Nikon lens on e510. What f number do I get?

Sipelpomp · Jul 22, 2009

Buyakasha

Sipelpomp · Jul 22, 2009

This ISO-story is not correct.

ISO 100, F/X, 1/Y sec gives the same exposure for the same X and Y on any format. You can simply transfer these numbers between ANY camera, and get the same exposure, just not the same DOF.

What you guys said about apparent focal length and DOF is 100% right.

In terms of noise, you could say that a 12MP FF ISO 400 shot has the same amount of noise as a 12MP FT ISO 100 shot, IF given that the relative sensor fill factor is the same.

Fotogejst · Jul 22, 2009

Timskis6 said:
Your 100mm f/2.8 on FF is a 100mm f/2.8 on 4/3.

Your 100mm f/2.8 on FF has the 35mm brightness of f/2.8 on 4/3.

Your 100mm f/2.8 on FF has the 35mm FOV of 200mm on 4/3.

Your 100mm f/2.8 on FF has the 35mm DOF of f/5.6 on 4/3.

Which can be summed up as "your 100 mm f/2.8 mounted on your E-510 will be equivalent to a 200 mm f/5.6 lens mounted on a 35 mm camera using two stops higher ISO". It really is quite simple.

irmo · Jul 22, 2009

Sipelpomp said:
This ISO-story is not correct.

ISO 100, F/X, 1/Y sec gives the same exposure for the same X and Y on any format. You can simply transfer these numbers between ANY camera, and get the same exposure, just not the same DOF.

What you guys said about apparent focal length and DOF is 100% right.

In terms of noise, you could say that a 12MP FF ISO 400 shot has the same amount of noise as a 12MP FT ISO 100 shot, IF given that the relative sensor fill factor is the same.

I 100% agree with u

All I'm saying is, to achieve some picture means some DOF too (for me!) ;-), and becouse of the DOF u need 2x higher F on FF and that means 4x higher ISO .... thats all

Many people, review says

4/3 - ISO100 f2.8 f100mm 1/100 is some as FF ISO100 f2.8 f200mm 1/100 except DOF
and all I'm saying is
4/3 ISO100 f2.8 f100mm 1/100 is some as FF ISO400 f5.6 f200 1/100

And I don't need to say "except" something, becouse there is no exception ;-)

If u look on printed picture what u see???

apertune? NO!
focal length? NO!
View angle? YES!
DOF? YES!
ISO? NO!
shooting time? YES!

NO!- are only technical terms .... YES! are the optical terms witch realy determiny the picture.

Now I ask u again whan are 2 printed picture some, whan thay where taken on some ISO or whan thay have some DOF?

Fotogejst · Jul 22, 2009

Sipelpomp said:
ISO 100, F/X, 1/Y sec gives the same exposure for the same X and Y on any format. You can simply transfer these numbers between ANY camera, and get the same exposure, just not the same DOF.

In other words, you are taking a different picture. That is arguably not the same exposure.

Rriley · Jul 22, 2009

Fotogejst said:
Sipelpomp said:

ISO 100, F/X, 1/Y sec gives the same exposure for the same X and Y on any format. You can simply transfer these numbers between ANY camera, and get the same exposure, just not the same DOF.

Click to expand...

In other words, you are taking a different picture. That is arguably not the same exposure.

of course its different, its 4x3 v/s 3x2 for a start
what hes suggesting is entirely legitimate

nobody cares if its 'different', and nobody should except the 3quivalent obsessed

--
ʎǝlıɹ

plɹoʍ ǝɥʇ ɟo doʇ uo ǝɹɐ ǝʍ 'ɐılɐɹʇsnɐ uı

irmo · Jul 22, 2009

Fotogejst said:
Sipelpomp said:

ISO 100, F/X, 1/Y sec gives the same exposure for the same X and Y on any format. You can simply transfer these numbers between ANY camera, and get the same exposure, just not the same DOF.

Click to expand...

In other words, you are taking a different picture. That is arguably not the same exposure.

actualy exposure doesn't mean some picture. He is right it's some expositure ..

FT ISO100 f2.8 time 1/20 f=100mm has some expositure as FT ISO100 f5.6 1/5 f=200 even if the view angle, time isn't some.....

expositure determinate brightness of the picture nothing else.

Rriley · Jul 22, 2009

Fotogejst said:
Timskis6 said:

Your 100mm f/2.8 on FF is a 100mm f/2.8 on 4/3.

