Re: Angle of view instead of focal length

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by David Dyer-Bennet, Oct 3, 2012.

  1. Alfred Molon <> writes:

    > In article <>, bugbear
    > says...
    >> Of focal length, sensor size and field of view you need (any) two.
    >> The third can be calculated. Since your viewing of EXIF
    >> is always mediated by software, this is a non-issue.

    >
    > Of course everything can be calculated, but actually focal length and
    > sensor size are irrelevant. What really matters is the angle of view.


    Focal length is what's physically inherent in the lens (and many people
    use the same lenses on DX and FX cameras; some also use lenses via
    adapters on M43 bodies), so the angle of view can't really be marked on
    the lens without creating confusion, while the focal length can.

    Also the focal length is a required in put for things like depth of
    field calculations, you have to know the *actual* physical focal length
    of your lens.

    --
    Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Oct 3, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Alfred Molon <> writes:

    > In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
    >> Focal length is what's physically inherent in the lens (and many people
    >> use the same lenses on DX and FX cameras; some also use lenses via
    >> adapters on M43 bodies), so the angle of view can't really be marked on
    >> the lens without creating confusion, while the focal length can.

    >
    > The focal length is not something you can touch or measure with a ruler.
    > A lens with a focal length of 300mm is not 300mm long and an 8mm lens is
    > not 8mm long.


    Well, a ruler isn't the *only* tool you need, no. But it's a physical
    property of the lens system that *can* be measured (using the ruler) on
    a proper optical bench, or by improvising a bit.

    > You could place two angles of view on the lens, one for APS-C format and
    > one for full-frame format.
    >
    > For a wide angle lens it is certainly interesting to know that it covers
    > for instance an angle of 120° in the horizontal.


    Is it? Most people can't draw you a 76 degree angle freehand
    accurately.

    > By the way, for my panoramic shots I'm providing FoV data. This panorama
    > for instance has a FoV of 224° x 118° (data calculated by PTGUI):
    > <http://www.molon.de/galleries/Malaysia/Sabah/Mataking/Beaches/img.php?
    > pic=11>
    >
    >> Also the focal length is a required in put for things like depth of
    >> field calculations, you have to know the *actual* physical focal length
    >> of your lens.

    >
    > You could calculate that from the angle of view of the lens, using the
    > size of the sensor and the size of the pixels (needed for circle of
    > confusion calculations). The pixel pitch matters - a 6MP full-frame
    > sensor has more DOF than a 60MP full-frame sensor.


    Only as a secondary result -- degree of enlargement is what actually
    matters. But of course people tend not to buy and use a 60MP sensor
    unless they're doing something that uses that resolution, which almost
    always means BIG prints.
    --
    Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Oct 3, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David Dyer-Bennet, Oct 3, 2012
    #3
  4. David Dyer-Bennet

    me Guest

    On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 21:23:41 +0200, Alfred Molon
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
    >> Focal length is what's physically inherent in the lens (and many people
    >> use the same lenses on DX and FX cameras; some also use lenses via
    >> adapters on M43 bodies), so the angle of view can't really be marked on
    >> the lens without creating confusion, while the focal length can.

    >
    >The focal length is not something you can touch or measure with a ruler.
    >A lens with a focal length of 300mm is not 300mm long and an 8mm lens is
    >not 8mm long.


    Well actually with another piece of info it is close. The front
    objective needs to be at least a smidgen larger in diameter than the
    lens f/f#, no? ie an f/4 400 mm lens has an objective greater than
    400/4 = 100mm.
     
    me, Oct 3, 2012
    #4
  5. David Dyer-Bennet

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> wrote:

    > > Focal length is what's physically inherent in the lens (and many people
    > > use the same lenses on DX and FX cameras; some also use lenses via
    > > adapters on M43 bodies), so the angle of view can't really be marked on
    > > the lens without creating confusion, while the focal length can.

    >
    > The focal length is not something you can touch or measure with a ruler.


    of course you can measure it with a ruler. what do you think rulers are
    for, if not to measure things?

    > A lens with a focal length of 300mm is not 300mm long and an 8mm lens is
    > not 8mm long.


    so what? you don't measure the lens itself, you measure it's focal
    length.

    > You could place two angles of view on the lens, one for APS-C format and
    > one for full-frame format.


    you could, but that won't help much.

    you really need *seven* values, for 1x (full frame), 1.3x, 1.5x, 1.6x,
    1.7x, 2.0x and 2.7x crop factors.

    it will become very confusing, very quickly.
     
    nospam, Oct 4, 2012
    #5
  6. David Dyer-Bennet

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet
    <> wrote:

    > > you really need *seven* values, for 1x (full frame), 1.3x, 1.5x, 1.6x,
    > > 1.7x, 2.0x and 2.7x crop factors.

    >
    > Plus the Pentax Q, right?


    forgot that one, so eight.
     
    nospam, Oct 4, 2012
    #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. ray

    Re: Angle of view instead of focal length

    ray, Oct 3, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    235
  2. David Dyer-Bennet

    Re: Angle of view instead of focal length

    David Dyer-Bennet, Oct 3, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    238
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Oct 3, 2012
  3. nick c

    Re: Angle of view instead of focal length

    nick c, Oct 3, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    200
    nick c
    Oct 3, 2012
  4. Rob

    Re: Angle of view instead of focal length

    Rob, Oct 3, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    401
    Grimly Curmudgeon
    Oct 16, 2012
  5. Chris Malcolm

    Re: Angle of view instead of focal length

    Chris Malcolm, Oct 3, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    220
    Chris Malcolm
    Oct 3, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page