Q's before I buy the wrong camera...

Zoom Raider · May 14, 2005

I don't know where to post this. I thought maybe this area is okay. I hope I can find the answers if this gets moved. Well, I don't really wanna pay hundreds upon hundreds for a Digital SLR, so I may just go for an SLR instead. I know that D-SLR's have rechargable batteries and reusable memory, but I don't think I'm gonna be taking a whole lot of pictures, so I'm not worried about all the film I have to buy or batteries. Pllus, I've heared that digital cameras don't last as long as film ones do.

I have no idea what the equivalents are when it comes to megapixels and zoom between the digital and film cameras. I cannot find a chart anywhere, not even on the internet. Someone in my town told me that a 90mm SLR lens is the same as a 3x on a digital and another said 55mm is the same as 3x. Then someone said a 300mm is the same as a 20x and yet someone else said 400mm is the same as 20x. So now I dunno what to believe. Can anyone here tell me what the "TRUE" equivalents are?:):

I'm thinking about getting a Nikon N80 that comes with a dual lens kit. The bigger lens goes up to 300mm and the smaller up to 90mm. In the future, I wanna buy a 500mm, so I'd truly be happy to know where online I can find an equivalence chart or if someone in here could type some of it on here.:):

Also, how vivid is an SLR camera? Does it depend on the quality of the lenses? Can they take at least the same as a 5mp digital? And last, can I get a lens or scope for an SLR to get awesome pictures of the moon, sun and neighboring stars? `Cos I sure can't with my Kodak DX7590. It will not even at all hook up to any kind'a spotting scopes.:wxwax

I think that's all I have to ask about SLR's...lol

Thanks!:):

~ZR~

Chase · May 14, 2005

Zoom Raider wrote:

I don't know where to post this. I thought maybe this area is okay. I hope I can find the answers if this gets moved. Well, I don't really wanna pay hundreds upon hundreds for a Digital SLR, so I may just go for an SLR instead. I know that D-SLR's have rechargable batteries and reusable memory, but I don't think I'm gonna be taking a whole lot of pictures, so I'm not worried about all the film I have to buy or batteries. Pllus, I've heared that digital cameras don't last as long as film ones do.

I have no idea what the equivalents are when it comes to megapixels and zoom between the digital and film cameras. I cannot find a chart anywhere, not even on the internet. Someone in my town told me that a 90mm SLR lens is the same as a 3x on a digital and another said 55mm is the same as 3x. Then someone said a 300mm is the same as a 20x and yet someone else said 400mm is the same as 20x. So now I dunno what to believe. Can anyone hear tell me what the "TRUE" equivalents are?:):

I'm thinking about getting a Nikon N80 that comes with a dual lens kit. The bigger lens goes up to 300mm and the smaller up to 90mm. In the future, I wanna buy a 500mm, so I'd truly be happy to know where online I can find an equivalence chart or if someone in here could type some of it on here.:):

Also, how vivid is an SLR camera? Does it depend on the quality of the lenses? Can they take at least the same as a 5mp digital? And last, can I get a lens or scope for an SLR to get awesome pictures of the moon, sun and neighboring stars? `Cos I sure can't with my Kodak DX7590. It will not even at all hook up to any kind'a spotting scopes.

I think that's all I have to ask about SLR's...lol

Thanks!:):

~ZR~

35mm film absolutely destroys digital in terms of sheer resolution (or megapixels if you will call it that)

Digital can have less grain or noise, it just depends mostly on the film you use and its speed.

lenses make a big difference with both digital, though some people will argue it makes a bigger difference on film.

luckyrwe · May 14, 2005

If you go with a film SLR then stick with the big guns, like the Nikon F5 and Canon EOS-1n. They focus extremely fast, faster than any digital in my opinion. I have a shoot in 2 weeks that will pay me very well, and there is high speed action, so I will have my Nikon F5 with me. It will AF when the Canon 1D2 cannot.

If you get the N80 kit you can always use the lenses on a D70. You want to stick with AF-S lenses if you can, they are the fastest focusing ones in the Nikon line.

Zoom Raider · May 15, 2005

Thank you, Chase and Lucky! And I'll check out the 35mm Nikon F5 SLR. But I still dunno the equivalents between the milimeters in SLR lenses and the x-zoom in the digitals.

I don't wanna buy a 500mm lens and it just be equivalent to an 11x zoom. I'm getting different math told to me in my town...lol So I'd like to know what the mm's are compared to x-zoom.:): And I dunno how sharp and vivid an SLR picture can be compared to digital. I hope they're at least as sharp and vivid as 5mp's.

I do like speed and sharp-vivid pictures, but gotta have lots of zoom, too, for shots of the moon, sun, stars and far away objects on land, sea and air. I'm hoping 500mm is at least the same as 25x zoom. Then I saw a 2x telephoto lens that can adapt to the 500mm and I guess I'd get a 1000mm. See, I dunno the equivalents...lol So if anyone knows the equivalents, please lemme know!:):

Thanks!

~ZR~

Chase · May 15, 2005

Zoom Raider wrote:

Thank you, Chase and Lucky! And I'll check out the 35mm Nikon F5 SLR. But I still dunno the equivalents between the milimeters in SLR lenses and the x-zoom in the digitals.

I don't wanna buy a 500mm lens and it just be equivalent to an 11x zoom. I'm getting different math told to me in my town...lol So I'd like to know what the mm's are compared to x-zoom.:): And I dunno how sharp and vivid an SLR picture can be compared to digital. I hope they're at least as sharp and vivid as 5mp's.

I do like speed and sharp-vivid pictures, but gotta have lots of zoom, too, for shots of the moon, sun, stars and far away objects on land, sea and air. I'm hoping 500mm is at least the same as 25x zoom. Then I saw a 2x telephoto lens that can adapt to the 500mm and I guess I'd get a 1000mm. See, I dunno the equivalents...lol So if anyone knows the equivalents, please lemme know!:):

Thanks!

~ZR~

try going to a camera shop, sticking different size lenses on the camera and seeing how much zoom it is for yourself.

If you want to chat about it, hit me up on AIM: GtFanaddict

ubergeek · May 15, 2005

Lenses, focal lengths, etc.
OK, time to clear up some misconceptions! You've come to the right place.

Zoom Raider wrote:

I don't know where to post this. I thought maybe this area is okay. I hope I can find the answers if this gets moved. Well, I don't really wanna pay hundreds upon hundreds for a Digital SLR, so I may just go for an SLR instead. I know that D-SLR's have rechargable batteries and reusable memory, but I don't think I'm gonna be taking a whole lot of pictures, so I'm not worried about all the film I have to buy or batteries. Pllus, I've heared that digital cameras don't last as long as film ones do.

Two things to consider here:

You'll have to buy and process a lot of film before you make up the difference in cost between a film SLR and a digital SLR. If you don't plan on shooting too often, this may take a long time indeed. So you just might be thinking on the right path.
But then again, the true cost of an SLR system is usually not in the camera body, but in the lenses. Buy a few lenses in the middle of the range or higher, and you've spent as much on glass as you would have on a digital body! Also keep in mind that, if you plan to process your film images digitally, you'll want a film scanner--and a decent one will run about $250 (although you can find a used one on eBay for around $150 without looking too hard). So unless you'll be working solely in the film world, you should consider this expense part of the system cost.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure no film SLRs (of the consumer variety, anyway) use rechargeable batteries, but they generally last quite a while on the CR2 batteries that they use. (Actually I take this back--I believe there are rechargeable CR2 batteries out there.)

I have no idea what the equivalents are when it comes to megapixels and zoom between the digital and film cameras. I cannot find a chart anywhere, not even on the internet. Someone in my town told me that a 90mm SLR lens is the same as a 3x on a digital and another said 55mm is the same as 3x. Then someone said a 300mm is the same as a 20x and yet someone else said 400mm is the same as 20x. So now I dunno what to believe. Can anyone hear tell me what the "TRUE" equivalents are?

You haven't found such a thing because there is no such conversion. Actually you're talking about a few different concepts here, so let's try to sort it out.

First of all, there is resolution, i.e. "megapixels." This has nothing to do with zoom (or at least very little). All else being equal, a greater number of pixels means larger possible print sizes. Most consumer DSLRs are in the 6-8 megapixel range, which is plenty of resolution for printing 8x10's and even larger. (By way of comparison, a 35mm film frame scanned with the aforementioned $250 scanner as 3200dpi will produce a ~14 megapixel image.) Of course the "real" resolution depends also on the lens, as well as the film (in the case of a film camera).

Now a little bit about zoom: multipliers such as 3x don't indicate a focal length at all. A 24-72mm lens is a 3x lens (72/24=3), but so is a 70-210mm (210/70=3). Obviously one of these lenses is much "longer" than the other. The confusion probably comes from the fact that most point-and-shoot digital cameras (and APS cameras, for that matter) are marketed as having (for example) a "3x" or "4x" rather than indicating the focal length range of the lens. That "3x" lens is typically equivalent (in terms of framing) to a 38-114mm lens on a 35mm camera (note that 114/38=3).

Finally, a refresher on focal lengths for the 35mm format. A lens in the range of 35-50mm is considered to be a "normal" lens--that is, it produces a perspective similar to what the human eye perceives. Lenses 28mm and shorter are generally considered "wide angle," while lenses 80mm and longer are known as "telephoto." Then terms like "super telephoto" are sometimes used to describe lenses of around 400mm and greater.

Now, many digital SLRs mix things up by applying what's known as a "crop factor" or (less accurately) a "focal length multiplier." The most common crop factors are 1.5 or 1.6--a 50mm lens used on a camera with a 1.5 crop factor will produce the same field of view as a 75mm lens on a 35mm camera. So a 24mm lens, which is considered a wide angle lens on a 35mm camera, effectively becomes a 36mm lens, which is more in "normal" territory. If you like telephoto (and it sounds like you do), the crop factor works in your favor: a 300mm telephoto acts like a 450mm supertele!

I'm thinking about getting a Nikon N80 that comes with a dual lens kit. The bigger lens goes up to 300mm and the smaller up to 90mm. In the future, I wanna buy a 500mm, so I'd truly be happy to know where online I can find an equivalence chart or if someone in here could type some of it on here.:):

I hope that the above explanation answers your implicit question here. 500mm will get you about 1.7x closer than the 300mm will.

Also, how vivid is an SLR camera? Does it depend on the quality of the lenses? Can they take at least the same as a 5mp digital?

Vividness refers to the appearance of color, particularly the saturation. This does depend on (among other things) the lens, but it has nothing to do with resolution, so the second question doesn't make sense in this context. Resolution has been discussed previously; vividness can be manipulated in either the film or digital worlds (although more easily in digital).

And last, can I get a lens or scope for an SLR to get awesome pictures of the moon, sun and neighboring stars? `Cos I sure can't with my Kodak DX7590. It will not even at all hook up to any kind'a spotting scopes.

You certainly can attach an SLR to a telescope, using something called a T-mount. Do a Google search for "astrophotography" and you're likely to find more information than you ever wanted to know.

I'd like to experiment with this eventually, but I haven't yet had the opportunity.

I hope the information here is helpful!

Cheers,
Jeremy

ubergeek · May 15, 2005

DX7590 comparison
Just as a followup, it occurred to me that you mentioned you have a Kodak DX7590. This is a 5-megapixel camera with a 35mm-equivalent focal length range of 38-380mm. 380mm is fairly long; 35mm-format lenses with longer focal lengths are generally fairly expensive (the least expensive 500mm Nikon AF lens is $5800). You can see why buying a film vs. digital body doesn't necessarily save a lot of money compared to what you can spend on glass!

Now, if you want to put things in perspective, your Kodak has a 10x lens (380/38=10). A 500mm lens on a 35mm camera would be like having a 13x lens on that same camera (500/38=~13). Remember the 1.5 crop factor typical of digital SLRs? With a 500mm that would be like having a 750mm lens, which again would be close to a 20x lens on the DX7590 (750/38=~20).

Remember when I said that you couldn't directly compare a zoom range like "3x" or "10x" with a focal length like 500mm? But it looks like that's what we just did in the above paragraph. Well, not quite--we were actually comparing to your specific cameras's "base" focal length. There is no such thing on an SLR, which is why a factor such as "10x" is meaningless. So if you forget the "10x" figure and directly compare 35mm-equivalent focal lengths, you should be able to get an idea of how much "zoom" a specific lens will give relative to yours.

Let's try one more example: Nikon offers a 1000mm (manual focus only) mirror lens. Mount it on a 35mm body and you have a 35mm-equivalent focal length of, well, 1000mm. This is ~2.6x the 380mm maximum of your Kodak, so it puts you almost 3x "closer" to your subject. Mount that same lens on (for example) a Nikon D70, and you'll have a 1000mm x 1.5 = 1500mm lens in 35mm-equivalent, nearly 4x your Kodak's 380mm!

Anyway, 1000mm is about as high as 35mm-format lenses go (Canon makes a 1200mm autofocus lens, but it costs as much as a luxury car). Want to go longer? Start looking at telescopes.

Cheers,
Jeremy

Zoom Raider · May 15, 2005

ubergeek wrote:

Just as a followup, it occurred to me that you mentioned you have a Kodak DX7590. This is a 5-megapixel camera with a 35mm-equivalent focal length range of 38-380mm. 380mm is fairly long; 35mm-format lenses with longer focal lengths are generally fairly expensive (the least expensive 500mm Nikon AF lens is $5800). You can see why buying a film vs. digital body doesn't necessarily save a lot of money compared to what you can spend on glass!

Now, if you want to put things in perspective, your Kodak has a 10x lens (380/38=10). A 500mm lens on a 35mm camera would be like having a 13x lens on that same camera (500/38=~13). Remember the 1.5 crop factor typical of digital SLRs? With a 500mm that would be like having a 750mm lens, which again would be close to a 20x lens on the DX7590 (750/38=~20).

Remember when I said that you couldn't directly compare a zoom range like "3x" or "10x" with a focal length like 500mm? But it looks like that's what we just did in the above paragraph. Well, not quite--we were actually comparing to your specific cameras's "base" focal length. There is no such thing on an SLR, which is why a factor such as "10x" is meaningless. So if you forget the "10x" figure and directly compare 35mm-equivalent focal lengths, you should be able to get an idea of how much "zoom" a specific lens will give relative to yours.

Let's try one more example: Nikon offers a 1000mm (manual focus only) mirror lens. Mount it on a 35mm body and you have a 35mm-equivalent focal length of, well, 1000mm. This is ~2.6x the 380mm maximum of your Kodak, so it puts you almost 3x "closer" to your subject. Mount that same lens on (for example) a Nikon D70, and you'll have a 1000mm x 1.5 = 1500mm lens in 35mm-equivalent, nearly 4x your Kodak's 380mm!

Anyway, 1000mm is about as high as 35mm-format lenses go (Canon makes a 1200mm autofocus lens, but it costs as much as a luxury car). Want to go longer? Start looking at telescopes.

Cheers,
Jeremy

Thanks, Jeremy!

Yeah, I know it would cost more to get all this zoom and stuff with a DSLR or even an SLR, but when I couldn't find a telescope, spotting scope or a lens that would adapt to the Kodak DX7590, I was a bit disappointed. All I could find was this 12in or less 8x lens that claims would fit, which would make it an 80x, but I was told that's not enough to get real close ups of the moon like in the pictures I have seen taken by SLR pros.

Well, I knew 10x wasn't gonna do it at all and the camera isn't as fast as an SLR, so I took it back. I mean, the guys where I bought it from shouldn't have told a photo-newby that it can adapt to any lens, scope and even a telescope.

I found out the other day that DSLR's and SLR's can get a motionless-blurless shot of a bee or hummingbird. So, that got me...lol So since the really good DSLR's are way above my budget this year, I was just gonna settle for an SLR. I was thinking about the Nikon F5 that Lucky mentioned, but it's an $1800 camera, and I'm not sure if it even comes with a lens. I think it does.

Later on, I'll need a 3200dpi film scanner that you've mentioned. No hurry for that yet. Then after that, a photo printer. I saw a nice one called the Sony Photo-Station, on sale for $125.50. Then sometime in between if not last, the most powerful lens that will go on my SLR. I thinking about the Nikon N80, $299.95. For $529.90, I can get the dual set of lens. The zoom lens is a 300mm. But I guess I'll just wait for a 500mm or even a 1000mm...plus the 2x telephoto-lens that I saw, (if both the lens and telephoto-lens will connect).

I found something yesterday before I came in here with my questions. It said a 50/55mm lens views things as close as a human eye. So my mind was wondering around and I thought, "I guess that means a 100/110mm is a 2x and every 50/55mm added is one extra power". So yesterday I was thinking that a 300mm is 6x and so those that told me a 300mm is a 20x could be wrong. But guess I was wrong with my theory, too, huh? lol

Well, gotta go to the shops if any are open on Sundays. Gonna look into that Nikon N80 and probably buy a more powerful lens some other day. This building a camera will be like a hobby anyway, almost like building a computer.:):

Thanks guys!

~ZR~

Michiel de Brieder · May 15, 2005

my opinion
Astrophotographers have been working in digital for a long time now, so going film (SLR) to follow the pros doesn't make much sense to me...

Aside from that, there are loads of used cameras on ebay, like a Canon 10D or D60 or 300D that can be had for a very reasonable price. Add yourself a sigma 18-125 for walkaround occasions and a Sigma 50-500 with 1.4x TeleConverter for your moon shots and you're ready to go. (don't forget a tripod!!) If you've got enough cash to burn then the Rebel XT aka the Rebel 350D might be a very cool camera to start off with!

Capturing the moon takes a lot of practice and the good thing about digital is that you can learn from your mistakes 'on the spot'. If you crack 2 films of moonshots off and have them developed and they all look like cr@p then you will be wondering "hey, what was I doing wrong??" and "How can I do this right??". With digital you start shooting with your computer at hand and look at the results on full screen as soon as you've grabbed some shots. Study the settings and think on how to make them better. THAT is the power of digital!

Rant mode off

Questions may be asked

colourbox · May 15, 2005

Chase wrote:

35mm film absolutely destroys digital in terms of sheer resolution (or megapixels if you will call it that.

Well, no it doesn't. By some accounts, 35mm has already been passed by digital SLRs and it is medium format that is digital's next target.

Refer to the page below for a chart of where 35mm film is better than digital, and vice versa. It certainly is not a cut and dried answer one way or the other.

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

Zoom Raider · May 15, 2005

Yeah, it's true about film being more of a pain than digital since ya can't see your shots`til after they've been developed at a lab. I'd have to have lots of practice,`cos I know I'll take several if not many dud-shots or ones that just didn't come out sharp. But so many I hear say they prefer film over digital. Some say they see no difference in sharpness, others say they think their film is sharper than digital.

I would rather have a DSLR, but they cost quite a bit more than SLR's do, and with DSLR's, they try to get ya to buy insurance for this and that. They don't seem to say much about insurance with the SLR's. If I had bought the Canon Rebel DSLR at $799, that's over $500 more than the one I just bought today. I didn't get the Nikon N80,`cos it was over $50 more and that was without a lens. I could've waited and bought the Canon Rebel, but I would've missed out on spring and summer shots,`cos I wouldn't have had $799`til winter or late fall. I thought I could, but not just yet.

I ended up getting the N75 with a Quantaray 28-90mm lens, plus it has auto-flash, the N80 didn't. They gave me a 20% discount on the camera and 10% on the lens, then I get a $30 rebate. They said something about a 3 speed or 3 shots per second that the N75 has. I dunno, I forgot that fast. See, I am so amateur in the camera world...lol But I shall learn.:):

Remember when I mentioned I found something that said that 50mm's views objects the same as the human eye can? Well, I was looking at a Canon K2 and I had to set it at 70mm's to get it the same as my eyes could see. Now with this N75, I have to set it all the way to 90mm's to match my eyes. Oh well, I'm still happy with this camera so far. Someday I'll buy a more powerful lens. Hopefully I can get one equivalent to at least 40x.

Thanks!:):

~ZR~

Q's before I buy the wrong camera...

Comments