If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Does smartphone angle of view depend only on focal length?
In article , Ken Hart
wrote: put another way, in the time it takes you to go to a store, buy a roll of film, shoot some photos and then go back to that store and have it processed, roughly a billion digital photos will have been taken. Of course, the bulk of those digital photos will be crap. so what? and that's not any different than the bulk of film photos. what matters is that the number of film photos, as well as film sales, is basically zero, and it won't be that long until it really is zero. and overall, those digital photos will be much better than the crap that came out of film cameras, especially from those disposable things. If you only have 24 or 36 chances to get it right, you tend to be more careful to get it right. that is one of the biggest myths, and you aren't the final arbiter of what is right or wrong anyway. (I don't have to go to the store for a roll of film- I buy several bricks at a time and keep it in the film freezer. And I don't have to go back to the store for processing- the C41 darkroom is fifteen feet away.) you still have to make the initial purchase for the bricks and pay for the electricity to keep them frozen, plus the darkroom processing takes a substantial amount of time. you're grasping at straws. and failing. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Does smartphone angle of view depend only on focal length?
On Thu, 03 Jan 2019 18:53:31 -0500, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: "35mm cameras" are not digital. they are now. The "35mm" part refers to a film size. originally, it did, but now that film is dead, it refers to the camera. There are digital cameras that are "35mm form factor", "35mm style(d)", "dSLR", and many other similar terms. But a (common) digital camera does not use 35mm film, therefore, it is not a "35mm camera". A "35mm camera" is a camera that uses 35mm film. it obviously refers to the form factor, not the non-existent and no longer relevant film size. Even that is bull**** (on several levels). not at all. DSLRs of today are heavier and more bulky than their eqivalents of the past. nonsense. they're comparable in size & weight, with digital slrs often smaller and lighter in weight than film slrs. Not with a sensor of the same size as the image frame in a 35mm film camera. you're also ignoring the bulk of all the film one needs to carry (and keeping it cool if necessary), versus a memory card, or more recently, sync to the cloud and no memory card (i.e., unlimited photos, something not possible with film). They in no way share the same form factor. they most certainly do. I have owned a few of each and I know you are wrong. film nikon n90: https://www.keh.com/media/catalog/pr...800x/040ec09b1 e35df139433887a97daa66f/2/4/247143-2149015_01.jpg digital nikon d40: https://www.keh.com/media/catalog/pr...800x/040ec09b1 e35df139433887a97daa66f/2/0/208784-2177935_01.jpg not only do they look nearly identical, but they accept the same lenses. in fact, the nikon d40 will accept the old nikon non-ai lenses without issue, which the n90 cannot. in other words, *more* lenses. and for an even closer match, there is the nikon df: https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/insp.../uploads/sites /12/2014/01/Nikon_Df_front-538x500.jpg https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/insp.../uploads/sites /12/2014/01/Nikon_Df_top-593x500.jpg And I can buy several makes of 35mm film from a number of outlets within a few miles from me. It is not "non-existent". compared to digital, it very definitely is: https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2017/03/cameraproductionchart.jpg be sure to zoom in, or just look at the relevant portion: https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2017/03/camerasalesfeat.jpg as i said before, calling it a round-off error would make film seem bigger than it actually is. put another way, in the time it takes you to go to a store, buy a roll of film, shoot some photos and then go back to that store and have it processed, roughly a billion digital photos will have been taken. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Does smartphone angle of view depend only on focal length?
On Thu, 03 Jan 2019 19:53:23 -0500, nospam
wrote: In article , Ken Hart wrote: put another way, in the time it takes you to go to a store, buy a roll of film, shoot some photos and then go back to that store and have it processed, roughly a billion digital photos will have been taken. Of course, the bulk of those digital photos will be crap. so what? and that's not any different than the bulk of film photos. what matters is that the number of film photos, as well as film sales, is basically zero, and it won't be that long until it really is zero. and overall, those digital photos will be much better than the crap that came out of film cameras, especially from those disposable things. If you only have 24 or 36 chances to get it right, you tend to be more careful to get it right. that is one of the biggest myths, and you aren't the final arbiter of what is right or wrong anyway. (I don't have to go to the store for a roll of film- I buy several bricks at a time and keep it in the film freezer. And I don't have to go back to the store for processing- the C41 darkroom is fifteen feet away.) you still have to make the initial purchase for the bricks and pay for the electricity to keep them frozen, plus the darkroom processing takes a substantial amount of time. you're grasping at straws. and failing. You are rambling, floundering, talking abou anything but the original topic of this subthread. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Does smartphone angle of view depend only on focal length?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: put another way, in the time it takes you to go to a store, buy a roll of film, shoot some photos and then go back to that store and have it processed, roughly a billion digital photos will have been taken. Of course, the bulk of those digital photos will be crap. so what? and that's not any different than the bulk of film photos. what matters is that the number of film photos, as well as film sales, is basically zero, and it won't be that long until it really is zero. and overall, those digital photos will be much better than the crap that came out of film cameras, especially from those disposable things. If you only have 24 or 36 chances to get it right, you tend to be more careful to get it right. that is one of the biggest myths, and you aren't the final arbiter of what is right or wrong anyway. (I don't have to go to the store for a roll of film- I buy several bricks at a time and keep it in the film freezer. And I don't have to go back to the store for processing- the C41 darkroom is fifteen feet away.) you still have to make the initial purchase for the bricks and pay for the electricity to keep them frozen, plus the darkroom processing takes a substantial amount of time. you're grasping at straws. and failing. You are rambling, floundering, talking abou anything but the original topic of this subthread. it ain't me who is floundering. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Does smartphone angle of view depend only on focal length?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: DSLRs of today are heavier and more bulky than their eqivalents of the past. nonsense. they're comparable in size & weight, with digital slrs often smaller and lighter in weight than film slrs. Not with a sensor of the same size as the image frame in a 35mm film camera. yes with a sensor of the same size. however, keep in mind that a sensor of the same size as 35mm film will produce dramatically better image quality, comparable to medium format film, while an slr with a smaller dx sensor will produce better results than a camera that uses 35mm film. thus, for a given image quality, digital cameras are *smaller* and for a given sensor/film size, both cameras are about the same physical size, with digital producing much better results. either way, digital wins. below are some numbers. note that the f5 weight is listed *without* batteries, while the d5 is *with* battery, so an appropriate adjustment was made. the d750 lists weights with and without battery, so the battery weight was added to the f100 to compare both. the size differences are all very minor (under 0.6", at the *most*). i'm not sure why the dimensions and weight are approximate. you'd think nikon could somehow manage to get exact numbers. nikon f5 slr: https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-pr...e/film-cameras /f5.html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-TechSpecs Power Source: Eight AA-type batteries or optional Ni-MH Battery Unit MN-30 Weight (without batteries): Approx. 42.7 oz Dimensions (WxHxD): 6.2 x 5.9 x 3.1 inches nikon d5 digital slr: https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-pr...ameras/d5.html #tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-TechSpecs Approx. Dimensions (Width x Height x Depth) 6.3 in. (160 mm) x 6.3 in. (158.5 mm) x 3.7 in. (92 mm) Approx. Weight 49.6 oz. (1,405 g) with battery and two XQD memory cards but without body cap and accessory shoe cover 49.9 oz. (1,415 g) with battery and two CompactFlash memory cards but without body cap and accessory shoe cover the nikon f6 uses *eight* aa batteries, and at 1.1 oz each (for nimh, the most likely type), will add an additional 8.8 ounces, for a total of 51.5 oz. for alkaline batteries, it would be an additional 6.4 oz, a total of 49.1 oz, just 0.5 oz lighter, which is not noticeable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AA_battery#Dimensions here's another comparison: nikon f100 film slr: https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/filmcamera/slr/f100/spec.htm Power source AA-size battery holder MS-12 provided (four alkaline or lithium batteries Dimensions (W x H x D) Approx. 155 x 113 x 66mm (6.1 x 4.4 x 2.6 in.) Weight (body only without batteries) Approx. 785g (27.7 oz.) nikon d750 digital slr: https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d750/spec.htm Dimensions (W x H x D) Approx. 140.5 x 113 x 78 mm/5.6 x 4.5 x 3.1 in. Weight Approx. 840 g/1 lb 13.7 oz with battery and memory card but without body cap; approx. 750 g/1 lb 10.5 oz (camera body only) the d750 is narrower, same height, and slightly thicker due to the rear display and buttons, obviously required for any digital camera. without batteries, the d750 weights less (750g v. 785g), as it does with batteries (840g v. 877g, using four alkaline aa batteries @ 23g each, as per nikon recommendation). not a significant difference, certainly nothing anyone would notice without using a scale. with lithium batteries, it would be almost the same. you're also ignoring the bulk of all the film one needs to carry (and keeping it cool if necessary), versus a memory card, or more recently, sync to the cloud and no memory card (i.e., unlimited photos, something not possible with film). ^^ you keep ignoring this part ^^ They in no way share the same form factor. they most certainly do. I have owned a few of each and I know you are wrong. i'm not wrong. see above and below. film nikon n90: https://www.keh.com/media/catalog/pr...800x/040ec09b1 e35df139433887a97daa66f/2/4/247143-2149015_01.jpg digital nikon d40: https://www.keh.com/media/catalog/pr...800x/040ec09b1 e35df139433887a97daa66f/2/0/208784-2177935_01.jpg those are very clearly sharing the same form factor, known as a 35mm slr body. the differences are so minor that it requires close scrutiny to see what they are. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Does smartphone angle of view depend only on focal length?
On Thu, 03 Jan 2019 23:53:25 -0500, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: put another way, in the time it takes you to go to a store, buy a roll of film, shoot some photos and then go back to that store and have it processed, roughly a billion digital photos will have been taken. Of course, the bulk of those digital photos will be crap. so what? and that's not any different than the bulk of film photos. what matters is that the number of film photos, as well as film sales, is basically zero, and it won't be that long until it really is zero. and overall, those digital photos will be much better than the crap that came out of film cameras, especially from those disposable things. If you only have 24 or 36 chances to get it right, you tend to be more careful to get it right. that is one of the biggest myths, and you aren't the final arbiter of what is right or wrong anyway. (I don't have to go to the store for a roll of film- I buy several bricks at a time and keep it in the film freezer. And I don't have to go back to the store for processing- the C41 darkroom is fifteen feet away.) you still have to make the initial purchase for the bricks and pay for the electricity to keep them frozen, plus the darkroom processing takes a substantial amount of time. you're grasping at straws. and failing. You are rambling, floundering, talking abou anything but the original topic of this subthread. it ain't me who is floundering. See https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.town...size=600%2C339 or http://tinyurl.com/ydb8dmge -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Does smartphone angle of view depend only on focal length?
On 1/2/2019 6:51 PM, Ken Hart wrote:
On 1/2/19 8:25 AM, nospam wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Â*From the current Nikon web site https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/filmcamera/index.htm or https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/filmcamera/slr/f6/ those may exist, but almost none are sold or even manufactured. I wasn't pointing to sales. I was drawing your attention to word usage. you missed the part about digital now being the default. In your heavy snippage (which you have not indicated) you deleted my question "Which has what to do with 35mm cameras?" So, I ask you again, which has what to do with 35mm cameras? because they're now digital. "35mm cameras" are not digital. The "35mm" part refers to a film size. There are digital cameras that are "35mm form factor", "35mm style(d)", "dSLR", and many other similar terms. But a (common) digital camera does not use 35mm film, therefore, it is not a "35mm camera". A "35mm camera" is a camera that uses 35mm film. You have been directed to dozens of websites from major photo retailers and manufacturers, and all of them make a distinction between "35mm cameras" and digital cameras that may look like the 'classic' 35mm film camera. The unwashed masses may consider all cameras to be digital. But among photography professionals (and knowledgeable amateurs), film still exists, and cameras that use 35 millimeter film are 35mm cameras. Speaking of the "unwashed masses"- Available for immediate pickup at the local WalMart are the following: -- Fujifilm Quicksnap 800 Waterproof 35mm Disposable Camera - 27 Exposures, $9.49 -- Fujifilm Disposable 35mm Camera With Flash, 2 Pack, $13.09 -- Fujifilm One Time Use 35mm Camera with Flash, $8.46 -- Three Roll pack SUPERIA 400 36EX film, $12.99. If you search for "digital cameras" at WalMart, they are all referred to as "digital" cameras; some as "digital SLR", and some as "DSLR". Not a one of them is called a "35mm camera", even those that are "35mm form factor", such as Canon EOS digital, and Nikon D7200 digital. Clearly, there is a distinction between a "35mm (film) camera" and a digital camera. Whether you (nospam) accept it or not. Trying to explain that to hi is a waste of pixels. -- PeterN |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Does smartphone angle of view depend only on focal length?
On 2019-01-02 18:51, Ken Hart wrote:
On 1/2/19 8:25 AM, nospam wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Â*From the current Nikon web site https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/filmcamera/index.htm or https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/filmcamera/slr/f6/ those may exist, but almost none are sold or even manufactured. I wasn't pointing to sales. I was drawing your attention to word usage. you missed the part about digital now being the default. In your heavy snippage (which you have not indicated) you deleted my question "Which has what to do with 35mm cameras?" So, I ask you again, which has what to do with 35mm cameras? because they're now digital. "35mm ca snipped all the obvious pedantic boring crud Facts are all my 35mm lenses work with my digital (and film) bodies whether 'cropped' or full frame. Getting your panties in a wad over it is a waste of everyone's time on a digital photo newsgroup. -- "2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants. Proof that we need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do." - unknown protester |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Angle of view instead of focal length | Alfred Molon[_4_] | Digital Photography | 61 | October 17th 12 02:25 PM |
The length of the focal length? | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 12 | October 5th 07 12:02 PM |
Focal length and angle of view. | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 5 | May 20th 07 01:48 AM |
Focal length for APS sensors | Lars Forslin | Digital Photography | 3 | March 15th 07 12:45 AM |
Is there a formula to convert digital lens focal length to 35mm focal length ? | narke | 35mm Photo Equipment | 5 | March 1st 05 12:31 AM |