Focal lengths - I'm being really dense today!

DayDreamer

DayDreamer

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,739
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Despite my previous ownerships of SLR & DSLR cameras I think my current ownership of two compacts (Nikon P7700 & Canon G15) has made my brain scramble :confused:

My Nikon has a 28-200mm lens & my Canon has a 28-140mm lens but now I'm looking at again buying a DLSR.

So I am trying to work out how the DSLR the kit lens 18-55mm compares with my compacts. I'm sure I used to have a link to a chart but can I heckers find it so some help would be appreciated with a link to a chart of the formula I can use. As I said I really really really am being thick :bonk:
 
About 28-80, although technically none of that is true, focal lengths are never 'equivalent' they only give an equivalent field of view.
 
I think the 28-200 and 28-140 are "35mm equivalents"......

Crop factor is the confusing thing here - smaller sensor gives greater equivalent focal length for a given lens focal length. (Crop factor on the two you have is 4.6x)

Canon crop factor is 1.6x , Nikon is 1.5x.

So to put them into the same format (35mm equivalent)
18-55 (canon) is 28.8 -88mm in 35mm equivalent terms.
18-55 (nikon) is 27 - 82.5mm in 35mm equivalent terms.

This might help http://cameraimagesensor.com/size/#218,226,18,31,a

So basically they both will be about the same at the wide end, at the expense of quite a bit of reach.
 
Thanks Phil & Graham for helping me out :thumbs:

Graham I am looking at the Nikon D5100 (which I recall you own) but not sure about the lens whether to get one with a kit lens & see how it goes or a body only but then which lens but for a 'permanently stuck on' one :thinking:
 
Indeed I do...

I have the kits lens , 18-55, the "fast prime" 35mm f/1.8, and the long 55-300mm (all Nikon lenses). And tbh the one I use the most is the kit lens.

I came to my D5100 from a Fuji Bridge, (HS10), with an equiv range of 24-720 :eek: (Tiny sensor to get that range (6x crop factor IIRC)), and I did umm and ahhh over whether I would be happy loosing the long end... but consoled myself with having more MP, so I could crop, and greater IQ too.
 
Apart from some quite specialist applications, you're wasting your money buying a DSLR and hoping to get away with one superzoom. The IQ won't be that much better than a bridge camera and the weight will be lots more.

The whole 'raison d'etre' of a DSLR is the modular design, allowing the use of specialist lenses, flash, and other accessories. If you want a superzoom you get more bang for your buck with a bridge cam.
 
Initially I bought a D3100 but when I was walking but using a walking stick, or two, so felt I needed a one handed camera. Then came a Fuji X10 because of the praise heaped on it on the thread on TP but I never felt that love & it was a b****r to use one handed. Then I became wheelchair bound, so could use two hands, & bought the Nikon P7700 which is an 'advanced' compact with a swivel screen - which is on the D5100.

Then a I bought the Canon G15 for my wife. BUT BUT BUT I rarely shoot with any zoom because on a compact the IQ just goes down the more you zoom (IMHO). Like you I want the IQ of a DSLR & I have another thread where I've been asking about the kit lens that come with cameras & pleasantly surprised at the positive feedback. So not sure whether to look at the 18-55 or the 18-70 :thinking:
 
Phil V said:
Apart from some quite specialist applications, you're wasting your money buying a DSLR and hoping to get away with one superzoom. The IQ won't be that much better than a bridge camera and the weight will be lots more.

The whole 'raison d'etre' of a DSLR is the modular design, allowing the use of specialist lenses, flash, and other accessories. If you want a superzoom you get more bang for your buck with a bridge cam.
Click to expand...

I fully understand where you are coming from & with my limited mobility problems which can also affect my hands, particularly fingers, I need to be sensible & put the right bit on (on the camera that is) when I go out. I have rarely used the zoom on any camera (except perhaps a little) & so don't hanker after this aspect. I used to own a bag load of SLR equipment but whilst I knew a lot these days my brain doesn't always let me remember it. I've also owned 'superzooms' but don't hanker after them again as the IQ was poor. Looking at my other thread quite a few seem to praise the 18-70 but a prime, possibly 50mm 1.8f, will be next on the list.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
Apart from some quite specialist applications, you're wasting your money buying a DSLR and hoping to get away with one superzoom. The IQ won't be that much better than a bridge camera and the weight will be lots more.
Click to expand...
Phil V said:
The whole 'raison d'etre' of a DSLR is the modular design, allowing the use of specialist lenses, flash, and other accessories. If you want a superzoom you get more bang for your buck with a bridge cam.
Click to expand...

I agree with your second point but I'm much less sure about your first.

Cameras have moved on and bridge cameras are no doubt much better than they were a few years ago but they still have relatively small sensors, much smaller than FF, APS-C or even MFT and this will effect image quality in more challenging situations. Shoot on a nice sunny day and view the whole image on screen or print small and I'd agree with you that the IQ wont be much different but as soon as you want to move beyond a sunny day shot with more or less front to back DoF I think that things will start to get difficult for the bridge camera and an APS-C DSLR even when fitted with a superzoom will probably start to pull ahead very quickly. At least that's been my experience with my DSLR's, compacts and bridge camera.

I agree that DSLR's do weigh a lot more and personally that's why I'm now following a middle path between the size and weight advantage of bridge/compact (compromised as it is by poorer image quality once you move away from the good light shot) and the bigger and heavier DSLR (with the rewards of more creative flexibility and better image quality in more challenging situations.)

My middle path solution is a compact system camera.
 
Sorry to hear about your loss of mobility, this is something I wish I knew a bit more about, I'm quite good at mods for IT but useless with cameras.

I misinterpreted your 'one lens' request, it's often a requirement from people who don't understand the limitations, I see you're not i that camp, but I'm no expert on Nikon lenses so I'll leave that to someone else.

Now whether a DSLR is the way to go or a CSC, I suppose that depends on your personal taste, I'd like to experiment with a Fuji x100 but budget is against me (if Canon built something as good I'd have got one already).
 
Hi Richard - I am looking at lots of models at the moment :eek:

And the more I look the more I get confused but am patiently waiting for the penny to drop :lol:

The 100D looks interesting & I just need to get my hands on a few cameras but very few real shops around here :(
 
There are a couple of Nikon lenses you should consider as alternatives to the 18-55mm kit lens and they're the 16-85mm (24-127mm equivalent) and the 18-105mm (27-157mm equivalent). I have the 16-85mm and it's a very good lens, one of the best in that general focal length range. The 18-105mm is sometimes offered as the kit lens on the better bodies. It just depends whether your style of photography favours the wide or tele end of the range. I can't disagree with your choice of D5100 as it's the Nikon body I probably use most.

Now for a complete curve ball: have a look at the soon-to-be-available Sony RX10. This is a bridge camera with a 1" sensor (same size as Nikon 1 Series) and a 24-200mm equivalent Zeiss lens. It's looking very promising from the specs and initial results and I'll be considering one very seriously to replace the D5100 as my travel and everyday camera.

Mifsuds in Brixham is probably your nearest decent shop - apologies if I'm telling you how suck eggs.
 
Last edited:
I must try & remember Mifsuds which is very close :bonk: I've been in there before a few times but still had forgotten :bonk::bonk:
 
Make sure somebody has control of your credit card in Mifsuds, John - it's too easy to end up with more than you went in for!
 
Nod said:
Make sure somebody has control of your credit card in Mifsuds, John - it's too easy to end up with more than you went in for!
Click to expand...

Well I'm like the Queen (Nod note like 'THE' Queen & not like 'A' Queen) in that I never carry any money, or any other means of paying - CC's or 'bags of salt'.

I'm on a very short leash :(
 
Regards to the good lady BTW.
 
john have you tried a CSC, relatively light but not flimsy and very good image quality vs size/weight of equipment, with primes and wides available if you wish and full control
 
DizMatt said:
john have you tried a CSC, relatively light but not flimsy and very good image quality vs size/weight of equipment, with primes and wides available if you wish and full control
Click to expand...

Yes owned (or should I say my wife did) a Panasonic G2 & had extended use of a G3 but I've set my mind on a DSLR but thanks for the suggestion :ty:

BUT knowing me I will keep pondering for a while yet :thinking:
 
The 18-105 is a wonderful lens for the money. It's not fast but it's sharper wide open than a lot of more expensive lenses.
 
The23rdman said:
The 18-105 is a wonderful lens for the money. It's not fast but it's sharper wide open than a lot of more expensive lenses.
Click to expand...

Good to hear as I'm not rich like lots on folks on TP :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top