-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
question why use 10/600 for 1/3
- Thread starter eagle2a
- Start date
Sorry for this mistake, I was trying to edit my post when the server jumped up with a notice that my time to edit had run out.
I want to ask a question because the search function was not operating.
Question, why use a shutter speed designation of 10/600 instead of the usual 1/60 of a second?
I think the more that we deviate from the standard photographic designations the more confusing we make our lives.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26289929@N05/
Don
I want to ask a question because the search function was not operating.
Question, why use a shutter speed designation of 10/600 instead of the usual 1/60 of a second?
I think the more that we deviate from the standard photographic designations the more confusing we make our lives.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26289929@N05/
Don
LuisGui
Active member
Hello Don .
I also raised that question in a recent post:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=42230957
As an example, I was specifically referring to 10/200 instead of 1/20 sec in this one:
--
Luis
I also raised that question in a recent post:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=42230957
As an example, I was specifically referring to 10/200 instead of 1/20 sec in this one:
--
Luis
HI LuisGui: Thanks for responding and giving me the link. I read it.
Yes it is confusing! Why indeed?
We have enough confusion with all the phoney sensor sizes left over from the old TV camera tube days. The camera manufactures love the confusion because they do not want the general public to realize just how small the sensors in P&S cameras really are.
So, in my humble opinion, we do not need another confusing statistic as applied to cameras. What we need today, and every day, is a standard benchmark that we can all relate to.
So.....1/60 of the second, should read, 1/60 of a second.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26289929@N05/
Don
Yes it is confusing! Why indeed?
We have enough confusion with all the phoney sensor sizes left over from the old TV camera tube days. The camera manufactures love the confusion because they do not want the general public to realize just how small the sensors in P&S cameras really are.
So, in my humble opinion, we do not need another confusing statistic as applied to cameras. What we need today, and every day, is a standard benchmark that we can all relate to.
So.....1/60 of the second, should read, 1/60 of a second.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26289929@N05/
Don
kkardster
Forum Pro
I agree. I'd also like to see a move away from 35mm equivalents - lens specs should be related to lens optics, not to an antiquated camera system.
I can not agree kkardster with your point of view regarding equivalence with 35mm.
It is still a standard today with FF and it was the defacto standard in small cameras for apex. 70 years or more. It is a good bench mark I believe. I always appreciated Fuji using it on the small cameras. I had a S9100 bridge camera that used it and I loved it. I still miss this camera today (gave it to my oldest daughter).
The m4/3 system is not so bad. Just double the focal length and you have your 35mm standard. But all others give me a pain. I have Pentax and m4/3 gear and my APS stuff is always causing me to stop and figure. Forget small P&S cameras. However to give Panasonic credit my LX5 is coded in 35mm terms on the bottom of the screen. Love it a lot!!
There may be some place down the road where the 35mm standard will become obsolete, but not in my life time.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26289929@N05/
Don
echelon2004
Veteran Member
It is not related to a specific format. Lenses are measured from the first to the second focal point, in mm. As it has always been done, and as it should be done. Those numbers are the same regardless of sensor or film size, but as the 135 format has been so very dominating for so long, people have forgotten about what the focal length really is.
--
Anders
'It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice'
kkardster
Forum Pro
We know it won't happen overnight - if ever. But keep in mind that most people under 30 have never used a 35mm camera and may be unfamiliar with the 135 format.
I guess I'm really not saying we should abandon the 35mm equivalents, but rather that it's time we look at adopting new comparable lens specifications that can stand on their own that are independent of any specific format standard yet allow direct comparison of lens capabilities. 35mm equivalents could always be applied and would be beneficial for those who are used to using them.
For example, perhaps Magnification and Field of View - each of which could be specified at either end of the camera's zoom range (as is aperature) - would be meaningful?
Any other ideas?
You very well may be right. I just know at this point in my life that learning new stuff is not appealing to me. I would just point out that we need some universally accepted standard that everyone can learn and won't change for a very long time.
If you want a good illustration of what I'm saying, just consider the metric system. It is pretty universally used around the world except in America and I believe England. A few things have become metric, but not nearly enough in this country to really feel conversant with the rest of the world and the metric system. I think it is a far superior system because it deals in 10's.
Thank God Pres. Jefferson got us started in the metric system as far as our money is concerned. The good old tens is a marvelous way to count. I use it all the time.
But as for me and my house, as far as photography is concerned, we will stay with the 35mm equivalency.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26289929@N05/
Don
Hi Don,
In drawing attention to the confusing standards for exposure and equivalent focal length you have raised what I regard as a very important topic.
As one of the older generation I was about 20 when I bought a used Braun Paxette and switched from 2.25" square, large format, to 35 mm film only to discover the problems associated with coarse grain in the images from “small format” cameras.
In order to achieve what I regarded as acceptable IQ, free from excessive grain, I then discovered that I also had to switch to a film with a much lower speed, usually 50 or 125 ISO. Doesn't that have a familiar ring about it?
If my memory is correct the introduction of the 35 mm format for “still” cameras occurred when companies such as E. Leitz designed miniature cameras such as the early Leica models which could utilise the 35 mm film used for cine-photography.
As an engineer I am very familiar with the need for meaningful basic standards. However while, when focussed at infinity, the focal length of a lens or range of focal lengths for a zoom lens are uniquely defined physical properties, the corresponding field of view depends on the frame size of the sensor or film with which it is used.
