Optical zoom vs. 35mm equiv.

ckeek

Leading Member
Messages
538
Reaction score
38
I saw the new Panasonic TZ/ZS100 has 25 - 250mm in 35mm equiv and optical zoom is 10 x. Does the manufacturer have to disclose both of 35mm equiv and optical zoom or disclosing either of two can know another number?

If given either one of two such as optical zoom 10 x, can we know the 35 mm equiv must be 25-250mm? If so, can you explain why the 35mm equlv must be 25-250 mm by given an optical zoom 10 x or vice versa in a specific camera with a specific sensor size (TZ/ZS100 has 1 inch sensor)? Thank you for your answer.
 
Last edited:
I saw the new Panasonic TZ/ZS100 has 25 - 250mm in 35mm equiv and optical zoom is 10 x. Does the manufacturer have to disclose both of 35mm equiv and optical zoom or disclosing either of two can know another number?

If given either one of two such as optical zoom 10 x, can we know the 35 mm equiv must be 25-250mm? If so, can you explain why the 35mm equlv must be 25-250 mm by given an optical zoom 10 x or vice versa in a specific camera with a specific sensor size (TZ/ZS100 has 1 inch sensor)? Thank you for your answer.
I have an 18 mm - 55 mm zoom lens and so it is an 55 mm / 18 mm = 3x zoom lens. Another lens is 70 mm - 210 mm and so it is a 210 mm / 70 mm = 3x zoom also. So the zoom factor is simply the longer focal length divided by the shorter focal length. It doesn't matter if you use 35 mm equivalent numbers or the actual physical numbers for the focal length.
 
The focal lengths are much more useful than the 'optical zoom'. The camera you're looking at has focal lengths of 9.1-91mm. However, most people are only familiar with 35mm equivalent focal lengths so they convert it to that. The TZ/ZS100 has a 1 inch sensor, which, compared to a 35mm sensor has a 2.7x crop factor (9.1x2.7=25 & 91x2.7=250).

The 'optical zoom' is just the longest focal length divided by the shortest one. However, without knowing the actual focal lengths, the zoom factor is not very useful. It's like saying: "I will pay you 10 times more than I paid John." This isn't very useful unless you either know how much I paid John or how much I'm offering you.

But again, these focal lengths might not be very helpful unless you know what they mean. Generally, 28mm and lower are wide. 28-70mm are normal (not too different from what your eyes see), and 70mm and higher are telephoto (zoomed in).
 
I saw the new Panasonic TZ/ZS100 has 25 - 250mm in 35mm equiv and optical zoom is 10 x. Does the manufacturer have to disclose both of 35mm equiv and optical zoom or disclosing either of two can know another number?
I think what you're asking is can the OEM just tell us, for example, that it's a zoom starting at 25mm and is 10x. Frankly, no. The general public is - to put it bluntly - not all that bright. The salespeople, manufacturer, and the forums here will be inundated with questions about the focal range ;-)
 
I saw the new Panasonic TZ/ZS100 has 25 - 250mm in 35mm equiv and optical zoom is 10 x. Does the manufacturer have to disclose both of 35mm equiv and optical zoom or disclosing either of two can know another number?
I think what you're asking is can the OEM just tell us, for example, that it's a zoom starting at 25mm and is 10x. Frankly, no. The general public is - to put it bluntly - not all that bright. The salespeople, manufacturer, and the forums here will be inundated with questions about the focal range ;-)
Even if the public aren't all dim different people want different things.

For some people versatility is key: they've heard that a long zoom range lets them zoom into distant subjects so they want to see what the zoom range is. For them the maker prints 10X; they can probably work out the 250 is 10X 25 but on flicking through the ads they don't want to stop and calculate. An they can do an online search for "10X zoom".

Other people know about 35mm equivalent FOV and want to know what is on offer. For example, someone who knows that one camera gives 24mm and another 25mm and wants to shoot wide angle will be interested in the 25- part of the zoom range when comparing this camera with others.
 
So, the manufacturer must tell the public the 35mm equiv. focal range but does not have to do the optical zoom when introducing a new camera because the optical zoom can be known by the longest zoom divided by shortest zoom. Is it correct?
 
Last edited:
So, the manufacturer must tell the public the 35mm equiv. focal range but does not have to do the optical zoom when introducing a new camera because the optical zoom can be known by the longest zoom divided by shortest zoom. Is it correct?
The manufacture does not have to tell you either. However for sales purposes the manufacture will often highlight the 35mm equivalent and the zoom ratio. Of course having the focal length range the zoom ratio is easy to calculate but 50X is a selling point for point and shoot and bridge cameras. Most lenses are still marked with the true focal length range of the lens. In most cases the manufacturer will also give you the size of the sensor, although sometimes only in the video tube standard units not the actual size in mm.
 
