Is Zooming the same as getting closer?

[Roger Krueger]

As mentioned in the threads above, getting closer will alter the
perspective of the shot (in other words, the spatial relationship
between near and far objects) whereas zooming does not.

Which of course totally discredits the concept of "getting closer by zooming" as often advocated by zoom lens devotees

When you zoom with
your feet, you end up with a completely different shot than if
you'd zoomed with your lens.

Yup

 

[PhotoTom]

In fact, if instead of zooming in and not moving (changing focal
length), you cropped the picture, you would get the same
"compresson" effect. In this regard, changing focal lengths is more
like cropping, not being closer.

Would it be correct to say that zooming in (using a longer focal length) is essentially the same as cropping, but while still maintaining resolution?

--
Tom

 

[gwprovost]

no text

 

[gwprovost]

Would it be correct to say that zooming in (using a longer focal
length) is essentially the same as cropping

Yes, if you're talking about zooming from the same position.

 

[PhotoTom]

I agree that in these limited
cases it makes no real difference whether you zoom with your feet
or zoom with the lens (although you DO still end up with different
shots).

No, there is a "real difference" because in these instances zooming
with your feet is preferred as it gives a better image. The fact
that it is "different" compositionally is, in these instances,
meaningless.

I'm in total agreement that using a longer lens is considerably different than moving physically closer, but I'm not sure why "zooming with your feet" would necessarily bring about a better image. What would be better (or worse for that matter) about it?

--
Tom

 

[PhotoTom]

Would it be correct to say that zooming in (using a longer focal
length) is essentially the same as cropping

Yes, if you're talking about zooming from the same position.

Indeed, I was, and should have stipulated. Missing words can allow for the reader's mind to attach their own limitations to a statement.

--
Tom

 

[Steve H]

Which of course totally discredits the concept of "getting closer
by zooming" as often advocated by zoom lens devotees

I don't recall making that statement FWIW, I have four primes and two zooms, so whilst I'm not exactly in Petteri's league, I'm more a prime than a zoom devotee. But your point is well taken - even if preaching to the converted

Steve H
--

 

[Steve H]

Would it be correct to say that zooming in (using a longer focal
length) is essentially the same as cropping, but while still
maintaining resolution?

It would indeed

Steve H
--

 

[Elan Remford]

I think I can even go one better on these.

Perspective and "compression" are SOLELY products of the distance between subject and sensor, REGARDLESS of, and having absolutely nothing to do with, focal length. Period.

Zooming fills a greater portion of the frame with a given subject by changing the focal length and has absolutely NO effect upon perspective or "compression" whatsoever. Period.

Happy New Year back atcha.

Perspective and "compression" are SOLELY a product of distance
between subject and sensor, REGARDLESS of focal length. Period.

Zooming fills a greater portion of the frame with a given subject.
Period.

All of the links, references, and treatises in the world won't make
those two irrefutable facts any different.

Amen

Happy New Year.

Happy New Year!

 

[gwprovost]

I think I can even go one better on these.

Perspective and "compression" are SOLELY products of the distance
between subject and sensor, REGARDLESS of, and having absolutely
nothing to do with, focal length. Period.

Zooming fills a greater portion of the frame with a given subject
by changing the focal length and has absolutely NO effect upon
perspective or "compression" whatsoever. Period.

That's so clear and simple (and correct) that now you run the risk of being called offensive and/or impolite (but don't let that stop you).

You might enjoy this demonstration of compression by moving only the camera;

Regards,
Gene

 

[gwprovost]

Agreed, and I wish more posters would show the same attitude as you
do, i.e. not being offensive and impolite.

Konstantinos original post was confusing and inaccurate (which he now apologetically admits) and there's nothing impolite about pointing that out.

I think the OP can deduce what applies to him/her...

He might deduce from looking around that the Earth is flat, but that doesn't make it correct.

Moving closer to a subject and using a wider angle will make the
background relatively smaller and further away. Using a longer
focal length lens will make the background look larger and much
closer to the subject. But why don't you just try it? Go outside,
make a photo of a car at the widest angle you can manage and ensure
that the car (or bench in the park, or whatever) fills about half
the viewfinder. Then walk away, and take a shot where the car seems
to be the same size, but this time at the long focal length side of
your lens.

You have a talent for stating the obvious, but none of that has anything to do with the OP saying "Zooming in gives you more "compressed" image" and "Moving towards the subject maintains the amount of compression." Both those statements are flatly wrong and if saying that somehow violates your tender sensitivities then perhaps you should find a more touchy/feely forum where accuracy matters less than perceived slights.

 

[konstantinos_d]

I believe what people want is to understand the subject and see the arguments that prove the stated opinions. I understand that some arguments are so obvious to some people that others' ignorance becomes unfuriating (hence the offensive and impolite posts). I found the explanations I wanted (not thanks to dogmatic posts but here : http://scubageek.com/articles/compression.pdf ) and admited my mistake. Nothing can be gained by attacking a poster, on the other hand explaining and proving (even the obvious) makes all the difference.

--
Canon 350D
Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro
Canon EF 100-300 f/5.6 L
Canon EF-S 18-55mm

http://www.flickr.com/photos/konstantinos_delta/

 

[gwprovost]

I believe what people want is to understand the subject and see the
arguments that prove the stated opinions.

That's why your many errors weren't allowed to stand uncorrected.

I understand that some arguments are so obvious to some people
that others' ignorance becomes unfuriating

Don't worry, your ignorance on this matter is quite common and not infuriating at all.

I... admited my mistake.

Apology accepted.

 

[konstantinos_d]

My flase statements were corrected but not explained as to why they were false, that was my point. Furthermore, as with most things in life, communicating (even in a protected environment like this one) is partly a matter of style. In my opinion the style (and not the content) of your answers simply lacked the tact and politeness necessary to make a constructive argument. My admited ignorance on the subject was corrected, not thanks to your posts.

--
Canon 350D
Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro
Canon EF 100-300 f/5.6 L
Canon EF-S 18-55mm

http://www.flickr.com/photos/konstantinos_delta/

 

[Lee Jay]

No. Whenever you change your position - closer or further - you
change the perspective. When you zoom you change your FoV, not the
perspective.

Well done. I'll add that both zooming and changing position both usually change the depth-of-field as well as the FOV (or AOV) and/or perspective.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[realtrance]

In any event: bottom line, you can use your pocketbook, and buy a zoom to change your apparent distance from your subject without having to move your feet; or, you can use a prime lens, and use your feet to change your distance. Same thing, except in the latter case, you get some exercise, and potentially save some money!

I think it's these last two points that are so upsetting and the source of the confusion.

So far, air is free, but I suspect the demons of commerce will change that in my lifetime as well.

Happy New Year!

 

[Steve H]

In any event: bottom line, you can use your pocketbook, and buy a
zoom to change your apparent distance from your subject without
having to move your feet; or, you can use a prime lens, and use
your feet to change your distance. Same thing, except in the
latter case, you get some exercise, and potentially save some money...

and get a completely different shot.

I think it's these last two points that are so upsetting and the
source of the confusion....

which obviously hasn't yet been resolved, despite the numerous explanatory posts in this thread.

So far, air is free, but I suspect the demons of commerce will
change that in my lifetime as well.

Let's hope not.

Steve H
--

 

[carlk]

There is no problem with your posts. You have an open attitude and are eager to learn. We all went through the learning process. No one was born with all the knowledge.

I believe you apologized for your wrong statements but not to those abrasive responses. That’s the correct way to respond. Actually we learned something from you too.

I believe what people want is to understand the subject and see the
arguments that prove the stated opinions. I understand that some
arguments are so obvious to some people that others' ignorance
becomes unfuriating (hence the offensive and impolite posts). I
found the explanations I wanted (not thanks to dogmatic posts but
here : http://scubageek.com/articles/compression.pdf ) and admited
my mistake. Nothing can be gained by attacking a poster, on the
other hand explaining and proving (even the obvious) makes all the
difference.

--
Canon 350D
Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro
Canon EF 100-300 f/5.6 L
Canon EF-S 18-55mm

http://www.flickr.com/photos/konstantinos_delta/

 

[amtberg]

I just did this quick animation to simulate the effect of zooming in from 50mm to 275mm, while moving the camera back to maintain the same view of the subject.

http://www.3danvil.com/ZoomEffect00.html

Here's a view from an external camera so you can see what's going on.

http://www.3danvil.com//ZoomEffect_editor.html

As you can see, there's a marked effect in terms of perspective distortion and also in terms of how much of the background is visible. There was no attempt to simulate changes in depth of field.

 

[gwprovost]

My flase statements were corrected but not explained as to why they
were false...

When some adult claims the Earth is flat, I don't bother to explain why that statement is false. You weren't asking, you were telling.

...that was my point.

Your "point" has become a continuing litany of whining complaints about style.

Furthermore, as with most things in life, communicating (even
in a protected environment like this one) is partly a matter of style.

There you go again

In my opinion the style...

And again

...tact and politeness...

And again

...necessary to make a constructive argument.

Argument? What's to argue? I made a simple statement of objective fact. Steve and I had a polite "argument" over the relative merits of zooming with one's feet versus zooming with one's lens. That's a subjective matter with room for give and take about various opinions. In your case, you made factual errors which I corrected and now you want to "argue" about your "opinion" of the "style" of my response. Get over it. Better yet, learn to avoid lecturing about objective matters you don't understand.

My admited ignorance on the subject was corrected...

If you had looked it up before, rather than after, posting your confusing and error-filled lecture we wouldn't be going through this and you wouldn't still be whining about having embarrassed yourself.

...not thanks to your posts.

No thanks are necessary. Exposing, penetrating and correcting the likes of what you call your ignorance is a tough job, but occasionally I'm able to do it for the sake of the diminishing few on this forum who are genuinely open-minded, inquisitive, and interested in learning the truth.