Reply to: Prezzie ideas for brother's 60th birthday

[Paddy]

Thanks... I’m not sure I can do an analogy for macro.

OK, so the reason why smaller can be better for macro and telephoto is because of the crop factor.
If you have the same number of pixels on a smaller sensor as on a big one, then the resultant image using the same lens will be “zoomed in” on the smaller sensor.
So a 100mm lens on a full frame camera (e.g. Canon 5D) will produce an image of size X.
If you put the same lens on a smaller sensor camera (e.g. Canon 7D which has a crop factor of 1.6), the image will be 1.6X bigger.
The lens will be acting like a 160mm one.
You appear to get in closer.

There is also the depth of field factor, basically the larger the format then the less depth of field but more depth of focus.
the smaller the format then the greater depth of field but less depth of focus hence better suited to macro.

Depth of field vs depth of focus Depth of focus - Wikipedia

[WTFH]

Again some wonderful analogies.

Why is the smaller sensor better for Macro and Telephoto? I don't understand that bit.

Thanks... I’m not sure I can do an analogy for macro.

OK, so the reason why smaller can be better for macro and telephoto is because of the crop factor.
If you have the same number of pixels on a smaller sensor as on a big one, then the resultant image using the same lens will be “zoomed in” on the smaller sensor.
So a 100mm lens on a full frame camera (e.g. Canon 5D) will produce an image of size X.
If you put the same lens on a smaller sensor camera (e.g. Canon 7D which has a crop factor of 1.6), the image will be 1.6X bigger.
The lens will be acting like a 160mm one.
You appear to get in closer.

[clearedforlanding]

And now we go on to sensor size.

Sensor size is like engine size - generally bigger is better, but with caveats.
And when I say "size" I mean dimensions, not the number of pixels.

Let's deal with the caveats first: in good conditions, a smaller sensor lets you get in closer - both for macro (close in small things) and telephoto (far away things) work. And in good conditions, a smaller sensor is perfectly adequate.
In the car analogy, that's the same as saying a 1 litre engine is perfectly capable of getting most cars up to the speed limit, and that's all anyone really needs.

So why would anyone want a bigger sensor (since they are a lot more expensive to make)?
Simple - a bigger sensor can capture more light. It can capture more detail. It can cope better with sub-optimal conditions.
a 2.9l V6 will get you up to the speed limit a lot faster than a 1l. And the bigger engine won't be anywhere near its limit when it gets there. A 5l will barely be ticking over.

And now we look at number of pixels. This is the power of the engine.
A pixel in a camera sensor is a photosensitive element. The bigger the element, the more light it can capture, and the more accurately it can capture that light.
Now, you can take a 1l engine and slap a couple of turbos on it to get the power up. And it will do the job, although it might not have the torque to pull a fully loaded car. Or you can have a bigger engine which can have more power easily, and more torque.
What's better - 200bhp from a 1l engine or 200bhp from a 2l engine?

Again some wonderful analogies.

Why is the smaller sensor better for Macro and Telephoto? I don't understand that bit.

[WTFH]

Superbly explained thanks.

And now we go on to sensor size.

Sensor size is like engine size - generally bigger is better, but with caveats.
And when I say "size" I mean dimensions, not the number of pixels.

Let's deal with the caveats first: in good conditions, a smaller sensor lets you get in closer - both for macro (close in small things) and telephoto (far away things) work. And in good conditions, a smaller sensor is perfectly adequate.
In the car analogy, that's the same as saying a 1 litre engine is perfectly capable of getting most cars up to the speed limit, and that's all anyone really needs.

So why would anyone want a bigger sensor (since they are a lot more expensive to make)?
Simple - a bigger sensor can capture more light. It can capture more detail. It can cope better with sub-optimal conditions.
a 2.9l V6 will get you up to the speed limit a lot faster than a 1l. And the bigger engine won't be anywhere near its limit when it gets there. A 5l will barely be ticking over.

And now we look at number of pixels. This is the power of the engine.
A pixel in a camera sensor is a photosensitive element. The bigger the element, the more light it can capture, and the more accurately it can capture that light.
Now, you can take a 1l engine and slap a couple of turbos on it to get the power up. And it will do the job, although it might not have the torque to pull a fully loaded car. Or you can have a bigger engine which can have more power easily, and more torque.
What's better - 200bhp from a 1l engine or 200bhp from a 2l engine?

[BR14]

Is that like a second coming?

yes, only twice as good.

[Zigenare]

https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ml#post2668758

I got some for my forth coming birthday.

Is that like a second coming?

[BrilloPad]

https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ml#post2668758

I got some for my forth coming birthday.

[WTFH]

Superbly explained thanks.

Wait till you get on to my explanation of sensor size!

[clearedforlanding]

OK, let's say you have a lens which has a diameter of 100mm (and in the case of this camera, it's probably closer to 25mm)
In simplest terms:
At the widest angle, all 100mm of the lens is used to bring in light, for the autofocus to work through and to get the image onto the sensor.
When we zoom in to 40x, then instead of 100mm diameter, only 2.5mm of the lens is used.

Now let's talk about lens manufacture. You need a bit of "glass" that is shaped to be able to focus an image - and in a camera lens it's several pieces of glass. In professional lenses, different materials are used, such as fluorite, rather than normal glass. This leads to a sharper image. You also tend to get shorter zoom lenses in pro gear - maybe up to 4x, because the quality of each lens element needs to be good enough to produce the same size image on a sensor whether the full lens is used to capture it, or only part of the lens.


I could get even more boringly technical on it, but let's take an analogy that you might understand...
1 lens that covers a massive zoom range is like having a petrol engined car with 1 gear. It has to be able to work at low revs to get you moving and in traffic, but it also needs to get up to the speed limit, so it's got to work at very high revs too, just as well.
With an interchangeable lens camera, you get to change gear. You want slow, low speed, use that lens/gear. You want to sit at 100? Don't be in first gear.

Superbly explained thanks.

[Mordac]

And/or by him the DNA kit. Mine from fathers day has just gone.

Great idea though. It's one of the few website that has truly astounded me.

Are you fully prepared for the shock as to from what you are actually descended? Don't worry about us, we sort of know already...

[Mordac]

An EU passport post Oct 30th.

You're clearly not bothered enough to check the bona-fides of prospective immigrants. Fair play though, they obviously let you in with no questions asked...

[Paddy]

A zimmer frame and some wurthers original.

A holder for his free bus pass.

[clearedforlanding]

Get him a trial flying lesson.
I often take people up in the air for free - I don't charge until they tell me they want to land.

Ever go to EGSM (Beccles)?

[WTFH]

Tricky this. Firstly it's a bridge camera. These are (these days) aimed a people who have the 'photo bug' via their ever present phones,but sometimes wish they had some thing 'better' for trips out, relatives weddings etc. The 'zoom' capacity is a marketing point. Even the mighty iphone only has a single element so zoom capacity is limited (to 10X IIRC) by the digital zoom available, the Nikon (other bridge cameras are available) has optical elements that actually bend the light, although I take your point that 40X does sound far fetched and you would have to stop it down a lot to get even 20X decently. The lens, however, is orders of magnitude larger than the phone lens so it's light collecting capacity is far greater (is this one of those inverse square laws?) and for the same shot produce far better results. If you've seen some of the efforts people post up from their cameras you'll know how low the bar is in terms of fidelity that's acceptable. If the gift encourages a budding David Bailey then they will explore what's possible via their own purse.

I hope he likes it and takes it out often.

Fair point. I guess I'm looking from the high end stuff, rather than saying "what if all they have so far is a phone"
Yes, it's a big step up from a phone, although sensor size is about the same (1/2.3")

[greenlake]

If it involves p0rn it has to be bitcoin?

Not necessarily....