I saw the new Panasonic TZ/ZS100 has 25 - 250mm in 35mm equiv and optical zoom is 10 x. Does the manufacturer have to disclose both of 35mm equiv and optical zoom or disclosing either of two can know another number?

If given either one of two such as optical zoom 10 x, can we know the 35 mm equiv must be 25-250mm? If so, can you explain why the 35mm equlv must be 25-250 mm by given an optical zoom 10 x or vice versa in a specific camera with a specific sensor size (TZ/ZS100 has 1 inch sensor)? Thank you for your answer.
Haven't read the other replies. I see some good names, so I expect it's been answered. But...

This is a problem with Marketing Socket Heads who don't have a clue. They invented the terrible idea of "equivalent" focal lengths. Gaggg... It has caused SO much trouble.

What they should have done was specify the Field of View. There are several ways to do it:
  • Angular Degrees [I prefer the horizontal angle of view but some prefer the diagonal]
  • Width of scene at 1000 meters [this is what is done w/ binoculars]
  • Solid Angle in Steradians [this takes into account the aspect ratio]
The Panasonic TZ100 has a lens that zooms from 9.1mm to 91mm. It is NOT a 25-250mm lens.

You are correct that Panasonic in describing it as 25-250mm equivalent lens and a 10X zoom lens is being redundant. Marketing Socket Heads are like that. They believe that their customers are as clueless as they are; they are just covering all bases.

But just knowing that it has a 10X zoom doesn't tell you if the lens starts at 9.1mm or 12mm or 17mm!
 
I saw the new Panasonic TZ/ZS100 has 25 - 250mm in 35mm equiv and optical zoom is 10 x. Does the manufacturer have to disclose both of 35mm equiv and optical zoom or disclosing either of two can know another number?

If given either one of two such as optical zoom 10 x, can we know the 35 mm equiv must be 25-250mm? If so, can you explain why the 35mm equlv must be 25-250 mm by given an optical zoom 10 x or vice versa in a specific camera with a specific sensor size (TZ/ZS100 has 1 inch sensor)? Thank you for your answer.
Haven't read the other replies. I see some good names, so I expect it's been answered. But...

This is a problem with Marketing Socket Heads who don't have a clue. They invented the terrible idea of "equivalent" focal lengths. Gaggg... It has caused SO much trouble.

What they should have done was specify the Field of View. There are several ways to do it:
  • Angular Degrees [I prefer the horizontal angle of view but some prefer the diagonal]
  • Width of scene at 1000 meters [this is what is done w/ binoculars]
  • Solid Angle in Steradians [this takes into account the aspect ratio]
I hope you're volunteering to man the phones at the call center or answer the e-mails ;-) People can't put together 2 sentences on the interwebs and you expect them to understand angular degrees and steradians? I guarantee most people don't understand width at 1000 meters either; they only look at the mag factor on binoculars. There are a lot of things I disagree with regarding how cameras are marketed - the sensor size standards are ridiculous; 1/2.5" doesn't mean anything to anyone outside of the industry. But I think putting the focal length on a common frame of reference isn't a bad way to go. Of course it's not actually a 25-250mm lens, but it gives the prospective buyer a frame of reference they can relate to. You have to call up a diagram and charts to show the difference between a 1/2.5" and 1" sensor to the uninitiated.
The Panasonic TZ100 has a lens that zooms from 9.1mm to 91mm. It is NOT a 25-250mm lens.

You are correct that Panasonic in describing it as 25-250mm equivalent lens and a 10X zoom lens is being redundant. Marketing Socket Heads are like that. They believe that their customers are as clueless as they are; they are just covering all bases.
Unfortunately many people are. I wouldn't say most, but enough that marketing needs to account for it. If you just say it's a 10x zoom starting at 25mm equivalent people will ask what that means.
But just knowing that it has a 10X zoom doesn't tell you if the lens starts at 9.1mm or 12mm or 17mm!
This is true, and that's why they need to give both.

Mark
 
This is a problem with Marketing Socket Heads who don't have a clue. They invented the terrible idea of "equivalent" focal lengths. Gaggg... It has caused SO much trouble.
I like the equivalent focal length descriptions. With all the different puny sensor sizes it gives you something to hang onto. Admit it: if you see a lens described as covering 25-250, you know what it's going to do.
What they should have done was specify the Field of View. There are several ways to do it:
  • Angular Degrees [I prefer the horizontal angle of view but some prefer the diagonal]
  • Width of scene at 1000 meters [this is what is done w/ binoculars]
  • Solid Angle in Steradians [this takes into account the aspect ratio]
Now you want the hoi polloi talking steradians? I want your latest drugs. I, even I, have no idea what I would do with an 0.1 steradian lens.
The Panasonic TZ100 has a lens that zooms from 9.1mm to 91mm. It is NOT a 25-250mm lens.

You are correct that Panasonic in describing it as 25-250mm equivalent lens and a 10X zoom lens is being redundant. Marketing Socket Heads are like that. They believe that their customers are as clueless as they are; they are just covering all bases.

But just knowing that it has a 10X zoom doesn't tell you if the lens starts at 9.1mm or 12mm or 17mm!
If I were (correctly) informed that some camera or other had a 9.1mm-91mm lens I wouldn't know anything except that it had a small sensor. I would be near ecstasy if it were described as 9.1mm-91mm (25mm-250mm equivalent).
 
Just to show how useless knowing how many X zoom a lens is, the following lenses are ALL 10x zooms:

18-180mm
28-280mm
38-380mm
50-500mm
100-1000mm

The only reason to say a lens is X zoom is to impress neophytes who think more zoom is better.

In fact serious photographers prefer to choose lenses with LESS zoom, or even no zoom (a prime lens), The more zoom you have, the more chance for lens distortions and softness you can have.
 
Last edited:
Your description shows two matters—the equivalent focal length range and the "optical zoom" ratio—but really, it's easier to understand by dividing them to three different ones:
  1. Minimum focal length (in millimeters, easiest to compare with the 35mm equivalent)
  2. Maximum focal length (same note)
  3. Zoom ratio
If you know two out of the three, you can easily calculate the third, either by multiplying or by dividing.

Notice that I use the word "ratio" to describe the "optical zoom" you mentioned, as it is simply the ratio between the maximum and the minimum focal length of a lens. In the example you've given, it is 250mm / 25mm = 10. There is no unit of measurement for the ratio, because of it being a ratio; the 'x' often appended to it is for "times," and it basically means "the maximum focal length of the lens is 10 times longer than its minimum."

The zoom ratio can be very useful and easy to understand when comparing compact/point-and-shoot cameras, because most of them have a very similar, or even identical, minimum focal length, so the same ratio means basically the same thing across different cameras/lenses. But it becomes pretty much useless with lenses for interchangeable-lens cameras, or with more specialized cases of fixed-lens cameras.

Let's take, for example, two popular types of lenses that many photographers use with interchangeable-lens cameras: a 24-70mm and a 70-200mm, or their rough equivalents. The zoom ratio for both is approximately 3 (70 / 24 = 2.92; 200 / 70 = 2.86), so if you didn't know the focal lengths themselves, you could have understandably mistaken them to be identical lenses. But in reality, they are radically different: the first starts at a wide-angle setting, and zooms into a somewhat tighter angle of view, while the second picks up exactly where the first ended (notice the same 70mm mark) and zooms in tighter from there.

Another example worth mentioning is the Sigma 50-500mm lens. You can see that its zoom ratio is 10, exactly like the example you gave, but its minimum focal length is longer—instead of a wide-angle view, you get what's called a normal field of view—and it gets tighter at the end of the zoom range.

The equivalent focal lengths are a lot more useful than the zoom ratio, because they can tell you exactly the kind of field of view you should expect. Try to grasp the concept, and understand it through some experience, too. Also try some focal length simulators online; the best one I found is Nikon's .
 
I saw the new Panasonic TZ/ZS100 has 25 - 250mm in 35mm equiv and optical zoom is 10 x. Does the manufacturer have to disclose both of 35mm equiv and optical zoom or disclosing either of two can know another number?

If given either one of two such as optical zoom 10 x, can we know the 35 mm equiv must be 25-250mm? If so, can you explain why the 35mm equlv must be 25-250 mm by given an optical zoom 10 x or vice versa in a specific camera with a specific sensor size (TZ/ZS100 has 1 inch sensor)? Thank you for your answer.
Haven't read the other replies. I see some good names, so I expect it's been answered. But...

This is a problem with Marketing Socket Heads who don't have a clue. They invented the terrible idea of "equivalent" focal lengths. Gaggg... It has caused SO much trouble.

What they should have done was specify the Field of View. There are several ways to do it:
  • Angular Degrees [I prefer the horizontal angle of view but some prefer the diagonal]
  • Width of scene at 1000 meters [this is what is done w/ binoculars]
  • Solid Angle in Steradians [this takes into account the aspect ratio]
I hope you're volunteering to man the phones at the call center or answer the e-mails ;-) People can't put together 2 sentences on the interwebs and you expect them to understand angular degrees and steradians?
I understand that modern kids have not been well educated in technical matters. Sad, but true. I'll limit my involvement to helping out here on DPR.

I prefer the 2nd one. My contention is that if it works on a pair of binoculars, it will work on a camera lens.
I guarantee most people don't understand width at 1000 meters either; they only look at the mag factor on binoculars.
Nah. The typical "7X35" rating doesn't specify the Field-of-View! If you look at several different "7X35" binoculars, you will find FoV values from 400 at 1000 to 500 at 1000 [it doesn't matter what the units are! feet, inches, meters, miles...] Every pair of binoculars I have seen has BOTH a "7X35" and a "xxx at 1000" rating. They specify 3 DIFFERENT things:
  • Magnification
  • Diameter of front element
  • Field-of-View
"xxx at 1000" is so simple, even modern kids can understand it. Bless their little pea-picking hearts...
There are a lot of things I disagree with regarding how cameras are marketed - the sensor size standards are ridiculous; 1/2.5" doesn't mean anything to anyone outside of the industry. But I think putting the focal length on a common frame of reference isn't a bad way to go. Of course it's not actually a 25-250mm lens, but it gives the prospective buyer a frame of reference they can relate to. You have to call up a diagram and charts to show the difference between a 1/2.5" and 1" sensor to the uninitiated.
My concern is that BOTH those conventions confuse new owners.
The Panasonic TZ100 has a lens that zooms from 9.1mm to 91mm. It is NOT a 25-250mm lens.

You are correct that Panasonic in describing it as 25-250mm equivalent lens and a 10X zoom lens is being redundant. Marketing Socket Heads are like that. They believe that their customers are as clueless as they are; they are just covering all bases.
Unfortunately many people are. I wouldn't say most, but enough that marketing needs to account for it. If you just say it's a 10x zoom starting at 25mm equivalent people will ask what that means.
I don't dispel the concern that regardless of how you try to specify lens/camera parameters, people who are not knowledgeable will ask questions. That I think is normal and good. I just want a better answer. I'm tired of telling them that Marketing is to blame and then sending them to one of the many lengthy explanations of how we got in this pickle.
But just knowing that it has a 10X zoom doesn't tell you if the lens starts at 9.1mm or 12mm or 17mm!
This is true, and that's why they need to give both.
BUT, as this thread illustrates, the OP was confused by the obvious redundancy. Thus my continual call for a different way to classify lenses.
 
This is a problem with Marketing Socket Heads who don't have a clue. They invented the terrible idea of "equivalent" focal lengths. Gaggg... It has caused SO much trouble.
I like the equivalent focal length descriptions. With all the different puny sensor sizes it gives you something to hang onto. Admit it: if you see a lens described as covering 25-250, you know what it's going to do.
I agree; I know. BUT, you miss the concept that not everyone is brilliant like you and me. ;-)
What they should have done was specify the Field of View. There are several ways to do it:
  • Angular Degrees [I prefer the horizontal angle of view but some prefer the diagonal]
  • Width of scene at 1000 meters [this is what is done w/ binoculars]
  • Solid Angle in Steradians [this takes into account the aspect ratio]
Now you want the hoi polloi talking steradians? I want your latest drugs. I, even I, have no idea what I would do with an 0.1 steradian lens.
Me either. BUT it is a very common measure of "solid angle", which is quite similar to FoV. I included it for thoroughness. :-)

I have always liked #2. It works on binoculars and doesn't confuse nearly as many people as the "equivalent FL" does.
The Panasonic TZ100 has a lens that zooms from 9.1mm to 91mm. It is NOT a 25-250mm lens.

You are correct that Panasonic in describing it as 25-250mm equivalent lens and a 10X zoom lens is being redundant. Marketing Socket Heads are like that. They believe that their customers are as clueless as they are; they are just covering all bases.

But just knowing that it has a 10X zoom doesn't tell you if the lens starts at 9.1mm or 12mm or 17mm!
If I were (correctly) informed that some camera or other had a 9.1mm-91mm lens I wouldn't know anything except that it had a small sensor. I would be near ecstasy if it were described as 9.1mm-91mm (25mm-250mm equivalent).
The 2nd one is indeed better.

Do you remember when we had different sizes of film cameras? There was no "equivalency" then. A Minox had a 15mm lens. A Minolta 16 had a 22mm lens. An Agfa Memo had a 50mm lens. A Kodak Medalist had a 101-105mm lens. A speed graphic had a 101mm lens.

Somehow, nobody was confused until we got to the digital era and thought we needed equivalency.
--
Leonard Migliore
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top