Optical difference between film SLRs and DSLRs?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by 223rem, Nov 17, 2005.

  1. 223rem

    223rem Guest

    Is it only the size of the sensor? In other words, if I use
    the same lens (say 50mm), focused the same way, on a film
    SLR and on a DSLR, both cameras viewing the same scene from the
    same vantage point, then the image taken by the DSLR will simply
    be a cropped version of the image taken by the film SLR? That is,
    if I cut off the borders of film photograph I will obtain the
    image taken by the DSLR?

    Thanks.
     
    223rem, Nov 17, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 223rem

    Lorem Ipsum Guest

    "223rem" <> wrote in message
    news:EB5ff.547225$x96.357169@attbi_s72...
    > Is it only the size of the sensor?


    For all practical purposes, Yes.
     
    Lorem Ipsum, Nov 17, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 223rem

    John Bean Guest

    On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:19:48 GMT, 223rem
    <> wrote:

    >That is,
    >if I cut off the borders of film photograph I will obtain the
    >image taken by the DSLR?


    Exactly so. If only everybody could get it into their heads
    that it's a *crop*, not a change of focal length.

    --
    John Bean
     
    John Bean, Nov 17, 2005
    #3
  4. On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:19:48 GMT, 223rem <> wrote:

    >Is it only the size of the sensor? In other words, if I use
    >the same lens (say 50mm), focused the same way, on a film
    >SLR and on a DSLR, both cameras viewing the same scene from the
    >same vantage point, then the image taken by the DSLR will simply
    >be a cropped version of the image taken by the film SLR? That is,
    >if I cut off the borders of film photograph I will obtain the
    >image taken by the DSLR?


    Not if you use a full frame DSLR such as a Canon 1DsMkII or 5D.


    ******************************************************

    "I have been a witness, and these pictures are
    my testimony. The events I have recorded should
    not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

    -James Nachtwey-
    http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
     
    John A. Stovall, Nov 17, 2005
    #4
  5. 223rem

    Charlie Ih Guest

    In article <>,
    John Bean <> wrote:
    >On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:19:48 GMT, 223rem
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>That is,
    >>if I cut off the borders of film photograph I will obtain the
    >>image taken by the DSLR?

    >
    >Exactly so. If only everybody could get it into their heads
    >that it's a *crop*, not a change of focal length.
    >


    Physically the focal length has not changed and the fact is that the
    image is cropped". However, in digital photography, we no longer
    have a "standard" 36 x 24 format. To make things more easy to understand,
    we now use the 35 mm equivalent focal length w.r.t. image angular coverage.
    The sensor size (diagonal) of many of the DSLR is 1.5x (or 1.6x) smaller than
    that of a film SLR, therefore the 35 mm equivalent focal length of
    DSLR is 1.5x (or 1.6x) longer.

    BTW, the diagonal of 36 x 24 mm is 43 mm and that of 36 x 36 mm is
    50.9 (or 51 or 52). The accepted standard normal lens of 50 mm is by
    "accident". Many very old SLR had 43 mm and/or 52 mm "Normal" lens.
     
    Charlie Ih, Nov 17, 2005
    #5
  6. 223rem

    223rem Guest

    Charlie Ih wrote:

    > 50.9 (or 51 or 52). The accepted standard normal lens of 50 mm is by
    > "accident". Many very old SLR had 43 mm and/or 52 mm "Normal" lens.


    I thought that the normal lens is defined by the fact that, if you
    look through the viewfinder of a SLR fitted with such a lens,
    the apparent size of objects is same as seen with the naked eye.
    Indeed, if you look at a scene with one eye through a viewfinder at
    50 mm and the other eye "naked", you have no trouble fusing the two images.
     
    223rem, Nov 17, 2005
    #6
  7. 223rem

    John Bean Guest

    On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 21:33:37 GMT, 223rem
    <> wrote:

    >Charlie Ih wrote:
    >
    >> 50.9 (or 51 or 52). The accepted standard normal lens of 50 mm is by
    >> "accident". Many very old SLR had 43 mm and/or 52 mm "Normal" lens.

    >
    >I thought that the normal lens is defined by the fact that, if you
    >look through the viewfinder of a SLR fitted with such a lens,
    >the apparent size of objects is same as seen with the naked eye.
    >Indeed, if you look at a scene with one eye through a viewfinder at
    >50 mm and the other eye "naked", you have no trouble fusing the two images.


    No, that depends on the magnification of the finder as well
    as the focal length of the lens. The "standard" is usually
    defined as the diagonal of the image frame, which is about
    43mm for a 24x36mm frame.

    --
    John Bean
     
    John Bean, Nov 17, 2005
    #7
  8. 223rem

    Lorem Ipsum Guest

    "223rem" <> wrote in message
    news:RG6ff.547297$x96.44831@attbi_s72...
    > Charlie Ih wrote:
    >
    >> 50.9 (or 51 or 52). The accepted standard normal lens of 50 mm is by
    >> "accident". Many very old SLR had 43 mm and/or 52 mm "Normal" lens.

    >
    > I thought that the normal lens is defined by the fact that, if you
    > look through the viewfinder of a SLR fitted with such a lens,
    > the apparent size of objects is same as seen with the naked eye.
    > Indeed, if you look at a scene with one eye through a viewfinder at
    > 50 mm and the other eye "naked", you have no trouble fusing the two
    > images.


    Nope. That is not how 'normal' is defined, and there's a good reason:
    viewfinder images differ. A perfect 1:1 would be as you describe: with one
    eye open and the other in the viewfinder, the scene would look 'normal' -
    same size image. It rarely works out that way. (One obsolete perfect example
    is Nikon F with F screen under their 'sports finder' with their 85mm lens.)

    Normal is usually calculated as the diagonal of the _format_ (sensor,
    exposed film area). (For purposes of numerical comparisons of perspectives
    between formats, sometimes the long side is used for both dimensions in the
    calculation.)
     
    Lorem Ipsum, Nov 17, 2005
    #8
  9. 223rem

    223rem Guest

    Lorem Ipsum wrote:
    > "223rem" <> wrote in message
    > news:RG6ff.547297$x96.44831@attbi_s72...
    >
    >>Charlie Ih wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>50.9 (or 51 or 52). The accepted standard normal lens of 50 mm is by
    >>>"accident". Many very old SLR had 43 mm and/or 52 mm "Normal" lens.

    >>
    >>I thought that the normal lens is defined by the fact that, if you
    >>look through the viewfinder of a SLR fitted with such a lens,
    >>the apparent size of objects is same as seen with the naked eye.
    >>Indeed, if you look at a scene with one eye through a viewfinder at
    >>50 mm and the other eye "naked", you have no trouble fusing the two
    >>images.

    >
    >
    > Nope. That is not how 'normal' is defined, and there's a good reason:
    > viewfinder images differ. A perfect 1:1 would be as you describe: with one
    > eye open and the other in the viewfinder, the scene would look 'normal' -
    > same size image. It rarely works out that way. (One obsolete perfect example
    > is Nikon F with F screen under their 'sports finder' with their 85mm lens.)
    >
    > Normal is usually calculated as the diagonal of the _format_ (sensor,
    > exposed film area). (For purposes of numerical comparisons of perspectives
    > between formats, sometimes the long side is used for both dimensions in the
    > calculation.)


    But surely it is not a coincidence that around 50 mm, with a 'normal'
    viewfinder, images tend to be as I described.
     
    223rem, Nov 17, 2005
    #9
  10. 223rem

    Skip M Guest

    "223rem" <> wrote in message
    news:EB5ff.547225$x96.357169@attbi_s72...
    > Is it only the size of the sensor? In other words, if I use
    > the same lens (say 50mm), focused the same way, on a film
    > SLR and on a DSLR, both cameras viewing the same scene from the
    > same vantage point, then the image taken by the DSLR will simply
    > be a cropped version of the image taken by the film SLR? That is,
    > if I cut off the borders of film photograph I will obtain the
    > image taken by the DSLR?
    >
    > Thanks.


    Well, yes, on most digital SLRs. But there are two exceptions, both
    relatively expensive, the Canon 5D ($3300) and the Canon 1Ds mkII ($7000).
    Both use sensors that are effectively the same dimensions as a frame of 35mm
    film, referred to as "full frame." The Kodak DC/n (Nikon lens mount) and
    DC/c (Canon lens mount) used a "full frame sensor, too, but they're out of
    production.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Nov 17, 2005
    #10
  11. 223rem <> writes:

    > Lorem Ipsum wrote:
    >> "223rem" <> wrote in message
    >> news:RG6ff.547297$x96.44831@attbi_s72...
    >>
    >>>Charlie Ih wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> 50.9 (or 51 or 52). The accepted standard normal lens of 50 mm is
    >>>> by "accident". Many very old SLR had 43 mm and/or 52 mm "Normal"
    >>>> lens.
    >>>
    >>>I thought that the normal lens is defined by the fact that, if you
    >>>look through the viewfinder of a SLR fitted with such a lens,
    >>>the apparent size of objects is same as seen with the naked eye.
    >>>Indeed, if you look at a scene with one eye through a viewfinder at
    >>> 50 mm and the other eye "naked", you have no trouble fusing the two
    >>> images.

    >> Nope. That is not how 'normal' is defined, and there's a good
    >> reason: viewfinder images differ. A perfect 1:1 would be as you
    >> describe: with one eye open and the other in the viewfinder, the
    >> scene would look 'normal' - same size image. It rarely works out
    >> that way. (One obsolete perfect example is Nikon F with F screen
    >> under their 'sports finder' with their 85mm lens.) Normal is
    >> usually calculated as the diagonal of the _format_ (sensor, exposed
    >> film area). (For purposes of numerical comparisons of perspectives
    >> between formats, sometimes the long side is used for both
    >> dimensions in the calculation.)

    >
    > But surely it is not a coincidence that around 50 mm, with a 'normal'
    > viewfinder, images tend to be as I described.


    It probably has mostly to do with practical viewfinder design. A
    viewfinder with a much larger image would be unwieldy, and a much
    smaller image would be useless. The practical range of viewfinder
    sizes is determined by human anatomy. Whether or not the human
    anatomy is a coincidence is subject to debate.

    Given the restrictions on viewfinder size, the fact that a 50mm lens
    gives the sort of image you describe, is a matter of geometry. If we
    lived in a non-Euclidean universe, the situation would be different.

    --
    Måns Rullgård
     
    =?iso-8859-1?q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Nov 18, 2005
    #11
  12. 223rem wrote:
    > Is it only the size of the sensor? In other words, if I use
    > the same lens (say 50mm), focused the same way, on a film
    > SLR and on a DSLR, both cameras viewing the same scene from the
    > same vantage point, then the image taken by the DSLR will simply
    > be a cropped version of the image taken by the film SLR? That is,
    > if I cut off the borders of film photograph I will obtain the
    > image taken by the DSLR?
    >
    > Thanks.


    Sort of. Of course different size sensors are made and some are the
    same size as full frame 35 mm. The other difference relates to the
    differences in the way film and sensors record data, just as different films
    may record data differently.

    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia duit
     
    Joseph Meehan, Nov 18, 2005
    #12
  13. 223rem

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 21:33:37 +0000, 223rem wrote:

    > Charlie Ih wrote:
    >
    >> 50.9 (or 51 or 52). The accepted standard normal lens of 50 mm is by
    >> "accident". Many very old SLR had 43 mm and/or 52 mm "Normal" lens.

    >
    > I thought that the normal lens is defined by the fact that, if you
    > look through the viewfinder of a SLR fitted with such a lens,
    > the apparent size of objects is same as seen with the naked eye.
    > Indeed, if you look at a scene with one eye through a viewfinder at
    > 50 mm and the other eye "naked", you have no trouble fusing the two images.

    The original definition was a lens that equalled the diagonal of the film
    frame. With 35mm this would have been about 45mm although most cameras
    used 50mm as the normal lens.

    --
    Neil
    Linux Counter 335851
    Delete delete to reply by email
     
    Neil Ellwood, Nov 18, 2005
    #13
  14. In article <up8ff.334$dv.19@fed1read02>, Skip M <> wrote:
    >"223rem" <> wrote in message
    >news:EB5ff.547225$x96.357169@attbi_s72...
    >> Is it only the size of the sensor? In other words, if I use
    >> the same lens (say 50mm), focused the same way, on a film
    >> SLR and on a DSLR, both cameras viewing the same scene from the
    >> same vantage point, then the image taken by the DSLR will simply
    >> be a cropped version of the image taken by the film SLR? That is,
    >> if I cut off the borders of film photograph I will obtain the
    >> image taken by the DSLR?
    >>
    >> Thanks.

    >
    >Well, yes, on most digital SLRs. But there are two exceptions, both
    >relatively expensive, the Canon 5D ($3300) and the Canon 1Ds mkII ($7000).
    >Both use sensors that are effectively the same dimensions as a frame of 35mm
    >film, referred to as "full frame." The Kodak DC/n (Nikon lens mount) and
    >DC/c (Canon lens mount) used a "full frame sensor, too, but they're out of
    >production.


    And then there was the Nikon Fujix E2 series that had a small sensor but
    an extra lens in the body to make sure that the field of view remained
    the same as on 35mm film.


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
     
    Philip Homburg, Nov 18, 2005
    #14
  15. 223rem

    Skip M Guest

    "Philip Homburg" <> wrote in message
    news:ehbrkqa9bq3l18fmalt385e6h7@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
    > In article <up8ff.334$dv.19@fed1read02>, Skip M <>
    > wrote:
    >>"223rem" <> wrote in message
    >>news:EB5ff.547225$x96.357169@attbi_s72...
    >>> Is it only the size of the sensor? In other words, if I use
    >>> the same lens (say 50mm), focused the same way, on a film
    >>> SLR and on a DSLR, both cameras viewing the same scene from the
    >>> same vantage point, then the image taken by the DSLR will simply
    >>> be a cropped version of the image taken by the film SLR? That is,
    >>> if I cut off the borders of film photograph I will obtain the
    >>> image taken by the DSLR?
    >>>
    >>> Thanks.

    >>
    >>Well, yes, on most digital SLRs. But there are two exceptions, both
    >>relatively expensive, the Canon 5D ($3300) and the Canon 1Ds mkII ($7000).
    >>Both use sensors that are effectively the same dimensions as a frame of
    >>35mm
    >>film, referred to as "full frame." The Kodak DC/n (Nikon lens mount) and
    >>DC/c (Canon lens mount) used a "full frame sensor, too, but they're out of
    >>production.

    >
    > And then there was the Nikon Fujix E2 series that had a small sensor but
    > an extra lens in the body to make sure that the field of view remained
    > the same as on 35mm film.
    >
    >


    Wow, that's an interesting Rube Goldbergish approach to the problem, now
    isn't it? I've never heard of that one, I'm going to have to do some
    research.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Nov 18, 2005
    #15
  16. 223rem

    Lorem Ipsum Guest

    "223rem" <> wrote in message
    news:eX7ff.339194$084.291006@attbi_s22...

    > But surely it is not a coincidence that around 50 mm, with a 'normal'
    > viewfinder, images tend to be as I described.


    :) It is normal to some, and not to others.
     
    Lorem Ipsum, Nov 18, 2005
    #16
  17. 223rem <> writes:

    >But surely it is not a coincidence that around 50 mm, with a 'normal'
    >viewfinder, images tend to be as I described.


    If it happens that the view through the finder with a normal lens
    mounted is exactly 1, so you can fuse the viewfinder image with your
    other eye, that's probably because the camera manufacturer deliberately
    selected a finder magnification that does this. It's unlikely to happen
    by accident. What camera did you observe this with?

    But this has not been true of any SLR that I have used; the "normal
    lens" viewfinder image is not unity magnification.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Nov 19, 2005
    #17
  18. "Skip M" <> writes:

    >> And then there was the Nikon Fujix E2 series that had a small sensor but
    >> an extra lens in the body to make sure that the field of view remained
    >> the same as on 35mm film.


    >Wow, that's an interesting Rube Goldbergish approach to the problem, now
    >isn't it? I've never heard of that one, I'm going to have to do some
    >research.


    It's a way to use interchangeable SLR lenses with a sensor that's much
    smaller than full-frame. However, it's difficult to make the additional
    optics work well with all the possible lenses you might want to mount,
    since they may have very different ray paths from lens to film/sensor.

    You also lose light and contrast in the extra optics.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Nov 19, 2005
    #18
  19. 223rem

    Lorem Ipsum Guest

    "Dave Martindale" <> wrote in message
    news:dlo1t7$sgp$...
    > "Skip M" <> writes:
    >
    >>> And then there was the Nikon Fujix E2 series that had a small sensor but
    >>> an extra lens in the body to make sure that the field of view remained
    >>> the same as on 35mm film.

    >
    >>Wow, that's an interesting Rube Goldbergish approach to the problem, now
    >>isn't it? I've never heard of that one, I'm going to have to do some
    >>research.

    >
    > It's a way to use interchangeable SLR lenses with a sensor that's much
    > smaller than full-frame. However, it's difficult to make the additional
    > optics work well with all the possible lenses you might want to mount,
    > since they may have very different ray paths from lens to film/sensor.


    It is difficult. One of the Contax SLR 35mm cameras used a single leaf
    shutter with lens elements, and three or four front elements to give ranges
    from 30mm to ?. It worked very well, but the expense did it in.
     
    Lorem Ipsum, Nov 19, 2005
    #19
  20. (Dave Martindale) writes:

    > 223rem <> writes:
    >
    >>But surely it is not a coincidence that around 50 mm, with a 'normal'
    >>viewfinder, images tend to be as I described.

    >
    > If it happens that the view through the finder with a normal lens
    > mounted is exactly 1, so you can fuse the viewfinder image with your
    > other eye, that's probably because the camera manufacturer deliberately
    > selected a finder magnification that does this. It's unlikely to happen
    > by accident. What camera did you observe this with?


    The Olympus OM-1 with an, IIRC, 50mm lens has this property, or at
    least close enough for my eyes not to notice.

    --
    Måns Rullgård
     
    =?iso-8859-1?q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Nov 19, 2005
    #20
    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. Dave

    difference between 3X and 4X optical zoom

    Dave, Dec 30, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    18,063
  2. Sharp Shooter

    DSLRs or Slide Film or Colour Negative Film? ;o)

    Sharp Shooter, Jun 20, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,143
  3. Mr.Happy

    why do film SLRs cost more than DSLRs?

    Mr.Happy, Aug 10, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    718
    Mr.Happy
    Aug 12, 2005
  4. Replies:
    22
    Views:
    2,358
    Ray Fischer
    Nov 11, 2006
  5. One4All
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    1,038
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Jan 14, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page