Sony R1 60mm photo question Nikon D70s comment.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by youlookhot@gmail.com, Mar 8, 2006.

  1. Guest

    I am passionate about digital photography. Just learning. Would someone
    explain to me how when I look at the exif data of a photo and it says
    60mm, what setting on my camera would be required to get that 60mm. I
    am using a sony R1.
    Does the f stop, the actual physical distance from the object, the zoom
    adjustment of the lens, or a combination? I've tried to get this result
    and am having difficulty, I thought this would have been the result of
    manually zooming the lens a certain distance.
    Speaking as a novice with a keen eye and a lot of practice with many
    different cameras. This R! is a DREAM MACHINE!
    I picked up a Nikon 70s to try out with the stock lens which I found to
    be usless indoors without additional lighting. The camera feels and
    looks several years old in comparison, same goes for the viewfinder,
    too dark, too small. Probably a good camera for a photog who can spend
    another thousands or so on additional lens and doesn't mind dealling
    with the inherant dust issue.....for what it's worth


    much appreciated, Richard
     
    , Mar 8, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. cjcampbell Guest

    wrote:
    > I am passionate about digital photography. Just learning. Would someone
    > explain to me how when I look at the exif data of a photo and it says
    > 60mm, what setting on my camera would be required to get that 60mm. I
    > am using a sony R1.


    An excellent choice, judging from the reviews. You would set the zoom
    distance at 60mm. You read this off the lens in an SLR, but you will
    probably have to look in the manual to see where it appears on one of
    your displays.

    > I picked up a Nikon 70s to try out with the stock lens which I found to
    > be usless indoors without additional lighting. The camera feels and
    > looks several years old in comparison, same goes for the viewfinder,
    > too dark, too small. Probably a good camera for a photog who can spend
    > another thousands or so on additional lens and doesn't mind dealling
    > with the inherant dust issue.....for what it's worth


    The DSLRs have significant advantages over cameras like yours,
    especially speed. Bear in mind that the pros do not make money by being
    stupid, and they all use DSLRs. Obviously, the "inherent dust issue"
    doesn't bother them much. That Nikon D70 will have a larger sensor
    which often is better than more pixels. Neither should you disparage
    the kit lens on the D70. It is considered an incredibly good value and
    you can find it for about $250.

    The Sony R1 has a very good lens. Some consider that the lens alone is
    worth the price of the camera and, considering its features, I would
    almost agree. It is also the only lens it will ever have. For less
    money than that, though, you could mount an equal or better lens on a
    DSLR.

    You will quickly learn that using the LCD as a viewfinder has definite
    drawbacks, not least of which is a noticeable time delay for the image
    to appear. If you don't believe it, try waving your hand in front of
    the lens and watch the LCD to see how much of a delay there is. Build
    in slightly more delay for the picture and you have the difference
    between a photo of a white-tail deer and a white tail.

    I do not want to make you unhappy with your choice of camera, mostly
    because you made a very good choice if that is the kind of camera you
    want. But attempting to compare it with a DSLR is like comparing a
    Toyota with a Ferrari. It is easy to convince yourself that the Toyota
    is better; it has all kinds of features and gadgets that are completely
    missing on the Ferrari. In many respects a Ferrari looks downright
    crude and antiquated compared to a Toyota. But the Toyota remains a
    Toyota and the Ferrari, well.....
     
    cjcampbell, Mar 8, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dimitris M Guest

    > Would someone
    > explain to me how when I look at the exif
    > data of a photo and it says
    > 60mm, what setting on my camera would
    > be required to get that 60mm. I
    > am using a sony R1.


    90mm.
    Your CCD size is 33% smaller in the diagonal than the FF (full format of 135
    film). The zoom ring in R1 is marked with the equivalent focal length of a
    FF film (ccd) area. EXIF reads the real focal length which is the 2/3 of the
    equivalent. So if you see in the exif 60mm, this is 90mm in the ring (x1,5).
    If you see in the zoom ring 100mm you will see 67mm in the exif (/1,5, or
    x0,666667 if you prefer)

    Your lens is marked as 24-120mm. The real focal length is from 16 to 80mm
    --
    Dimitris M
     
    Dimitris M, Mar 8, 2006
    #3
  4. Guest

    >For less money than that, though, you could mount an equal or better
    >lens on a DSLR.


    I'm intrigued - what DSLR and lens do you think would match the 24-120
    range and Zeiss quality for less money? I'm not being difficult, I'm
    genuinely interested. That little bit of extra wide angle counts for a
    lot, imo!

    FWIW, I agree with most of what you say. I've had a play with the R1,
    and it is a very fine machine indeed, in fact the only thing that held
    me back was its AF performance. While better than just about any
    prosumer I've held, it's still not up to DSLR level. But I'd say maybe
    it was a Mercedes against that Ferrari.. (O:

    Other than the AF slowness, I found its specs close to perfect for what
    I shoot (landscapes and a bit of portraiture).. 24-120 is a wonderful
    lens range for me!
     
    , Mar 8, 2006
    #4
  5. "Dimitris M" <> wrote in message
    news:1141805295.206508@athnrd02...
    >> Would someone
    >> explain to me how when I look at the exif
    >> data of a photo and it says
    >> 60mm, what setting on my camera would
    >> be required to get that 60mm. I
    >> am using a sony R1.

    >
    > 90mm.
    > Your CCD size is 33% smaller in the diagonal than the FF (full format of
    > 135 film). The zoom ring in R1 is marked with the equivalent focal length
    > of a FF film (ccd) area. EXIF reads the real focal length which is the 2/3
    > of the equivalent. So if you see in the exif 60mm, this is 90mm in the
    > ring (x1,5). If you see in the zoom ring 100mm you will see 67mm in the
    > exif (/1,5, or x0,666667 if you prefer)
    >
    > Your lens is marked as 24-120mm. The real focal length is from 16 to 80mm
    >

    The FOV crop of the Sony R1 is 1.7X as the sensor (21.5 x 14.4 mm CMOS) is a
    bit smaller than the Rebel XT (22.2 x 14.8 mm CMOS sensor) FOV+1.6X and the
    Nikon D70s (23.7 x 15.6 mm CCD) FOV=1.5X. Much has been made and many
    speculated the sensor was the same as the Nikon D200 (23.6 x 15.8 mm CCD)
    but it isn't. It's the largest sensor in the bridge dZLR class so it should
    be a good camera, albeit more expensive than some dSLR cameras.
     
    Darrell Larose, Mar 8, 2006
    #5
  6. Rich Guest

    On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 13:52:09 -0500, "Darrell Larose"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Dimitris M" <> wrote in message
    >news:1141805295.206508@athnrd02...
    >>> Would someone
    >>> explain to me how when I look at the exif
    >>> data of a photo and it says
    >>> 60mm, what setting on my camera would
    >>> be required to get that 60mm. I
    >>> am using a sony R1.

    >>
    >> 90mm.
    >> Your CCD size is 33% smaller in the diagonal than the FF (full format of
    >> 135 film). The zoom ring in R1 is marked with the equivalent focal length
    >> of a FF film (ccd) area. EXIF reads the real focal length which is the 2/3
    >> of the equivalent. So if you see in the exif 60mm, this is 90mm in the
    >> ring (x1,5). If you see in the zoom ring 100mm you will see 67mm in the
    >> exif (/1,5, or x0,666667 if you prefer)
    >>
    >> Your lens is marked as 24-120mm. The real focal length is from 16 to 80mm
    >>

    >The FOV crop of the Sony R1 is 1.7X as the sensor (21.5 x 14.4 mm CMOS) is a
    >bit smaller than the Rebel XT (22.2 x 14.8 mm CMOS sensor) FOV+1.6X and the
    >Nikon D70s (23.7 x 15.6 mm CCD) FOV=1.5X. Much has been made and many
    >speculated the sensor was the same as the Nikon D200 (23.6 x 15.8 mm CCD)
    >but it isn't. It's the largest sensor in the bridge dZLR class so it should
    >be a good camera, albeit more expensive than some dSLR cameras.
    >
    >
    >


    More expensive from a standpoint of limitations (no interchangeable
    lenses) but it does have a lens that if supplied with other entry
    DSLRs would push their prices up substantially. The Rebel XT with
    that quality of lens would cost about what a 20D does.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Mar 9, 2006
    #6
  7. cjcampbell Guest

    Dimitris M wrote:
    > > Would someone
    > > explain to me how when I look at the exif
    > > data of a photo and it says
    > > 60mm, what setting on my camera would
    > > be required to get that 60mm. I
    > > am using a sony R1.

    >
    > 90mm.
    > Your CCD size is 33% smaller in the diagonal than the FF (full format of 135
    > film). The zoom ring in R1 is marked with the equivalent focal length of a
    > FF film (ccd) area. EXIF reads the real focal length which is the 2/3 of the
    > equivalent. So if you see in the exif 60mm, this is 90mm in the ring (x1,5).
    > If you see in the zoom ring 100mm you will see 67mm in the exif (/1,5, or
    > x0,666667 if you prefer)
    >
    > Your lens is marked as 24-120mm. The real focal length is from 16 to 80mm


    That depends on whether the lens is marked with its real focal length
    or a "35mm equivalent" focal length (which I wish manufacturers would
    stop doing -- just put the real focal length on the lens and let us do
    the math, if we want to know the 35mm equivalent).
     
    cjcampbell, Mar 9, 2006
    #7
  8. cjcampbell Guest

    wrote:
    > >For less money than that, though, you could mount an equal or better
    > >lens on a DSLR.

    >
    > I'm intrigued - what DSLR and lens do you think would match the 24-120
    > range and Zeiss quality for less money? I'm not being difficult, I'm
    > genuinely interested. That little bit of extra wide angle counts for a
    > lot, imo!


    Difficult to say, of course, but the Nikon D50 with the 18-70mm lens
    would have to be close, if not a better system overall. If, as they say
    in DPReview, the R1 lens is worth the whole cost of the camera, then a
    lens that costs less and comes close in quality would be the 18-200mm
    AF-S VR Nikkor.

    Okay, the R1 is a Mercedes, then. A baby Benz, but a Benz. I was
    thinking of an upper end Toyota like the Avalon, anyway, when I wrote
    that.
     
    cjcampbell, Mar 9, 2006
    #8
  9. Rich Guest

    On 8 Mar 2006 21:33:53 -0800, "cjcampbell"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >Dimitris M wrote:
    >> > Would someone
    >> > explain to me how when I look at the exif
    >> > data of a photo and it says
    >> > 60mm, what setting on my camera would
    >> > be required to get that 60mm. I
    >> > am using a sony R1.

    >>
    >> 90mm.
    >> Your CCD size is 33% smaller in the diagonal than the FF (full format of 135
    >> film). The zoom ring in R1 is marked with the equivalent focal length of a
    >> FF film (ccd) area. EXIF reads the real focal length which is the 2/3 of the
    >> equivalent. So if you see in the exif 60mm, this is 90mm in the ring (x1,5).
    >> If you see in the zoom ring 100mm you will see 67mm in the exif (/1,5, or
    >> x0,666667 if you prefer)
    >>
    >> Your lens is marked as 24-120mm. The real focal length is from 16 to 80mm

    >
    >That depends on whether the lens is marked with its real focal length
    >or a "35mm equivalent" focal length (which I wish manufacturers would
    >stop doing -- just put the real focal length on the lens and let us do
    >the math, if we want to know the 35mm equivalent).


    Effectively, the reason for using a longer focal length is to get
    closer to the subject, have less cropping of the image, put more
    pixels into it. Although the "35mm equivalent" of a cropped sensor
    cuts down on the area of the image recorded (a 1.6 sensor versus
    full frame records a narrower area) it does (depending on the two
    cameras being compared) put more pixels into the area, allowing
    for greater enlargement of the image while maintaining quality.
    So, in essense, the 35mm equivalent makes sense.
    So, the Sony's lens at 80mm for a FF would function at 120mm
    with the Sony's cropped sensor since it has devoted more pixels to
    that area of the image. A FF camera with and identical 10M would only
    have a fraction of the number of megapixels devoted to the same
    image area because it's frame would cover a larger area.
    So the Sony is providing as much detail in the image as the FF camera
    would with a real 120mm lens.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Mar 10, 2006
    #9
  10. Guest

    >Obviously, the "inherent dust issue"
    >doesn't bother them much. That Nikon D70 will have a larger sensor
    >which often is better than more pixels. Neither should you disparage
    >the kit lens on the D70. It is considered an incredibly good value and
    >you can find it for about $250.


    It is the viewfinder within the eyepiece in the Sony that seems
    brighter,
    the software and camera is altogether much more ergonomically pleasing.
    That $250 in Canada must be another $400. The camera already cost near
    a thousand with taxes.
    The Sony R-1 is a complete package for the serious amateur! I brought
    the
    Nikon back next day because it wouldn't perform with natural light
    indoors.
    Good point about using the LCD screen, that bigger screen on the Sony
    is a real pleasure.
    To anyone not a Pro looking to buy a camera I suggest hold that R-1
    in your hand for a few minutes, you'll see what I mean. But if you're a
    pro,
    and got money to blow, go ahead!
     
    , Mar 13, 2006
    #10
  11. Guest

    > It is easy to convince yourself that the Toyota
    >is better; it has all kinds of features and gadgets that are completely
    >missing on the Ferrari. In many respects a Ferrari looks downright
    >crude and antiquated compared to a Toyota. But the Toyota remains a
    >Toyota and the Ferrari, well.....

    Toyota makes the most reliable cars ever made. Ferrari is best suited
    for
    the racetrack and hunting for 2 legged Tail, white, black, milado,
    albino, whatever.
    If your going for a long trip you'd best leave that Ferrari in the
    garage
    and make sure your homeowner's insurance policy is paid up.
     
    , Mar 13, 2006
    #11
    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. nick
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,976
    Paolo Pizzi
    Nov 30, 2003
  2. greg

    Which Nikon macro lens, 60mm or 105mm?

    greg, Sep 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    1,517
  3. gnnyman
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    803
    Scott W
    Jul 5, 2005
  4. Joe

    Nikon AF Micro Nikkor 60mm f2.8

    Joe, Dec 13, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    320
  5. Ken M

    Nikon D70s & Nikon AF-D lenses - Compatible?

    Ken M, Jan 21, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    1,665
Loading...

Share This Page