Talk to me about focal length and Nex

Started Nov 10, 2012 | Discussions thread
blue_skies
Senior MemberPosts: 7,165Gear list
Like?
Re: Talk to me about focal length and Nex
In reply to Lightshow, Nov 10, 2012
       

Lightshow wrote:

Tom2572 wrote:

Tommygun45 wrote:

iceccream wrote:

cwood wrote:

To get the equivalent of 16mm on a 35mm camera on a Nex you would need a Lens that Sony would label roughly 11mm?

yes! 16/1.5 = 10.66.

This would be the new 10-18 that Sony is releasing. The other way to think of the 35mm equivalent is what they would be on full frame cameras. So the 10/18 on the Nex system, and for that matter a D7000 or 7D or any other APS C sensor, would actually be, when used on a Nex, the same size as a 15-27mm lens on say, the 5d MKII.

The ideal 35mm lens on the Nex system is the 24mm Zeiss. This gives the 35 (well 36) mm range on a FF camera.

This is typically seen as a disadvantage but when using longer focal lengths the crop factor actually really helps in the APS-C range. For instance, a 300mm lens on a full frame camera will get you 300mm. However if you bought a 200mm lens for a Nex camera, it would equate to the 300mm full frame lens.(which would be more expensive)

Just recently I was reading a post from a guy on here who wanted to go FF but was reluctant to because he was used to the additional reach that crop factor was giving him on his Nex 7. It was upsetting to think that he would have to spend a good deal more money getting a more expensive lens to compensate for the 300mm lens he had been using that was giving him the 450mm equivalent reach.

I don't understand why people would consider FF to be a disadvantage based on lens length. I find it much harder to find good glass under 35mm than over 35mm.

This is a typical situation for wild life shooters, they want as many pixels on the duck as possible, but the above method of thinking is flawed, take 2 sensors, a FF and a 1.5x, if the pixel density is equal, there is no advantage to using a crop sensor for more reach.

Isn't this the inverse thinking? Pixel density usually changes when the sensor size changes.

Given two sensors with equal pixel count, the smaller sensor gets you closer with the same FL lens due to the higher crop factor. Another benefit is a slight increase of the DoF. The negative is higher pixel density. e.g. OM-D versus Nex-6, or Nex-7 versus D600.

If you are shooting at low ISO, and want high reach, the superzooms deliver with 16Mp in a P&S sensor size.

Or, bring a MFT camera on a safari, use an FF camera for your wide nature and architecture shots, and the APS-C for convenience (size/IQ trade-off) in the standard range in between.

In FF-equivalent sizes I would suggest e.g. 8-24mm for wide, 24-70mm for standard, and above 70mm for tele. This means:

- FF: wide @ 8-24mm

- APS-C: standard @ 16-50mm (24-75 FF-eq)

- MFT: tele @ 35-150mm (70-450 FF-eq)

Another way to think about this is to consider the 36mm FF-eq view

This requires a 36mm lens on FF, 24mm on APS-C, and 18mm on MFT.

Or, a 200mm tele lens corresponds to 200mm FF-eq on FF, 300mm on APS-C and 400mm on MFT.

If you took two (fast) MF lenses at 24mm and 85mm and three camera bodies, (FF, APS-C, MFT), you would get yourself this FF-eq range: 24, 36, 50, 85, 125, 170.

This is less than carrying a Nex with 6 primes.

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

 blue_skies's gear list:blue_skies's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony Alpha 7 Sony a6000 +30 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow