Misleading or unhelpful photography terms

Ken Rockwell...

If you know enough to filter out his BS, you know enough not to need his site. It may be good for a laugh from time to time but he is NOT a guru whatever people may think and say!
 
I have him as a Facebook friend. :lol: I still use his site for compatibility charts or variations between each version of a lens though. So for facts and figures he's OK, but his opinions on things are greatly exaggerated or plain untrue.
 
Back focus - do you mean the process or an issue with the lens?
 
For starters; 'full frame'. But I also hate 'full frame' users talking about the APS-C 'multiplication factor'. I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of DSLR owners never owned a film SLR. I'd also hazard a guess that 99% of these people had/have a 'crop sensor' camera before upgrading to 'full frame'. Surely the point of reference for a 300mm shot is their *first* 300mm shot, likely taken with that 'crop sensor' camera. Therefore it's not extra reach, it's reach you lose if you move to full frame.

Now a full frame user it does all make sense, but as an APS-C user learning it confused the hell out of me everytime some reviewer spoke of extra reach for aps-c users.

Rant over....
 
Tricky01 said:
Therefore it's not extra reach, it's reach you lose if you move to full frame. .
Click to expand...

If you understood FF and crop you would know the its not reach at all. You dont lose or gain reach with either. APS-C takes an image that is only a part of what a ff camera takes. Ff has shallower dof too.



Tricky01 said:
a full frame user it does all make sense, but as an APS-C user learning it confused the hell out of me everytime some reviewer spoke of extra reach for aps-c users.

Rant over....
Click to expand...

I use and enjoy both but would take ff every time.
 
Last edited:
I daresay Medium format guys would say that a FF is a cropped view. It all depends on focal length relative to frame or sensor size. If I recall 2 1/4 square the standard focal length was around 85mm, using an 85 mm on a FF would give you a cropped image. :)
 
artyman said:
I daresay Medium format guys would say that a FF is a cropped view. It all depends on focal length relative to frame or sensor size. If I recall 2 1/4 square the standard focal length was around 85mm, using an 85 mm on a FF would give you a cropped image. :)
Click to expand...

This^

The FF users who see it as 'the standard' when there's never been a 'standard'. recording formats have been a moveable feast for the whole history of photography, but because DSLRs look like 35mm film cameras then all of a sudden were supposed to use the FF format as some kind of line in the sand.

Medium format shooters never used a division factor to calculate their lens focal length, they just knew what a wide standard or telephoto lens was.

The idea that it's easier to calculate based on 35mm focal lengths ends up with as many questions as it answers.
 
Tricky01 said:
For starters; 'full frame'. But I also hate 'full frame' users talking about the APS-C 'multiplication factor'. I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of DSLR owners never owned a film SLR. I'd also hazard a guess that 99% of these people had/have a 'crop sensor' camera before upgrading to 'full frame'. Surely the point of reference for a 300mm shot is their *first* 300mm shot, likely taken with that 'crop sensor' camera. Therefore it's not extra reach, it's reach you lose if you move to full frame.

Now a full frame user it does all make sense, but as an APS-C user learning it confused the hell out of me everytime some reviewer spoke of extra reach for aps-c users.

Rant over....
Click to expand...

Conversely, moving from 35mm to a crop sensor was a bit odd! I'd been using 35mm for many years and could see what lens I needed for a particular AoV. With the arrival of a crop body in the bag, I was having to divide the normal FL by 1.5 to know what I needed on the crop body. It got even more confusing when I was out and about with 35mm and crop bodies in the same bag (I missed my wide angles, having got used to 12mm on 35mm!). All restored to normal - FF body in the bag and the crop is on long term loan to a friend who might buy it from me.
 
Nod said:
Conversely, moving from 35mm to a crop sensor was a bit odd! I'd been using 35mm for many years and could see what lens I needed for a particular AoV. With the arrival of a crop body in the bag, I was having to divide the normal FL by 1.5 to know what I needed on the crop body. It got even more confusing when I was out and about with 35mm and crop bodies in the same bag (I missed my wide angles, having got used to 12mm on 35mm!). All restored to normal - FF body in the bag and the crop is on long term loan to a friend who might buy it from me.
Click to expand...

Odd that, because I'd used 35mm for years too, but I'd also used MF. So understanding that focal lengths were different without having to resort to calculations was a simple task - then as now:shrug:.

But that doesn't help users of (only) crop cameras, who don't need to know what their lenses 'equate to' in FF terms. It's totally nonsense, they only need to know that their 18-55 is a standard zoom, a 35mm (ish) is a good standard focal length, a 50mm is a short tele, 85-100 is a medium tele and anything longer is a long tele, 10mm is Ultra wide 18mm is wide etc. Why would it matter to a crop shooter what any of that means on FF:bonk: There are many important areas of photography they need to know about, without someone needlessly banging on about what changes if they go FF (which they'll then fell the need to do, to become 'normal'):shake:

The way the general mood of this forum and FF as 'standard' is very narrow minded sometimes. A 50mm lens is 50mm, whether it's a super tele on a compact or an ultra wide on a 10x8 - it's still 50mm:thumbs:
 
Phil V said:
.....The way the general mood of this forum and FF as 'standard' is very narrow minded...
Click to expand...

Well said Phil... I'm getting bored of reading threads, especially those relating to prospective lens purchases, that insist on the need to future-proof against the possibility of moving to full-frame..... it's as if you buy a DX lens and you might as well throw it in the bin, as it'll devalue to zero because no-one wants to use crop anymore.
 
specialman said:
Well said Phil... I'm getting bored of reading threads, especially those relating to prospective lens purchases, that insist on the need to future-proof against the possibility of moving to full-frame..... it's as if you buy a DX lens and you might as well throw it in the bin, as it'll devalue to zero because no-one wants to use crop anymore.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

It's tiresome, like all those Yank forums full of retired blokes with cupboards full of L lenses they use to take badly lit photo's of the family pets.:naughty:
 
I have never owned a full frame DSLR before but I always convert to the full equivalent when looking at a lens dunno why it just makes sense to me that way
 
Alkins said:
I have never owned a full frame DSLR before but I always convert to the full equivalent when looking at a lens dunno why it just makes sense to me that way
Click to expand...

Brainwashing - it's proof of concept.:suspect:
 
People who constantly moan about other's moans ... sheesh...

Oh wait,I'm now doing it, it's catching!
 
Being a wedding photographer, on the odd occasion I'll have a guest come over and talk photography with me. It's usually pretty good and they understand that you know what you are doing, and thus, ask the questions.

This time, I was standing there holding my camera. One of the guys comes up to me and says "what are your settings on at the moment?". I tell him, and thus, he passes me some advice, "You really shouldn't go above ISO 1,000 unless you are doing sports photography. ISO's above 1,000 are for sports.".

I didn't know what to say... except, "alright mate". I think my facial expression would of had more words in there though (nothing rude of course, as I'm on the job).
 
Phil V said:
Odd that, because I'd used 35mm for years too, but I'd also used MF. So understanding that focal lengths were different without having to resort to calculations was a simple task - then as now:shrug:.

I've not used MF enough to get used to the AoV available from any given FL and now only use an Fx body. I did spend a while using Dx for most things and 35mm for most wide angles (especially 12 mm up to 18 (where the 35mm equivalence due to the 1.5x crop factor met the shorter lengths (in AoV terms) of the 12mm when fitted to the crop body). It was the swapping between the bodies that caused brief confusion.

But that doesn't help users of (only) crop cameras, who don't need to know what their lenses 'equate to' in FF terms. It's totally nonsense, they only need to know that their 18-55 is a standard zoom, a 35mm (ish) is a good standard focal length, a 50mm is a short tele, 85-100 is a medium tele and anything longer is a long tele, 10mm is Ultra wide 18mm is wide etc. Why would it matter to a crop shooter what any of that means on FF:bonk: There are many important areas of photography they need to know about, without someone needlessly banging on about what changes if they go FF (which they'll then fell the need to do, to become 'normal'):shake:

To a pure crop shooter who has never used FF/35mm/MF etc, there is no need to use any conversion - with some experience, they will (or should) be able to visualise the FL required. If/when they move up to FF, they'll want/need to be able to convert that experience to decide which lens to use on their new body until that becomes 2nd nature. Not banging on about it, merely pointing out a fact!

The way the general mood of this forum and FF as 'standard' is very narrow minded sometimes. A 50mm lens is 50mm, whether it's a super tele on a compact or an ultra wide on a 10x8 - it's still 50mm:thumbs:

Like it or not, 35mm was for a long time the norm for most amateur photographers and the current trend seems to be a move towards FF digital. As for your last point re focal lengths always being focal lengths, that's very true (as I've always said). It's the angle of view that that FL gives on the user's sensor/film that matters.
Click to expand...

And for those that don't bother reading signatures, please take a moment to read mine...
 
Chr1stof said:
*starts new thread*

"I want to get some nice bukkake shots, what lens?"
Click to expand...

+1 You've just got me giggling like a little girl with that one.


I find 'amateur' to be one of the worst misleading/unhelpfull words. Often used in a derogatory and negative way; strip the word down to it's true meaning, amateurs do it for love not money. You just have to look at some of the excellent shots non-professionals have posted on this site to see that.
 
People who quote the "shutter speed must be the same or more then the focal length".
What a complete pile of poop that is :bang:
 
Once you move away from the physical, optical and mechanical equipment that we use to create images then all of the things that are down as "rules" or "must" or "never"........

We work in a creative medium where these things should be seen, at best, as guides or things to consider.......

Example - "Rule of thirds" - yes it is a very compelling compositional principle that can be widely applied to the visual arts - but using the word "Rule" implies "must never be broken" - sometimes there are more appropriate alternatives.......

(And to prevent arguments - yes I use the thirds principle as much as anyone else and totally accept its merit - it's the "Rule" bit I don't like)
 
And while I'm on one - glad to see other people get cheesed off at the whole focal length equivalence thing.

Just understand the equipment you're using - if you only have an APS sensor camera then why worry what would happen with a full frame camera and vice versa....

Same if you have several cameras with different sensor sizes - just understand how the camera and lens combination you're using at that specific instant work together........
 
Last edited:
Krisstiffer said:
Once you move away from the physical, optical and mechanical equipment that we use to create images then all of the things that are down as "rules" or "must" or "never"........

We work in a creative medium where these things should be seen, at best, as guides or things to consider.......

Example - "Rule of thirds" - yes it is a very compelling compositional principle that can be widely applied to the visual arts - but using the word "Rule" implies "must never be broken" - sometimes there are more appropriate alternatives.......

(And to prevent arguments - yes I use the thirds principle as much as anyone else and totally accept its merit - it's the "Rule" bit I don't like)
Click to expand...

The word rule is totally appropriate; as Douglas Bader said, Rules are for the guidance of wise men (and women) and the obedience of fools.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top