ArizonaHikers Portal Index
HomeHome   BoardBoard   AZH GearAZH Gear  FAQFAQ  RulesRules   SearchSearch
MemberlistMembers  ArticlesArticles  CalendarCalendar  GalleryGallery  LinksLinks      RegisterRegister
ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messages   Log inLog in
Digital Cameras
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ArizonaHikers - Community Based Hiking Discussion Board Forum Index -> Equipment & Gear Email to a Friend
  View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
IGO





Joined: 08 Feb 2005
Posts: 4144
Location: Las Vegas

PostPosted: 7/4/2007, 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply to topic Reply with quote

How does a 15MM digital compare to film cameras 15MM ratio wise?
_________________
"Surely all God's people, however serious or savage, great or small, like to play. Whales and elephants, dancing, humming gnats, and invisibly small mischievous microbes - all are warm with divine radium and must have lots of fun in them." John Muir
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Matt Hoffman





Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 701
Location: Grantham, NH

PostPosted: 7/4/2007, 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply to topic Reply with quote

What is "15MM"? 15 millimeters?
_________________
"Your day-glo ballet days are over." Ancient chinese proverb.
http://web.mac.com/climbingsponge/Matt_Hoffman_Images/Welcome.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
IGO





Joined: 08 Feb 2005
Posts: 4144
Location: Las Vegas

PostPosted: 7/4/2007, 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply to topic Reply with quote

Poollleeaaasssee! Razz
I was asking the comparative difference between the relatively small pickup of a digital SLR camera's sensor as to the full frame of 35MM film. My digital 18MM is comparable to a 35's 24MM fish eye when image "X" is compressed into the aproximate 2/3 the size digital sensor.
_________________
"Surely all God's people, however serious or savage, great or small, like to play. Whales and elephants, dancing, humming gnats, and invisibly small mischievous microbes - all are warm with divine radium and must have lots of fun in them." John Muir
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Davis2001R6





Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Posts: 5591
Location: Italy

PostPosted: 7/4/2007, 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply to topic Reply with quote

I just started looking at some fish eye's online. Nobody in town (that I know of) stocks any of that stuff. The is some stuff thats compatible with my new S3is I bought. Still new at this stuff though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Matt Hoffman





Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 701
Location: Grantham, NH

PostPosted: 7/5/2007, 7:10 am    Post subject: Reply to topic Reply with quote

IGO wrote:
Poollleeaaasssee! Razz
I was asking the comparative difference between the relatively small pickup of a digital SLR camera's sensor as to the full frame of 35MM film. My digital 18MM is comparable to a 35's 24MM fish eye when image "X" is compressed into the aproximate 2/3 the size digital sensor.


That's what I thought. I was asking because I've never seen millimeters abbreviated with capital letters before. I guess I'm nitpicking.
Anyway, the answer to your question (if I'm reading it correctly) would be about 10mm.
_________________
"Your day-glo ballet days are over." Ancient chinese proverb.
http://web.mac.com/climbingsponge/Matt_Hoffman_Images/Welcome.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
IGO





Joined: 08 Feb 2005
Posts: 4144
Location: Las Vegas

PostPosted: 7/5/2007, 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply to topic Reply with quote

That's not fish-eye, that's worm hole.
Cool. I'll be watching to see what she can do with it.
_________________
"Surely all God's people, however serious or savage, great or small, like to play. Whales and elephants, dancing, humming gnats, and invisibly small mischievous microbes - all are warm with divine radium and must have lots of fun in them." John Muir
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
BoyNhisDog
The dangerous place where the winds meet




Joined: 05 Jan 2003
Posts: 1375
Location: Tucson

PostPosted: 7/5/2007, 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply to topic Reply with quote

I have seen work from the the 15mm fisheyes. It is a very specialized lens, can be very dramatic but you will have heavy distortion with this one. Straight lines will bend and bow near the edges of the frame. You can work with that in post processing software. I think PT lens will do it. On Letty's Canon with its 1.6x crop factor, it should see the same field of view as a 24mm lens on a full field 35mm film camera. At least with a rectilinear lens that is the case so I am thinking a fisheye will follow? I haven't used one so don't really know. Since it is fisheye might it still see 180 degrees? They work a bit different than rectilinears do.

My favorite, no, essential lens is my Canon 10mm-22mm. It works out to 16-35mm on a 35mm film camera as far as field of view goes. I work at 10mm a lot of the time. The beauty of this rectilinear lens is the very, very low distortion and how easy it is to fully correct it in post. It is a landscape dream. I stopped carrying anything else.
_________________
Seize from every moment its unique novelty and do not prepare your joys
- Andre Gide
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
IGO





Joined: 08 Feb 2005
Posts: 4144
Location: Las Vegas

PostPosted: 7/5/2007, 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply to topic Reply with quote

I've got so many prime lenses, 1970s and early 1980s Pentex glass and the idea of buying the Pentex dSLR was to use these lenses but I never have sense switching. I'm so hung up on panoramic when I spend so much time playing around with stuff 3 feet away. I really need to re-think my aproach to photography. I have the gear and the know how, I just move around to much.
I love your deep field images. I expect I should look try some on my wider lenses instead of the 2 cheap (but hugely versitile) lenses I always use. I have great 18 and 24 primes....never been on this new camera.
Oh, my 18-55 minics a 24 on the *ist DS wide open.
Ya know, I bet I have over a dozen lenses. All of which are better glass then the kit lenses I bought with this camera. I wonder why Pentex stopped making good glass. The camera is a marvel.
_________________
"Surely all God's people, however serious or savage, great or small, like to play. Whales and elephants, dancing, humming gnats, and invisibly small mischievous microbes - all are warm with divine radium and must have lots of fun in them." John Muir
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
BoyNhisDog
The dangerous place where the winds meet




Joined: 05 Jan 2003
Posts: 1375
Location: Tucson

PostPosted: 7/5/2007, 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply to topic Reply with quote

I don't know about Pentax DSLR lens offerings but the Canon Kit lens (18-55) is poor. I think a lot of the kit lenses are, sort of an inexpensive lens to get started. Anyway, 18 is not wide enough, you need to get down to 10, 11 or 12mm and even then 10mm is 20% wider than 12mm. Now that they have computers designing the lenses and real good glass, the short zooms are incredible. The 10-22 will focus down to 10", maybe a bit less, and with the right hyperfocal solution, a focus point at 2.5', everything from 1.25' to infinity will be in sharp focus at f/7.1.