Although the field of view may be defined in terms of the horizontal, vertical or diagonal dimensions of the sensor it is the diagonal that has been adopted as the current standard. That IMHO is very unfortunate because of the inconsistencies which result the variety of aspect ratios currently in use.
My personal preference would be to adopt the vertical dimension of the sensor as the standard with which to define a vertical field of view which would be independent of the aspect ratio. For sensors of different sizes, the focal lengths (at infinity) could then be compared in terms of the angle which corresponds to the height of the sensor frame divided by the relevant focal length.
That would also be consistent with the current use of the sensor height to define the resolution in LPH, lines per picture height.
Also by using the full height of the sensor rather than the diagonal of the internal crop, the frequently mistaken impression that the use of EZ, “Extra Optical Zoom” results in a real increase in the focal length would also have been avoided.
Jimmy
--
J C Brown
kkardster
Forum Pro
Were you using ISO already or ASA?In order to achieve what I regarded as acceptable IQ, free from excessive grain, I then discovered that I also had to switch to a film with a much lower speed, usually 50 or 125 ISO. Doesn't that have a familiar ring about it?
In these days I was using Ilford Pan F (50 ASA) or FP3 (125 ASA) developed in Acutol developer for B&W prints and Agfa CT18 (50 ASA) for colour slides. Unlike Pal Simon I didn't like the colours in Kodachrome.Were you using ISO already or ASA?In order to achieve what I regarded as acceptable IQ, free from excessive grain, I then discovered that I also had to switch to a film with a much lower speed, usually 50 or 125 ISO. Doesn't that have a familiar ring about it?
Also, unless you had a suitable rangefinder, focussing was entirely manual using estimated distances in conjunction with the focussing and depth of field scales engraved on the lens and exposure metering was via a separate hand held meter.
Jimmy
--
J C Brown
--
Hi Don,
Your comments about the use of the metric system in the USA and England reminded me of the various changes that I experienced during my career in mechanical engineering.
As undergraduate students in Scotland in the early 60s we had to use the cgs (centimetre, gram, second) system in Chemistry and Physics, the MKS (Metre, Kilogram Second) system in electrical engineering and various systems in machanical engineering.
In the mechanical parts of our four year course we had to cope with various versions of the Imperial system in which the unit of mass could be the Slug or the lbm. (pound mass) and the unit of force could be the lbf. (pound force) or the poundal. Also as slide rules don’t keep track of the decimal point we also had to be very good at mental arithmetic.
During the early part of my subsequent career in R&D I was required to use both the imperial and metric systems before switching fully to the metric system in the 70s. However because of the requirement to make use of documents and research papers which had been published prior to that switch and to be able to collaborate with our counterparts in the USA the need to be familiar with several systems continued until I retired.
In the early 90s I was designing a measuring which required precision bearings which would permit both linear and rotational motion. When I phoned Barden Bearings for information about their M series their Technical Representative told me that I was mistaken as Barden didn’t make any metric bearings.
When I said that I thought that the USA was supposed to be going metric he laughed and said “Yes they are but only an inch at a time”. It seems that he was right.
Jimmy
--
J C Brown
Pap38
Senior Member
--Frankly I don’t think it’s the standard confusing the issue it’s the fact we are now faced with varying sensor sizes by the manufacturers. APC is simple if you remember the lens MM is approximately 1.5. A 30MM lens becomes a 45MM lens etc.
Maybe I feel this way because not everything was made easy during the time I started in photography. ISO was ASA, there was no auto focus, no metered cameras (hand meters had to be used which required just a bit of thought. Image stabilization, wasn’t even a word combination, zoom lenses didn’t exist and Kodachrome was a blazing 25 ASA (ISO) actually I seem to recall a 10 ASA Kodachrome. Is it better today? Of course. Unfortunately, however, it may require a bit of thinking on occasion.
Pap
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34495676@N08
Maybe I feel this way because not everything was made easy during the time I started in photography. ISO was ASA, there was no auto focus, no metered cameras (hand meters had to be used which required just a bit of thought. Image stabilization, wasn’t even a word combination, zoom lenses didn’t exist and Kodachrome was a blazing 25 ASA (ISO) actually I seem to recall a 10 ASA Kodachrome. Is it better today? Of course. Unfortunately, however, it may require a bit of thinking on occasion.
Pap
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34495676@N08
Pap, I remember it well. I still own my Pentax SV SLR from the early 60's. Not a battery in it. All springs. I believe I still have my old Seconic (SP) light meter. But I doubt that it still works.
Yes, things are much more automated today. And I am very glad. Everybody can go on and on about the manual days, and there is much about them that were praiseworthy, but I find it interesting looking at my old 35mm Kodachrome ASA 25 slides, how many of them are poorly focused when viewed like we view files today.
I for one, truly love digital and do not Pine for the old days at all. I had enough of those wet, stinky, dark rooms. The first time I set up my darkroom it was in the summertime and I had no air-conditioning. In the Midwest where I live it can get very hot in the summertime. The fumes actually burned my skin. I went looking for an air conditioner!
Hang tough, onward and upward!
Don
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26289929@N05/
Don
Humboldt Jim
Senior Member
Getting back to the original post and original question; The answer is stupidity.
HJ
HJ
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum