't tell the size of sensor check here:
    >
    >
    > dpreviewhttp://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/Sensor_Sizes_01.htm


    It seems to me that Kodak calls this a 10X zoom. Isn't that what you
    just said you want?
     
    Ron Hunter, Oct 8, 2004
    #4
  5. Ron Hunter wrote:
    >
    > George E. Cawthon wrote:
    > >
    > > Big Bill wrote:
    > >
    > >>On 6 Oct 2004 23:35:31 -0700, (pomodorojimmy)
    > >>wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>Hi, I purchased a kodak dx6490 a few weeks ago and am mostly pleased.
    > >>>Colors are great, just like film and I have hardly needed to correct
    > >>>any pictures, unlike the olympus cameras I tried which give very
    > >>>unnatural skin tones. However, the zoom specs dont seem too accurate
    > >>>to me. The specs say that the equivalent 35mm focal length is
    > >>>38-380mm. Now I still have my Pentax SFX SLR and although my largest
    > >>>zoom goes only to 210mm, some quick calculations , based on the size
    > >>>of an image in both view finders, tells me that the 380mm is more like
    > >>>260-270mm on the pentax. No way is it anywhere near 400!
    > >>
    > >>In the viewfinder; well, viewfinders don't always show what's in the
    > >>image.
    > >>Try taking pics with both cameras from the same spot, and see what the
    > >>actual differences are.
    > >>
    > >>Bill Funk
    > >>Change "g" to "a"

    > >
    > >
    > > That isn't going to prove much. The digital camera image will be much
    > > smaller than pmn a 35mm camera. The whole concept of 35mm equivalency
    > > is bogus and means nothing. What they are saying is that based on a
    > > normal lens for the 35mm and the digital camera, the digital lens
    > > extended will give a certain enlargement and then they multiply that
    > > factor times the 35mm normal lens focal length.
    > >
    > > Confused? Of course you are cause the equivalency is bogus.
    > >
    > > The true answer to the OP's question is simple. find out the digital
    > > lens' focal length, e.g. my camera lens is 8mm to 24 mm. Then find
    > > out the diagonal of the camera sensor, e.g. my sensor is 1/1.8 and it
    > > has a diagonal of 8.93mm. That means that my normal lens would be
    > > 8.93 and if you divide the 24mm by 8.93 mm you get a 2.69 factor for
    > > the 24mm length. To convert that to 35mm camera you need to know that
    > > the 35mm camera has normal lens of 50 mm, so multiply 50mm by 2.69
    > > will give 135mm. The manufacture says that the equivalency is 114mm
    > > because they consider 42mm to be the normal for 35mm (technically
    > > correct since the diagonal is 43mm).
    > >
    > > Again, all of this is bogus because the size of an image will be the
    > > same regardless of the size of the film or the size of the sensor. My
    > > electronic camera with the lens set at 24mm provides the same size
    > > image as I would get with a 24mm lens on my 35mm camera. Tiny, to be
    > > specific.
    > >
    > > What the manufactures could do is to simply determine the
    > > magnification compared to the normal focal length. e.g. 3x. If
    > > they left it at that it would be ok.
    > >
    > > BTW, if the manufacture doesn't tell the size of sensor check here:
    > >
    > >
    > > dpreviewhttp://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/Sensor_Sizes_01.htm

    >
    > It seems to me that Kodak calls this a 10X zoom. Isn't that what you
    > just said you want?


    I think you put your comment in the wrong part of the thread since I
    didn't want anything. Nonetheless, let's say the sensor diagonal is
    11mm (possibly standard for a 6megapixel camera). If the lens is 11mm
    to 110 mm that makes it a 10x. However the image size is the same as
    35mm camera with a 110mm lens since the image size depends on the
    focal length and not the film/image size. So if looks at a same size
    enlargement for both cameras, they will be sorely disappointed by the
    results.
     
