Confused about adapted focal lengths

[Spuff]

I've just got the m.Zuiko 40-150.

This is the equivalent of a 300mm reach.

I've got an Adaptall 80-210 lens with the required adaptor.
I thought that meant I would get an equivalent of 105mm on the EPL1.
This is it at full zoom:
<a target='_blank' href='http://img834.imageshack.us/i/210fk.jpg/'><img src='http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/6997/210fk.th.jpg' border='0'/></a>

This is the 40-150 at full zoom.


I thought I was having something less than a 210 reach with the Adaptall, not something boosted to well beyond 300mm!

I don't understand.
Please teach me about this.

 

[MichaelShea]

Just double the end figure and you get an effective 420mm, which is a magnification factor in excess of eight. More than you bargained for, but hopefully you will find a good use for it.

 

[Hikari]

That 80-210 is a 160-420, just as the 40-150 is a 80-300 in equivalent angle of view for a 35mm frame

 

[Spuff]

I see.
Thanks.

 

[Brianetta]

To make it really really simple:

For the same camera body, you can compare the focal length numbers printed on the lens directly, regardless of make, model, mount, adapter or phase of the moon. No maths is required at all.

 

[kevinparis]

To make it really really simple:

For the same camera body, you can compare the focal length numbers printed on the lens directly, regardless of make, model, mount, adapter or phase of the moon. No maths is required at all.

I really wish people would stop poking there noses in on this whole crop factor thing... Brianetta... the original question was answered very succinctly by hikari... your response on the other hand is incomprehensible nonsense

sheesh

K

 

[Brianetta]

incomprehensible nonsense

210 is greater than 150. If you can't comprehend that, then I pity you.

 

[kevinparis]

I can live without your pity....

K

 

[Krang]

210 is greater than 150. If you can't comprehend that, then I pity you.

Please stop being rude. It's not polite to snipe at people, just because your not happy with the commonly accepted method of comparing focal lenghts…

To make it really really simple:

For the same camera body, you can compare the focal length numbers printed on the lens directly, regardless of make, model, mount, adapter or phase of the moon. No maths is required at all.

In making such comments, you should at least clearly explain what they are about… This should be a beginner friendly (and friendly in general forum

 

[bilzmale]

I agree with Krang - take it outside the forum if you must.

 

[BobBill]

I really wish people would stop poking there noses in on this whole crop factor thing... Brianetta... the original question was answered very succinctly by hikari... your response on the other hand is incomprehensible nonsense

sheesh

K

"She" made sense to me...should I be "chuffed?"

Someone once suggested that if you are miffed, write a scathing letter to the miffor - but do not mail it. I would add, never write a letter, until you have eaten breakfast and/or had your morning coffee or fix.

 

[Krang]

She made sense to me...should I be "chuffed?"

Well if you're not new to the whole crop factor thing, it makes sense. But for a newbie it's just confusing without an explanation…


On another note, why choose comic sans as your font :-D?

 

[BobBill]

Well if you're not new to the whole crop factor thing, it makes sense. But for a newbie it's just confusing without an explanation…


On another note, why choose comic sans as your font :-D?

Flames singe, sometimes leave scars. I am not perfect either.

Sometimes I use Century.
Blue is hard to read
For a few,
So today, not to be blurry
It is Comic Sans...for the muse.

Why not?
It is there to use.
Not so boring...fits the situ

 

[Brianetta]

Please stop being rude. It's not polite to snipe at people, just because your not happy with the commonly accepted method of comparing focal lenghts…

I was accused of poking my nose in, being incomprehensible, and bringing in "crop factors." As far as I can tell, my post didn't mention crop factors, addressed the problem and was stated clearly. I got a "sheesh" for my effort from somebody who read into my post a whole load of stuff that I hadn't written, which is hardly polite.

In making such comments, you should at least clearly explain what they are about… This should be a beginner friendly (and friendly in general forum

It's simple. The numbers on the lenses. I'll say it again, and try to make it comprehensible. Assuming you only have one camera, the number on the lens lets you compare focal lengths, without doing any maths.

Nowhere did I mention crop factor. Nowhere was I trying to change the topic. I was simply addressing the original poster's query. Then a whole bunch of other people decided that I had some sort of hidden agenda and started telling me off.

None of the responses I got were constructive, and quite frankly the first one from kevinparis left me upset. I'm still not sure what he thought I was saying, or why.

 

[LovinTheEP2]

I actually think that Brianetta's simply and elegant explanation of "210 is greater than 150" to be the best answer for understanding crop.

If someone is asking about how crop affects "magnification", they obviously won't understand the explanation of angle of view equivalence etc. He actually made it easier for a newbie to crop factor implications understand in a very simple manner. I doubt very highly people who get confused about sensor size implications with lens focal lengths have any experience of shooting in SLR/dSLR with commonly held stands of 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm and how to take similar photo's on m43s camera.

So go on ya Brianetta for illustrating and conveying a simple way of looking lens magnification on crop bodies for a person confused by it.<

And.. just double the focal length on a crop body isn`t exactly correct as there are far more implication of comparing a 35mm-F2 lens on a Full Frame to a 17mm-F2 on a m43s. Fstop of the lens needs to be adjusted and you have to take into consideration depth of field as well. Perspective changes so even though you get a similar angle of view.

Frankly, I think there is WAY WAY WAY to much being made about it for 99% of the people coming into the m43s format and Brianettas explanation is in my opinion the best way of explaining it.

 

[kevinparis]

I apologise for upsetting Brianetta - I was probably overreading/overreacting to what I thought was a unnecessary response to a thread that had been answered to the OP's satisfaction.

My fear was that by prolonging the thread it would evolve into one of those endless pointless and confusing discussions involving crop factor, and DOF and all that other stuff that you see endlessly on every micro 4/3 forum.

The original poster obviously understood the concept of the crop factor as he rightly stated his 40-150 had an equivalent reach of 300mm in 35mm terms - but then had somehow reversed this when applying it to his other lens.

Brianettas post, to me, lacked any sort of context - I still don't actually see how it relates to the OP or that it clearly explains what I think his point was - that the bigger the focal length the more magnification you get


anyway

peace out

K

 

[BobBill]

Confused

Does this help? Crop Factor

There are other m4/3 forums?

 

[kevinparis]

BobBill

For anyone who is confused that is a fine link.... well the first half is anyway...

Not that I am confused at all by crop factors thank you.


There are many other m4/3 forums... though none as good as this one


K

 

[BobBill]

Focal and Crop Factors

Thanks.

Every time I think I am not confused, I hit the wall with something and have to think a bit. That said, I sorta always knew the diff, being chuffed old film shooter, and the translation to m4/3 remains smooth, and interesting. It is sorta like when 35s began to really improve in the 60s. Fun.

Posted that link really for the thread originator...if still tuned.

 

[photoSmart42]

To make it really really simple:

For the same camera body, you can compare the focal length numbers printed on the lens directly, regardless of make, model, mount, adapter or phase of the moon. No maths is required at all.

I actually agree with this explanation better than the doubling of the focal length one which, while true, is truly confusing to someone new to cameras and cropped sensors. If someone only uses a single sensor format, nothing matters but the numbers on the lens because effectively there is no reference to that person. So a 210 simply means it's a longer zoom than a 150. That's it. Look at the numbers and don't worry about how they might look on another system because it's irrelevant if you only have one system.