Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

[Godfrey]

Godfrey, finally I understand why my photography sucks! I will walk, no run, to the nearest Camera Temple and acquire the Nikon WhizzBang 456-25Fs with the Nikon 50mm UltraExtraSpecial f/1.2 VR XdFt Z right away, or at least as soon as the Camera Priests unlock the door to their Holy Vault.

For decades, I have wandered around on the surface of the earth believing that the photos I take, the end result of my humble work, is what decides if I'm a worthy member of the World Wide Photographic Congregation. I now understand that things look differently, and that without a Nikon WhizzBang 456-25Fs (or an equivalent sacred relic from another temple), I'm just an annoying nobody, sticking worthless, black boxes up unto the noses of respectable citizens, unable to satisfy the spiritual requirements of our Great Spiritual Leader, The Holy 35mm.

It's a tough job being a Franchised Prophet™, but we do it for the bux$.

G

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Hey when you find that vault key give me a shout. I'll bring some big bags. LOL

Finding the key is only part of the challenge

 

[Elderly]

"Your old lens will work fine, but it will look like a 75mm lens because the new WhizzBang 456-25Ds has a DX sensor. You'll need the Nikon 35mm lens to get the same field of view. Of course, if you're interested in Even More Features and Better Quality Photos, you should buy the Nikon WhizzBang 456-25Fs body instead. This has a gawsh-all-mighty Full Frame sensor and only costs $1000 more! That's cheap for what you're getting ... And all your old lenses will work just as they always did on your film Nikons!

That is, unless you want the Super Duper Image Stabilization feature, then you need the new Nikon 50mm UltraExtraSpecial f/1.2 VR XdFt Z model lens. FAR better than your old Nikon 50mm and only $900 with the Nikon WhizzBang 456-25Fs body as a kit! Then you can go out on a starlit night and take perfectly sharp pictures of black cows under the New Moon that will be absolutely sharp on the Ultra-Shallow™ Depth of Field this new lens can provide!"



G

Wow - That seems like a 'must have' combination :thumbup:. Is there any noticeable difference between its jpeg and raw outputs?

 

[Stefan Steib]

Well, one thing I feel strongly about is credibility:

1. The link to the video states already:

http blah blah

So, because his claim has not been proven that get's a solid :thumbdown:

2. This ain't a 100% educational video, on the contrary, this is a sales pitch from a guy selling his own and other peoples stuff. It is camouflaged as tech expert blah, stirring the **** but not putting meat to the bone at all.

This too get's a super solid :thumbdown:

3. His video adds zero, and I mean that, zero news or revelations to the world of photography knowledge, not a sausage. On the contrary, it leads, and in my opinion he does that deliberately in deed, to even more confusion with people who are not too versed in the technical department.

Need I say this get's a :thumbdown:

There is more but that is enough for me, as a self proclaimed tech expert, he lost all credibility in my book.

Georg

First as I already asked Will and Godfrey - you know it much better. Cool! Why don´t you make a better video on this. People will luckily see it and understand in a second what you want to tell and explain them.

Of course you will do it for free and with no reference of your own work, because you have so much money that you don´t need to work anymore.

and third, unfortunately you will not be allowed to post this here as the "experts" have known this since stoneage and are not interested in this. so the forum has to be kept clear of this.

I am still waiting for the interesting discussions though about 360 degrees/3D Lightfield photography or quantum cameras they are sure to devellop very soon, but hey- in the meantime people who are not that advanced just have to wait if they are allowed to say something that is appropriate for the "knowing".

:facesmack:

I thought this is a dicsussion forum for people who want to talk about photography, not to keep quiet because they know everything.

And could it be, as it showed during the discussion , that MANY people have now gotten a better understanding of the circumstances of that video and facts ? It may be controversial, but nevertheless worth talking about.

Greetings from Germany
Stefan

 

[fotografz]

Sure seems to have been a back-lash for posting this here Stefan.

Many on this forum are either highly experienced and intuitively "get" the principles under discussion … or are quite taken with the in-depth science of our tools, and think everyone should be, (some even going as far as implying you aren't a "real photographer" if you don't share the fascination).

Whenever I start getting all pumped up about understanding the principles of photography, I flash back to when I didn't. IMO, when attempting to teach, one would do well to remember when they themselves didn't "Get It".:facesmack:

As a beginner, I vividly recall struggling even with the basics. Were it not for the incredibly simple Time-Life series on Photography, it may have taken me a very long time to grasp them by trial-and-error (especially the more counter-intuitive notions). Things like showing a water faucet to explain how an aperture works, etc. Point is, not all creative minds do well with overly academic explanations.

Those that think everyone already knows all this stuff, or that it is common knowledge, are sadly mistaken. In my experience, most do not, including some fairly good photographers I know. They may have an inkling of certain more advanced principles, but often do not know how to put them into practice. Just because this little internet enclave does, doesn't mean the majority does.

IMO, the maker of the video would have done well to leave out the inflammatory "cheating" rhetoric, since it diverted attention, and triggered a wholesale attack on the more informative portions that could help someone grasp the differences format can have on the end result.

Anyway, thanks for posting it.

- Marc

 

[Stefan Steib]

Marc

I loved the timelife stuff. Even today after more than 40 years later, once in a while I take these in my hands and take a look. At that time -and today they are still a valuable reference and exemplary of how to explain things.

Greetings from Germany
Stefan

 

[pegelli]

IMO, the maker of the video would have done well to leave out the inflammatory "cheating" rhetoric, since it diverted attention, and triggered a wholesale attack on the more informative portions that could help someone grasp the differences format can have on the end result.

Thanks, for me this sums up why this discussion derailed and got so many views (not because of any inherent qualities of the material in the video or OP). People just love watching a good fight . So it would be best to just acknowledge this and move on. Saying that someone else needs to do a better job (i.e. not accusing of cheating) is not a good defense in my opinion.

 

[Georg Baumann]

Why don´t you make a better video on this.

Close your eyes, take a deep breath, relax. When I count to three, you wake up again, now repeat after me:

f2 lens = f2 lens, f2 lens = f2 lens.

Good!

....1....

....2....

4.... ops.

 

[Georg Baumann]

and third, unfortunately you will not be allowed to post this here as the "experts" have known this since stoneage and are not interested in this. so the forum has to be kept clear of this.

Stefan,

Hold your horses, I joined Jack and Guy's getdpi back in 2008. What you claim in the quote above is NOT true.

I'll leave it at that and rather dream of renting that f/0.7 baby.

 

[Bob]

Holy smokes!
I have never seen simple trigonometry made so complicated.
As for sensor noise, well when you all are interested in a dissertation of stuff like the amount of charge conveyed to a well by a photon, photon flux density, cell size, filter efficiency, well leakage, well saturation, buried cell interconnect, d-a conversion noise, systemic noise (residual power supply noise and so forth), and how much the image is "pushed around" in post, we can dive deep. The truth is actually that it is basically physics and the generalizations one often hears may be true about equivalent technology levels but may not be across technologies. We are accustomed to hearing "state of the art" from marketing folks, but those who actually work with the stuff are more likely to think of it as "date of the art".

I frankly am getting more interested in just taking pictures lately.
-bob