Your 100mm f/2.8 on FF has the 35mm brightness of f/2.8 on 4/3.

Your 100mm f/2.8 on FF has the 35mm FOV of 200mm on 4/3.

Your 100mm f/2.8 on FF has the 35mm DOF of f/5.6 on 4/3.

Click to expand...

Which can be summed up as "your 100 mm f/2.8 mounted on your E-510 will be equivalent to a 200 mm f/5.6 lens mounted on a 35 mm camera using two stops higher ISO". It really is quite simple.

only if you didnt accept that its max aperture is F2.8
calling it a 200/5.6 is distortion,
b/se it excludes the reality that the max exposure is F2.8

--
ʎǝlıɹ

plɹoʍ ǝɥʇ ɟo doʇ uo ǝɹɐ ǝʍ 'ɐılɐɹʇsnɐ uı

Jonas B · Jul 22, 2009

irmo said:
(...)
and all I'm saying is
4/3 ISO100 f2.8 f100mm 1/100 is some as FF ISO400 f5.6 f200 1/100

Ah, and here I thought my FF 50/1.4 lens was the same as a FT 25/0.7... only sharp, but I agree my ISO100 is like FT ISO25.

Jonas

Timskis6 · Jul 22, 2009

rssarma said:
Timskis6 said:

rssarma said:

I know it has been asked many times but when I put my (FullFrame) 100mm 2.8 F-mount lens on my (FullFrame) e510 what lens do I have? 200mm 2.8 or 200mm 5.6?

Click to expand...

Your 100mm f/2.8 on FF is a 100mm f/2.8 on 4/3.

Your 100mm f/2.8 on FF has the 35mm brightness of f/2.8 on 4/3.

Your 100mm f/2.8 on FF has the 35mm FOV of 200mm on 4/3.

Your 100mm f/2.8 on FF has the 35mm DOF of f/5.6 on 4/3.

Click to expand...

The DoF would be shallower as the relative size of aperture would be larger, I think you got it backwards.

You read it incorrectly - the above is correct...

"Your (100mm f/2.8 on FF has the 35mm DOF of f/5.6) on 4/3"

rssarma said:
F2 on FT = F4 on FF, conversely

F4 on FF = F2 on FT

So F2.8 on that lens is actually equivalent to F1.4 on FT, whereas the focal length would double.

--
Raj Sarma
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rssarma
--
Follow me on Twitter: rssarma

Olympus enthusiasts from NYC Metro, join UKPSG:
http://snipurl.com/crc3n

--
Tim
'I haven't been everywhere, but it's on my list.'
E3/E410/7-14/12-60/150/50-200/25/25/EC-14
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/

rssarma · Jul 22, 2009

CharlesB58 said:
rssarma said:

Precisely, which means the effective DoF would actually now be F1.4, yes?

Click to expand...

Yes, but saying it is now an f1.4 lens could be misleading in this situation, because the statement implies an increase in light transmission as well.

While you could say that a FF 100mm f2.8 used on a 4/3 camera focused on a subject at 10 feet would give the same DoF as if the lens were a 100mm f 1.4 lens on the FF camera, this doesn't directly apply to saying the lens now has an equivalent aperture of f1.4 on 4/3 for any other purpose than describing relative DoF.

It's a matter of semantics, really. But since most people accept that f stop number equates to the light gathering capability of the lens, saying that a FF 100mm f2.8 lens becomes equivalent to a f1.4 lens is confusing.

The DoF is actually unchanged anyway. The only thing that has changed is the "crop factor": the amount of image magnification at a given distance. This gives an apparent difference in DoF only when subject size is kept constant when using different focal lengths.

Totally agree, I was talking only about this apparent decrease in DoF. I should have been clearer with my comments. Thanks so much for elucidating.

--
Raj Sarma
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rssarma
--
Follow me on Twitter: rssarma

Olympus enthusiasts from NYC Metro, join UKPSG:
http://snipurl.com/crc3n

Fotogejst · Jul 22, 2009

How come you so steadfastly refuse to understand what "equivalent" means?

Fotogejst · Jul 22, 2009

Rriley said:
of course its different, its 4x3 v/s 3x2 for a start

That is so bl* dy obvious that it isn't worth mentioning.

Rriley said:
nobody cares if its 'different', and nobody should except the 3quivalent obsessed

Holy mother of God. You cannot be helped.

Fotogejst · Jul 22, 2009

irmo said:
actualy exposure doesn't mean some picture. He is right it's some expositure ..

That was the debatable part. There are multiple definitions. It doesn't really matter, though.

rssarma · Jul 22, 2009

wmsson said:
wmsson said:

F2 on FT = F4 on FF, conversely

Click to expand...

Yes. And f2.8 on FT = f5.6 on FF

wmsson said:

F4 on FF = F2 on FT

Click to expand...

Yes. And f5.6 on FF = f2.8 on FT.

wmsson said:

So F2.8 on that lens is actually equivalent to F1.4 on FT, whereas the focal length would double.

Click to expand...

To repeat:
f2.8 on FT = f5.6 on FF
f5.6 on FF = f2.8 on FT.

You were with me up to this point, and then...

wmsson said:
It's an f2.8 lens and is equal to f5.6 on 4/3.

True, f5.6 on FF=f2.8 on FT but this lens is not f5.6 on FF, it's f2.8 on FF and therefore f5.6 on FT.

You went on to contradict yourself here! It's clear that it's not an F5.6 lens, it's F2.8, but in your own words...

If > f5.6 on FF = f2.8 on FT
Then > F2.8 on FF = F1.4 on FT

Why would it be F5.6???

Just to clarify, these F numbers are only in co-relation with DoF and don't speak for the transmissive propery of the lens as it remains unchanged. However, die to the crop factor, this lens will have an effective DoF of F1.4 on FT.

--
Raj Sarma
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rssarma
--
Follow me on Twitter: rssarma

Olympus enthusiasts from NYC Metro, join UKPSG:
http://snipurl.com/crc3n

rssarma · Jul 22, 2009

Fotogejst said:
How come you so steadfastly refuse to understand what "equivalent" means?

Equivalence can only apply to DoF, not the transmissive property of the lens, the lens continues to remain an F2.8 lens even on FT.

--
Raj Sarma
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rssarma
--
Follow me on Twitter: rssarma

Olympus enthusiasts from NYC Metro, join UKPSG:
http://snipurl.com/crc3n

rssarma · Jul 22, 2009

Timskis6 said:
rssarma said:

Timskis6 said:

Timskis6 said:

I know it has been asked many times but when I put my (FullFrame) 100mm 2.8 F-mount lens on my (FullFrame) e510 what lens do I have? 200mm 2.8 or 200mm 5.6?

Click to expand...

Your 100mm f/2.8 on FF is a 100mm f/2.8 on 4/3.

Your 100mm f/2.8 on FF has the 35mm brightness of f/2.8 on 4/3.

Your 100mm f/2.8 on FF has the 35mm FOV of 200mm on 4/3.

Your 100mm f/2.8 on FF has the 35mm DOF of f/5.6 on 4/3.

Click to expand...

The DoF would be shallower as the relative size of aperture would be larger, I think you got it backwards.

Click to expand...

You read it incorrectly - the above is correct...

"Your (100mm f/2.8 on FF has the 35mm DOF of f/5.6) on 4/3"

Tim, due to the crop factor the effective DoF will in fact be shallower.

--
Raj Sarma
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rssarma
--
Follow me on Twitter: rssarma

Olympus enthusiasts from NYC Metro, join UKPSG:
http://snipurl.com/crc3n

jgardia · Jul 22, 2009

Hi,

even though I agree 100% with your equivalences, and I know it's really difficult to persuade most of the members here about that (it's even worse if you tell them that you have some technical studies), I think the way you are arguing is not the best.

We all here know the limitations of our systems, and we are happy with them. i think the basic problem is that we have every week someone that comes to the forum to tell us how bad are Oly cameras, how crappy is the performance, etc., and because of that, people here tend to overreact.
So, please an easier attitude is welcome.

Cheers,

Jose

Fotogejst said:
How come you so steadfastly refuse to understand what "equivalent" means?

Fotogejst · Jul 22, 2009

rssarma said:
Equivalence can only apply to DoF, not the transmissive property of the lens, the lens continues to remain an F2.8 lens even on FT.

Did I say it didn't? No I didn't. I talked about the results you get.

Fotogejst · Jul 22, 2009

jgardia said:
So, please an easier attitude is welcome.

Tell that to that incessant Rriley troll from down under. He has been pestering this place for years. I have rarely encountered a nastier specimen.

Nikon lens on e510. What f number do I get?

Well-known member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

jgardia

Guest

Leading Member

Leading Member

Keyboard shortcuts