Doesn't Pentax make an 11mm to something specifically for DSLRs? That would go on the *ist and take you to a whole new landscape level. There is an art to using superwide but once you get the composition and handling issues down, you might go out with just that one lens.
_________________
Seize from every moment its unique novelty and do not prepare your joys
- Andre Gide
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Davis2001R6





Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Posts: 5591
Location: Italy

PostPosted: 7/5/2007, 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply to topic Reply with quote

Since my S3 has a range of 36-432mm, 36mm is not all that wide as I'm sure you know. I keep looking at the "fisheye" type stuff. with either a .22 wide angle adapter or .45, giving me about a 8mm or 16mm if I understand it right. Do you think I should try out the .22x adapter for landscapes or will that be overkill?

Along the same note, what about the 2.2 or 3x teleconverters that are available for it as well. I love the 12x zoom it has, but sure would be cool to play around with something bigger once in a while. I can't imagine what 900+mm would look like, good thing it has the IS.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
IGO





Joined: 08 Feb 2005
Posts: 4144
Location: Las Vegas

PostPosted: 7/5/2007, 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply to topic Reply with quote

Tim, alot of what we've been talking about is the difference between dedicated prime lenses and kit lenses. Things like teleconverters add to much glass and slow lenses way down making them near inpossible to use and more impossible to get clear images from. Prime fish eye lenses do nothing but one focal length fish eye and all the science that can go into a dedicated optic do.
He's telling me I use a great camera body but sacrifice image quality for diversity. I've really got to get out my real lenses.
I can't tell you anything about wide angle adaptors. I've never used one.
_________________
"Surely all God's people, however serious or savage, great or small, like to play. Whales and elephants, dancing, humming gnats, and invisibly small mischievous microbes - all are warm with divine radium and must have lots of fun in them." John Muir
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
RedRoxx44
Queen of the Walkabout




Joined: 15 Jan 2004
Posts: 1167

PostPosted: 7/6/2007, 4:38 am    Post subject: Reply to topic Reply with quote

The fish eye is just for fun, doubt it will be a lens I use just a whole lot, but I think I can do some strange stuff with it. Cropping may make it usable for some landscape stuff.
Looking at the 10mm-22mm as well. Just maybe----

Scored the Olympus bang proof, waterproof camera for all of 40 bucks. Another caver bought the camera for his wife, she didn't like it. I was just kidding around and said I'd give him 40 for it, and he took it!! It's like brand new and I've taken a few pics with it, ok for a tiny point and shoot.

And Fujifilm has a nice small camera that is good in low light and has some pretty good reviews for sharp, colorful pictures courtesy of it's sixth generation large CCD sensor. Technology keeps moving right along----

I'll schlep a dSLR for backpacks and hikes where it's going to be spectacular scenery. For caving or canyoneering--forget it, light, sturdy and if it gets destroyed, you aren't crying about it.
_________________
You can rest when you're dead
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
IGO





Joined: 08 Feb 2005
Posts: 4144
Location: Las Vegas

PostPosted: 7/6/2007, 5:53 am    Post subject: Reply to topic Reply with quote

What dSLR do you use?
_________________
"Surely all God's people, however serious or savage, great or small, like to play. Whales and elephants, dancing, humming gnats, and invisibly small mischievous microbes - all are warm with divine radium and must have lots of fun in them." John Muir
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
RedRoxx44
Queen of the Walkabout




Joined: 15 Jan 2004
Posts: 1167

PostPosted: 7/6/2007, 6:39 am    Post subject: Reply to topic Reply with quote

I use the Canon digital Rebel XT, have a whole host of lenses courtesy of my past Canon film cameras. Have a 17-40mm L lens that I like. I've taken some fair shots with the 18-55 kit lens but it sure is flimsy and has some dust particles in it I can't get out.
I have also inherited an Olympus E-Volt 500 with two kit lenses, one a 14-55mm. Took some shots with it in Utah, it's ok, funny color saturation on the program mode I couldn't seem to change, had to go to custom mode to get any decent shots out of it. Will be an ok back up camera.

Will upgrade glass on the Canon as I can. But don't know how much it'll do me since I am still so much a point and shooter.
_________________
You can rest when you're dead
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Matt Hoffman





Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 701
Location: Grantham, NH

PostPosted: 7/6/2007, 7:14 am    Post subject: Reply to topic Reply with quote

IGO wrote:
Things like teleconverters add to much glass and slow lenses way down making them near inpossible to use and more impossible to get clear images from.


That's not true. I suppose if you needed to use a teleconverter, and you were serious about getting the shot, you'd use a tripod and lock the mirror up.
_________________
"Your day-glo ballet days are over." Ancient chinese proverb.
http://web.mac.com/climbingsponge/Matt_Hoffman_Images/Welcome.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ArizonaHikers - Community Based Hiking Discussion Board Forum Index -> Equipment & Gear All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum