Zoom lenses

[Gdad]

A couple from the Teacups-

and a couple older ones from the Castle-

 

[boBQuincy]

Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying, but I didn't think this was the case. Focal length affects perspective, as does where you stand (and a combination of the two). If I were to stand 10 feet from the castle and take the same shot at 11mm and 200mm, the perspectives (as well as the subjects) will be different. If you stand in different locations to get your subject looking the same (see below), your perspective will be different, but that is by virtue of the focal length causing perspective compression. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography)

I'm not trying to contradict any of you guys (I know you both have more knowledge about photography than I)...am I misinterpreting what you're saying, or what?

Actually if you stand in the same spot and take the same photo with an 11mm and a 200mm the perspective will be the same. If you enlarge the 11mm photo and overlay it on the 200mm photo this will be apparent, as will the pixelation from the almost 20x enlargement but that is besides the point. The only thing that affects perspective is the relative distance between you and the subject(s).

The Wikipedia article is misleading at best. The only reason noses look so big in wide angle lens portraits is because we are so close to the nose with respect to the rest of the face. Here is a really good article on the effect of focal lengths on perspective: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/changing-perspective.shtml

 

[NateNLogansDad]

Amazing shots

 

[fortheluvofpooh]

OMG the 2nd teacup shot made my head spin a bit. Got a motion sickness wooziness feeling. UGH. Can not look at that one again. But COOL shots.

A couple from the Teacups-

and a couple older ones from the Castle-

 

[PhotographyDR]

Jeff:

Nice work. I like the ones of the castle. Okay I like the ones of the tea cups as well. No need to pick favorites.

Here is another one from SSE. Little slower zoom effect. You can see two distinct SSE's.

 

[Experiment_626]

I've always heard this technique called "racking the lens" or "rack zoom."

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Bob is absolutely right. Focal length determines field of view but has no direct affect on perspective. Perspective is entirely determined by the relative position of the camera sensor and the objects in the scene. Different focal lengths encourage us to stand in different places relative to our subjects, which is why so many people conflate the two.

 

[VVFF]

Actually if you stand in the same spot and take the same photo with an 11mm and a 200mm the perspective will be the same. If you enlarge the 11mm photo and overlay it on the 200mm photo this will be apparent, as will the pixelation from the almost 20x enlargement but that is besides the point. The only thing that affects perspective is the relative distance between you and the subject(s).

The Wikipedia article is misleading at best. The only reason noses look so big in wide angle lens portraits is because we are so close to the nose with respect to the rest of the face. Here is a really good article on the effect of focal lengths on perspective: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/changing-perspective.shtml

Exactly, focal length doesn't compress the perspective actually...its your feet that do

 

[mom2rtk]

GDAD: I LOVE the Teacup shots..... OK.... also the castle ones......

A few questions:

1) What would be the ideal exposure time on something like this?

2) Would you zoom slowly through the exposure or quickly midway through?

3) Does it matter if you zoom in or out? I would geuss not, but would am not certain..........

 

[WDWFigment]

Well I guess you learn something new everyday. I was really convinced that focal length played a part in the equation (as you could probably tell); thank you guys for setting me straight!

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Well I guess you learn something new everyday. I was really convinced that focal length played a part in the equation (as you could probably tell); thank you guys for setting me straight!

Any day that you learn something is a good day.

It's an easy mistake to make. When you change focal lengths you usually also move relative to your subject. You start to associate the perspective change with the focal length change rather than the position change.

It's one of the most persistent photography/videography myths. Some of my other favorites include:

1) The inverse focal length shutter speed rule works the same regardless of whether you are shooting APC-C or FF.

2) Film was higher resolution than digital.

3) Almost the inverse of #2, you won't see old movies on Blu-ray because they weren't shot in high definition.

4) Don't worry, honey, I won't ever let anyone else see these pictures.

 

[sdshutterbug]

Gdad - those castle ones are out of this world! What a great use of this technique!

 

[TigerLaw]

Just saw a trip report w. great pictures taken by w. a finepix x6000. Know the camera is a bit old and doesn't have image stabilization, so was wondering if all you experts out there could help me, here's what I'm looking for:

1. a bridge camera w. a great zoom (have the panasonic tizzy P&S now, like the zoom for the parks, don't want a DSLR at this time)

2. a camera that can handle low light situations well

3. image stabilization

can anyone give me some suggestions to start looking into?

thanks!

 

[VVFF]

Just like with DSLR's you can never get everything. A good zoom usually comes at the expense of low light ability. The current best low light P&S's are the Canon G11, S90(better) and Panasonic LX3(I'd put it a little lower than the S90 in low light ability)

All these cameras have zoom in the 3-5x range. To get more you have to go into the SX series or similar cameras from other vendors. These sacrifice on the "speed" of the lens for the ability to zoom.

Personally...I'd recommend for you the G11. Pretty good low light ability due to its sensor and a decent 5x zoom. A bit larger than the average P&S but since you were looking for super-zooms perhaps you wouldn't mind.

If you would rather have zoom than low light ability, the SX20 is probably your best bet if you don't mind the larger formfactor. If you'd rather have a more compact superzoom then the SX120 or Panasonic ZS5 would be my recommendations.

 

[chipscamping buddy]

We got a Nikon Coolpix L100 and have loved it. It has a 15x zoom, 10 MP, and does great pictures in low light.

 

[Frantasmic]

My suggestions from another recent thread.

I base a lot of my suggestions on reviews, particularly from Popular Photography, although not exclusively from them. There are many other sites as well. The Canon S90 gets pretty good reviews for a point and shoot and the new Sony DSC-HX5V/B is loaded with features.

If you google Canon forums and go to the first link, search their site for S90 pictures. They have several threads with some really good pictures.

Now, I'm not suggesting Canon, only that that is the main place i know of to see pictures and since it is a Canon site, that's about all they show.

I am seriously considering the Sony one though.

 

[TigerLaw]

what about the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ38 / FZ35?

To clarify, I am happy with my current P&S that I can pocket (except for low light pics), I was just wondering if I gave up "pocketability" and started looking at the super zooms like the FZ38 or the powershot SX10 IS, I might be able to score better night shots

thanks again!

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Low light shots are notoriously difficult.

Just saw a trip report w. great pictures taken by w. a finepix x6000. Know the camera is a bit old and doesn't have image stabilization

You have discovered the fact that it's less about the camera than it is about the photographer.

You aren't going to get "great" low light with a superzoom. With care, and studying principles of exposure, you can get some good/usable pics in low light.

At full zoom with a superzoom, you'll get more shake than at a shorter focal length. Keep that in mind. Because nighttime shots at full zoom will be difficult unless you use a stable surface.

I have the Canon S3IS and once I learned to use it, I was able to get some great shots in good light, and decent shots in low light. That model's older now and I'm not familiar with the newer ones, but I don't think you can go wrong with a Canon. But even more so than make and model, learning to use whatever you buy to its fullest will help you get to your goal.

 

[sjs314]

Not sure if my bridge camera a fuji finepix s8100fd is still available seeing how I purchased it last year for my March trip but I found it performs well in low light, has a 18x zoom

 

[disneyboy2003]

Regarding low-light photography, as long as (1) your subject isn't moving and (2) you have a stable platform for your camera (ie. you're not hand-holding your camera), pretty much *any* camera can do good low-light photography.

For example, if you're taking a nighttime photo of Cinderella's Castle, and you have either a tripod or put your camera on top of a trash can, you can get a good, sharp nighttime photo.

The HUGE challenge, though, is low-light photography with moving subjects (like taking photos on Pirates of the Caribbean or the night time parades) or hand-holding your camera for low-light photography. These are pretty challenging photography situations, even for dSLRs, so I'd image they'd be even *more* difficult for point-and-shoot / super-zoom / bridge cameras.