    George E. Cawthon, Oct 9, 2004
    #5
  6. Ron Hunter wrote:
    >
    > George E. Cawthon wrote:
    > >
    > > Big Bill wrote:
    > >
    > >>On 6 Oct 2004 23:35:31 -0700, (pomodorojimmy)
    > >>wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>Hi, I purchased a kodak dx6490 a few weeks ago and am mostly pleased.
    > >>>Colors are great, just like film and I have hardly needed to correct
    > >>>any pictures, unlike the olympus cameras I tried which give very
    > >>>unnatural skin tones. However, the zoom specs dont seem too accurate
    > >>>to me. The specs say that the equivalent 35mm focal length is
    > >>>38-380mm. Now I still have my Pentax SFX SLR and although my largest
    > >>>zoom goes only to 210mm, some quick calculations , based on the size
    > >>>of an image in both view finders, tells me that the 380mm is more like
    > >>>260-270mm on the pentax. No way is it anywhere near 400!
    > >>
    > >>In the viewfinder; well, viewfinders don't always show what's in the
    > >>image.
    > >>Try taking pics with both cameras from the same spot, and see what the
    > >>actual differences are.
    > >>
    > >>Bill Funk
    > >>Change "g" to "a"

    > >
    > >
    > > That isn't going to prove much. The digital camera image will be much
    > > smaller than pmn a 35mm camera. The whole concept of 35mm equivalency
    > > is bogus and means nothing. What they are saying is that based on a
    > > normal lens for the 35mm and the digital camera, the digital lens
    > > extended will give a certain enlargement and then they multiply that
    > > factor times the 35mm normal lens focal length.
    > >
    > > Confused? Of course you are cause the equivalency is bogus.
    > >
    > > The true answer to the OP's question is simple. find out the digital
    > > lens' focal length, e.g. my camera lens is 8mm to 24 mm. Then find
    > > out the diagonal of the camera sensor, e.g. my sensor is 1/1.8 and it
    > > has a diagonal of 8.93mm. That means that my normal lens would be
    > > 8.93 and if you divide the 24mm by 8.93 mm you get a 2.69 factor for
    > > the 24mm length. To convert that to 35mm camera you need to know that
    > > the 35mm camera has normal lens of 50 mm, so multiply 50mm by 2.69
    > > will give 135mm. The manufacture says that the equivalency is 114mm
    > > because they consider 42mm to be the normal for 35mm (technically
    > > correct since the diagonal is 43mm).
    > >
    > > Again, all of this is bogus because the size of an image will be the
    > > same regardless of the size of the film or the size of the sensor. My
    > > electronic camera with the lens set at 24mm provides the same size
    > > image as I would get with a 24mm lens on my 35mm camera. Tiny, to be
    > > specific.
    > >
    > > What the manufactures could do is to simply determine the
    > > magnification compared to the normal focal length. e.g. 3x. If
    > > they left it at that it would be ok.
    > >
    > > BTW, if the manufacture doesn't tell the size of sensor check here:
    > >
    > >
    > > dpreviewhttp://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/Sensor_Sizes_01.htm

    >
    > It seems to me that Kodak calls this a 10X zoom. Isn't that what you
    > just said you want?


    Add on, I don't really know what Kodak calls it, but the op said is
    was a 38 to 380mm equivalent, which give the impression that the
    results would be similar to a 380mm lens on a 35mm camera, whereas it
    definitely won't. Besides, if they just give the minimum and maximum
    focal length, most people can figure out the multiplication (assuming
    they had 4th grade math).
     
    George E. Cawthon, Oct 9, 2004
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ron Baird

    New Kodak DX6490 Camera

    Ron Baird, Aug 20, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    824
    Mark Weaver
    Aug 27, 2003
  2. Rudy Garcia

    Anyone has Comments on the Kodak DX6490 ?

    Rudy Garcia, Oct 17, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    598
    Christopher
    Oct 30, 2003
  3. Info
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    808
    ArtKramr
    Nov 18, 2003
  4. Sadie Jenson via PhotoKB.com

    Kodak DX6490 DX 6490 Technical Questions :o) love my camera (but software wary)

    Sadie Jenson via PhotoKB.com, Dec 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    341
    Sadie Jenson via PhotoKB.com
    Dec 16, 2004
  5. kensplace
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    350
    Ron Hunter
    Oct 10, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page