50mm pictures with D300

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:28:54 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
<hanks.dudley DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in <qaflj.36057$fj2.22341@edtnps82>:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter1 DeleteThis @navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:lduap3d0as605cu0i1phcrprvosmv21gem@4ax.com...

>> It actually started off with a zoom not being available.
>>
>>>You do understand the original intent of the thread, right?
>>
>> You did read the OP, right?

>Okay, now it's starting to make sense. You don't know how to read.

"Discussion" over.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: 50mm pictures with D300 

"John Navas" <spamfilter1.RemoveThis@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:mguap3t6ul2uemq1i502mj0nmp4kdc42ag@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 04:56:12 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <hanks.dudley.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in <MHelj.36056$fj2.3282@edtnps82>:
>
>>But, you are missing my point.
>>
>>You admitted, above, that the effects of a small zoom are not the same as
>>the effects produced by a bigger zoom because "they don't have the same
>>focal length. And, this is the basis of my point.
>
> What is your point?
>
>>While both lenses are different, and produce different affects, which is
>>to
>>say that the depth of field and perspective of images produced with
>>differing zooms are different, we still refer to the process of magnifying
>>the effective image area as "zooming."


The above is my point.

> Depth of field does not change with focal length -- it changes with
> focal distance. See the links in my prior message.

But, two different telephotos will likely produce differing depth of field
at the same focal length, right? Besides, find an old telephoto lens, lets
say a pre 1980's vintage, and look at the depth of field scale on the lens
as you move the focal length. Then come back and tell me that the depth of
field does not change with focal length.

>
>>So, why can we not use the term when refering to the magnification of an
>>image by physically moving closer. The depth of field and perspective may
>>be different from those produced by physically changing the focal length
>>of
>>a lens, but then, so are the effects of changing the focal lengths of any
>>two not identical "zoom" lenses.
>>
>>Right?
>
> No. If you keep subject magnification the same, depth

But, this is the crux of the matter. We don't want to keep the subject
magnification constant. We want to play with subject magnification which is
what the whole idea of this thread is about.

of field doesn't
> change. What does change with focal length is perspective, which is why
> "walking zoom" and lens zoom are different. The change in perspective
> may be desirable, or it may not.
>
Let me try this from a different angle.

Imagine for a moment that you and I are the first two opticians in the world
who think up the idea of moving one element of a multiple element lens
farther away from the other.

I say to you, "Isn't this neat? As we zoom this element farther away, the
image gets bigger!"

And, you reply, "Yeah, that's nice. But what's going to sell this baby is
what it does to perspective!"

We immediately part company, and start marketing our own version of the
lens. Who do you think will be the better sales person?


Take Care,
Dudley

Beauty isn't always in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes, it can be found
in the mind as well.
 >> Stay informed about: 50mm pictures with D300 

On Jan 22, 7:57 pm, Chris Malcolm <c... DeleteThis @holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilt... DeleteThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:22:12 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> > <hanks.dud... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in <orclj.35954$fj2.32481@edtnps82>:
> >>"Kinon O'Cann" <fu... DeleteThis @bout.it> wrote in message
> >>news:MNalj.4076$Ev6.3566@trndny07...
> >>> "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:13pa78s4h83fc1a@news.supernews.com...
> >>>> Sosumi wrote:
> >>>>> While I was waiting for my new zoom lens, I only had the 50mm left.
> >>>>> So I thought about something someone said someday: take pictures
> >>>>> without a zoomlens to learn composition.
> >>>>> So for all you boys and girls I hauled my camera around town and
> >>>>> tried to see....
> >>>>> I think there's absolutely some truth in this. You do feel that you
> >>>>> have to "create" instead of zooming.
>
> >>>> You got it!  You did good.  I love the old 50 and it is nice to be able
> >>>> to get the results you want by zooming with your feet.
>
> >>> Zooming with your feet. Spoken like a true clueless imbecile.
>
> >>> Sorry, you can change your position, but you cannot zoom, oh fattest of
> >>> asses.
>
> >>When I read unsolicited insulence such as this, I almost think that
> >>retroactive abortion can be justified.
>
> >>Some people are just too lazy to zoom with their feet.  They would rather
> >>spend money, lots of it, and let technology create their art.
> > That childish response is actually correct.  Moving with your feet is
> > *not* the same thing as zooming (changing focal length) because it
> > changes *perspective*, which zooming does not.  It's why a "dolly zoom"
> > is not the same as lens zoom alone.
>
> True, but since we often use zoom not to acquire the specific kind of
> perspective which only a specific focal length can give

This where everyone seem to get messed up. Focal length has no
effect on perspective, so "acquire the specific kind of perspective
which only a specific focal length can give" is a false statement,
because it is only subject distance that effects perspective.

> but simply to
> catch the object of interest at an image filling size, "zooming with
> the feet" is a perfectly intelligible and useful concept.

"Filling the frame" is THE important concept here, as it maximises the
use of the capture medium. "Filling the frame" can be achieved
"Zooming" OR "Getting closer", but these are mutually exclusive and
you can't combine the two and "Zoom closer".

In a nutshell, this whole argument is simply started as a technical
one based of the incorrect use of the term "Zoom" and it's kinda got
confused from there.
 >> Stay informed about: 50mm pictures with D300 

"Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2008.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
> Sosumi wrote:
>
>> While I was waiting for my new zoom lens, I only had the 50mm left.
>> So I thought about something someone said someday: take pictures
>> without a zoomlens to learn composition.
>> So for all you boys and girls I hauled my camera around town and
>> tried to see....
>> I think there's absolutely some truth in this. You do feel that you
>> have to "create" instead of zooming.
>
> You got it! You did good. I love the old 50 and it is nice to be able to
> get the results you want by zooming with your feet.

I'm a relative pup to photography. I've only been doing it for 8 years now.
So to clarify the "Zooming with your feet" thing. I read that as a
"creative analogy."

That's how it was meant, right?

Also, why do the Beatles start singing in my head whenever I read a post by
you?

:O)

Have fun,
Dave
 >> Stay informed about: 50mm pictures with D300 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: 50mm pictures with D300 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: 50mm pictures with D300 

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1.TakeThisOut@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:22:12 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <hanks.dudley.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in <orclj.35954$fj2.32481@edtnps82>:
>>"Kinon O'Cann" <fuged.TakeThisOut@bout.it> wrote in message
>>news:MNalj.4076$Ev6.3566@trndny07...
>>> "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2008.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:13pa78s4h83fc1a@news.supernews.com...
>>>> Sosumi wrote:

>>>>> While I was waiting for my new zoom lens, I only had the 50mm left.
>>>>> So I thought about something someone said someday: take pictures
>>>>> without a zoomlens to learn composition.
>>>>> So for all you boys and girls I hauled my camera around town and
>>>>> tried to see....
>>>>> I think there's absolutely some truth in this. You do feel that you
>>>>> have to "create" instead of zooming.
>>>>
>>>> You got it! You did good. I love the old 50 and it is nice to be able
>>>> to get the results you want by zooming with your feet.
>>>
>>> Zooming with your feet. Spoken like a true clueless imbecile.
>>>
>>> Sorry, you can change your position, but you cannot zoom, oh fattest of
>>> asses.
>>
>>When I read unsolicited insulence such as this, I almost think that
>>retroactive abortion can be justified.
>>
>>Some people are just too lazy to zoom with their feet. They would rather
>>spend money, lots of it, and let technology create their art.

> That childish response is actually correct. Moving with your feet is
> *not* the same thing as zooming (changing focal length) because it
> changes *perspective*, which zooming does not. It's why a "dolly zoom"
> is not the same as lens zoom alone.

True, but since we often use zoom not to acquire the specific kind of
perspective which only a specific focal length can give, but simply to
catch the object of interest at an image filling size, "zooming with
the feet" is a perfectly intelligible and useful concept.

--
Chris Malcolm cam.TakeThisOut@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 >> Stay informed about: 50mm pictures with D300 

"Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2008.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
> DaveS wrote:
>
>>> You got it! You did good. I love the old 50 and it is nice to be
>>> able to get the results you want by zooming with your feet.
>>
>> I'm a relative pup to photography. I've only been doing it for 8
>> years now. So to clarify the "Zooming with your feet" thing. I read
>> that as a "creative analogy."
>
> It's both a creative analogy as well a way to take full advantage of your
> equipment's potential while maximizing yours.
>
>> That's how it was meant, right?
>
> See above: My suggestion is to put one of your favorite prime lens on and
> go out for a day or two and see how much more you think about your shots
> and
> the fun you have doing it. If you don't have any primes just set your
> zoom
> to 35, 50, 85, or 105mm and lock it in place with some electrical tape and
> go out and have fun.

One of my recent self imposed creative chores, is to do some "classic"
photographs. I've restricted myself to 8X10 format and B&W. Maybe I'll add
the prime lens bit also. This thread did get me thinking.

>> Also, why do the Beatles start singing in my head whenever I read a
>> post by you?
>
> I'm not sure if that is a compliment but I'll take it as one.

My version... :O)

Have fun,
Dave
 >> Stay informed about: 50mm pictures with D300 

On Jan 22, 12:07 pm, "Dudley Hanks" <hanks.dud... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> >> In a nutshell, this whole argument is simply started as a technical
> >> one based of the incorrect use of the term "Zoom" and it's kinda got
> >> confused from there.
>
> > It's impossible to escape confusion if you think perspective has to do
> > with "distance to the subject".
>
> > --
> > Chris Malcolm        c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk              DoD #205
> > IPAB,  Informatics,  JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
> > [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
>
> It's interesting that, if you talk to 98% of the photographers and camera
> sales persons, they will think about "zooming" in terms of image
> magnification and not perspective.  Why else does it say "4x" or "6x" or
> "10x" on the front of most point and shoot cameras?  Is the manufacturer
> referring to a six times flattening effect of perspective as you zoom in?  I
> think not.
>
> The remaining 2% of academic photographic purists seem to be confusing the
> telephoto effect of compressing perspective as the most identifiable
> characteristic of a "zoom" lens.  True, its one characteristic, but it's
> neither the only characteristic, nor the most significant.
>
> Why is it that the 2% of academic purists must always think they are right
> and the 98% of practitioners must always be wrong?
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
>
> Beauty isn't always found in the eye of the beholder.  Sometimes, it is
> found in the mind as well.

Have you used or heard the term "hot water heater"? Why would you
need to heat water that is already hot? And yet 98% of water heater
users refer to the water heater as a "hot water heater."

I hope the power of analogy is not lost on you.
 >> Stay informed about: 50mm pictures with D300 

On Jan 22, 3:02 pm, "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
> JimKramer wrote:
> > Have you used or heard the term "hot water heater"? Why would you
> > need to heat water that is already hot? And yet 98% of water heater
> > users refer to the water heater as a "hot water heater."
>
> Wrong! Depending on the application it can be called a booster heater or
> tempering tank. Some commercial applications need to boost standard
> 120º-140º hot water to 180º for safety and sanitary reasons. Nothing beats
> a kick-ass 480V three-phase booster heater!
>
> Rita

Got one of those in your house? Delta or Y configuration for the
elements? What other 3-phase devices do you have installed at home?
What are you washing that needs to be sanitized so? Hmm... Got a
picture? No, never mind.

Typically, I've seen a tempering valve used with a commercial water
heater to supply domestic hot water if a stand alone domestic water
heater was not warranted, i.e. a restaurant setting, but not a school
with a cafeteria.

I suspect you should look up what a tempering tank really is and then
I will let you use the term "tepid water heater" when referring to the
water heater when installed in such situations.

I always find it interesting to see what people actual do and don't
know.

Pleasant wishes,
Jim
 >> Stay informed about: 50mm pictures with D300 

On Jan 23, 2:43 am, Chris Malcolm <c....TakeThisOut@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems PixelPix <m....TakeThisOut@pixelpix.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 22, 7:57?pm, Chris Malcolm <c....TakeThisOut@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilt....TakeThisOut@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:22:12 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> >> > <hanks.dud....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in <orclj.35954$fj2.32481@edtnps82>:
> >> >>"Kinon O'Cann" <fu....TakeThisOut@bout.it> wrote in message
> >> >>news:MNalj.4076$Ev6.3566@trndny07...
> >> >>> "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> >>>news:13pa78s4h83fc1a@news.supernews.com...
> >> >>>> Sosumi wrote:
> >> >>>>> While I was waiting for my new zoom lens, I only had the 50mm left.
> >> >>>>> So I thought about something someone said someday: take pictures
> >> >>>>> without a zoomlens to learn composition.
> >> >>>>> So for all you boys and girls I hauled my camera around town and
> >> >>>>> tried to see....
> >> >>>>> I think there's absolutely some truth in this. You do feel that you
> >> >>>>> have to "create" instead of zooming.
>
> >> >>>> You got it! ?You did good. ?I love the old 50 and it is nice to be able
> >> >>>> to get the results you want by zooming with your feet.
>
> >> >>> Zooming with your feet. Spoken like a true clueless imbecile.
>
> >> >>> Sorry, you can change your position, but you cannot zoom, oh fattest of
> >> >>> asses.
>
> >> >>When I read unsolicited insulence such as this, I almost think that
> >> >>retroactive abortion can be justified.
>
> >> >>Some people are just too lazy to zoom with their feet. ?They would rather
> >> >>spend money, lots of it, and let technology create their art.
> >> > That childish response is actually correct. ?Moving with your feet is
> >> > *not* the same thing as zooming (changing focal length) because it
> >> > changes *perspective*, which zooming does not. ?It's why a "dolly zoom"
> >> > is not the same as lens zoom alone.
>
> >> True, but since we often use zoom not to acquire the specific kind of
> >> perspective which only a specific focal length can give
> > This where everyone seem to get messed up.   Focal length has no
> > effect on perspective, so "acquire the specific kind of perspective
> > which only a specific focal length can give" is a false statement,
> > because it is only subject distance that effects perspective.
>
> What is the "distance to the subject" in the case of a landscape
> photograph ranging from near foreground to distant horizon? Is the
> subject the person leaning against a tree six feet from the camera,
> or the full moon rising over the horizon, some quarter of a million
> miles away?

The subject is everything or anything within your picture and the
perspective is how they relate to each other..... this relationship is
governed by where you place you camera. As soon as you move it, the
relationship changes.


>
> The impossibility of answering such questions, plus the theory of
> perspective projection in images which began with the painters and
> geometers of the Renaissance, is the reason many of us consider that
> perspective is a property of the entire image, not just "the subject",
> and certainly not "distance to the subject".
>
> > In a nutshell, this whole argument is simply started as a technical
> > one based of the incorrect use of the term "Zoom" and it's kinda got
> > confused from there.
>
> It's impossible to escape confusion if you think perspective has to do
> with "distance to the subject".

See above
 >> Stay informed about: 50mm pictures with D300 

On Jan 23, 3:07 am, "Dudley Hanks" <hanks.dud... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> >> In a nutshell, this whole argument is simply started as a technical
> >> one based of the incorrect use of the term "Zoom" and it's kinda got
> >> confused from there.
>
> > It's impossible to escape confusion if you think perspective has to do
> > with "distance to the subject".
>
> > --
> > Chris Malcolm        c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk              DoD #205
> > IPAB,  Informatics,  JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
> > [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
>
> It's interesting that, if you talk to 98% of the photographers and camera
> sales persons, they will think about "zooming" in terms of image
> magnification and not perspective.

That's because zooming has nothing to do with perspective.
(personally I think of it in terms of FOV)


>  Why else does it say "4x" or "6x" or
> "10x" on the front of most point and shoot cameras?  Is the manufacturer
> referring to a six times flattening effect of perspective as you zoom in?  I
> think not.

There is no flattening effect, perspective does not change (see
above). Take a photo with a 28mm.... from the same camera position
now take a section of that original photo using a 300mm. Print the
300mm..... now print the 28mm at a size that will overlay the 300mm.
What happens? They match perfectly!


>
> The remaining 2% of academic photographic purists seem to be confusing the
> telephoto effect of compressing perspective as the most identifiable
> characteristic of a "zoom" lens.  True, its one characteristic, but it's
> neither the only characteristic, nor the most significant.

No the "academic purists" don't think that at all.... see above.
 >> Stay informed about: 50mm pictures with D300 

"DaveS" <3crows.TakeThisOut@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13pbcf0dsvhd7da@corp.supernews.com...
> "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2008.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
>> Sosumi wrote:
>>
>>> While I was waiting for my new zoom lens, I only had the 50mm left.
>>> So I thought about something someone said someday: take pictures
>>> without a zoomlens to learn composition.
>>> So for all you boys and girls I hauled my camera around town and
>>> tried to see....
>>> I think there's absolutely some truth in this. You do feel that you
>>> have to "create" instead of zooming.
>>
>> You got it! You did good. I love the old 50 and it is nice to be able
>> to get the results you want by zooming with your feet.
>
> I'm a relative pup to photography. I've only been doing it for 8 years
> now. So to clarify the "Zooming with your feet" thing. I read that as a
> "creative analogy."
>
> That's how it was meant, right?
>
> Also, why do the Beatles start singing in my head whenever I read a post
> by you?
>
> :O)
>
> Have fun,
> Dave
The analogy came across crystal clear. And, I think that the 50mm challenge
is a great one.

Perhaps everyone on the group should take a few shots with that sorely
neglected portal and post it somewhere. Subscribers to the group could
choose the best one.

Albeit, virtual accalaides just don't have the same effect as a big cheque.

Take Care,
Dudley
 >> Stay informed about: 50mm pictures with D300