JPG40504 wrote:~ means approximate, not 'may vary'!:rolleyes:
How about I 'explain' my meaning instead. Since the sensor is smaller, it is located closer to the 'focal point' of the lense. I am referring to the inside of the lens/camera. To me that is shorter. I may be inconsistent with the rest of humanity in referring to it that way! Shorter inside/longer outside????
mickyd wrote:I'll give you time to correct (or in your case attempt to 'clarify') this one too.
jpg40504 wrote:
So set us all straight. Bigger/smaller, by retaining the 35mm 'values' when describing lenses for non-full frame digital cameras adds a level of confusion rather than being direct. Fortunately some of the newer 'digital' lenses are less ambigous when used on the camera for which they were intended. This is all caused by trying to relate nomenclature to 35mm slr when the non-full frame cameras are a different animal(and different cameras are themselves different - they have varying sensor size).
Here's my take from scratch. A camera lens utilizes a focal 'plane' (vs. point). The cameras 'sensor', whether it is
film or the
digital sensor has to be located
at the exact focal plane of the lens in order for the image to be in exact focus.
Lens magnification puts down the
exact same size image on the 'sensor' (film or digital) as shown in the left and center view, since both need to be on the focal plane. With most consumer cameras, the digital sensor is physically smaller than the 35mm film so in effect, the 'field of view' is less. To get the digital shot on the right to equal the size of the 35mm film on the left, you have to magnify the image ~1.6 times but will
VARY based on the specific camera.
This shows the effect:
.
.
[ATTACH]6976[/ATTACH]
.
.
Now whether or not we were saying the same thing, who knows. Language can be a complicated thing.
I just gotta know!!