Zach Matthews

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 20 posts - 6,201 through 6,220 (of 6,660 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Digital conversions #60372
    Zach Matthews
    The Itinerant Angler

    Bryan –

    DSLRs work just like SLRs – the viewfinder is the only way to look through the prism at the image.

    in reply to: Digital conversions #60370
    Zach Matthews
    The Itinerant Angler

    That is accurate, Splitshot.

    I’ve never heard of anyone saying they lost anything aperture-wise, and you know that’d be a hot topic of conversation.

    in reply to: Digital conversions #60368
    Zach Matthews
    The Itinerant Angler

    Bryan –

    No.  That conversion is strictly an angle-of-view conversion.  It comes about because the digital CCD sensor is approximately the size of an old APS film box: 23.5mm on a diagonal if I remember correctly.

    Conceptually this is a little difficult but remember that the image projected onto a 23.5mm “box” will be blown up to exactly the same size “on paper” as a 35mm sheet.

    Thus, assuming you want to make a 4×6, a 35mm “box” would blow up less than a 23.5mm box, because it is already bigger.  Because the lens mounted on the camera still projects an image that is the same actual size, this means the 23.5mm box image gets blown up more.

    When you use a film lens, an old one meant for the 35mm window, on a new DSLR, you are losing part of the light circle the lens projects, the part around the edges, meaning the angle of view is not as wide. This doesn’t ultimately affect image quality at all, because the actual light projected by the lens isn’t any particular “size” or “compression.”  Thus, when the light circle hits a 23.5mm box and is then blown up to 4×6, you get a perfect image with greater enlargement.

    Whatever size you blow the image up to is also irrelevant, because the relative angles of view between the 35mm and the 23.5mm “boxes” remain constant.

    Example:

    A 50mm lens mounted to an old SLR will make an image that looks about like what the human eye’s field of view sees.  There’s actually a degree count for this, but I don’t know what it is (might be, say, 60 degrees, just as an example).

    The same 50mm lens mounted to a new DSLR will make an image that looks like a 75mm lens would if mounted on the old SLR because of the decreased angle of the light hitting the CCD.  Thus, the available angle might be, say, 45 degrees (anyway it would be narrower).

    Again because the actual light and the image remain perfect there’s no “quality loss” in this reduced angle, it just changes what the “zoom” of the lens looks like.

    This works out to a big advantage for DSLR users on the really telephoto range, since a 400mm lens projects the same “perfect image” as a 600mm lens did on an old film SLR.

    Unfortunately the flip side is where we DSLR guys get bit: DSLRs must use extra wide angle lenses to get the same wide angle shot which was relatively easy on an SLR.  Old SLRs used to start going “wide” at about 24mm, whereas today with a DSLR you’d need a 16mm lens to get the same angle of view, which makes wide angles hard to get, and expensive.

    Lens technology hits a wall at that real wide angle because light really wants to bend and curve when you gather it from nearly 180 degrees around and put it on a two dimensional surface (the picture).  Thus, wide angle DSLR lenses have to have a lot of technology and wind up being real expensive.  The Nikon pro standard is the 12-24mm f/4 DX AF-S G, a $1200 lens (and one that still can’t reach the usual f/2.8 standard of pro lenses).

    However, none of this affects aperture to my knowledge.  Because the light is still transfered through the lens as “100%” pure light, the aperture and the relative blur shouldn’t be affected.  I’ll have to wrap my head around this to try and figure out if the reduced angle of view might impact aperture a little more but I think the answer is no.

    Zach

    in reply to: Favorite Rods #11029
    Zach Matthews
    The Itinerant Angler

    Hey Poudre –

    Nice to have you and glad we made a good impression on somebody.

    Would your moniker be for the Cache La Poudre out in Ft. Collins?

    in reply to: Montana Fly Company #10995
    Zach Matthews
    The Itinerant Angler

    Four Rivers Fly Shop in Twin Bridges.  They’ve since been discontinued.  A soft foam hopper – floated great, but not durable enough.  I didn’t care, I only wanted to hook one big trout.

    Zach

    in reply to: cloudveil #10988
    Zach Matthews
    The Itinerant Angler

    I was flown in for the initial Cloudveil media event and wore those waders in the Snake for two days.

    in reply to: Montana Fly Company #10993
    Zach Matthews
    The Itinerant Angler

    The Chewbacca is a great pattern.

    in reply to: Meet Mae #10986
    Zach Matthews
    The Itinerant Angler

    No, I meant she has already been housebroken.

    Zach

    in reply to: Digital cameras suitable for magazine work #60386
    Zach Matthews
    The Itinerant Angler

    Hey Fred –

    Cover shots aren’t at all a problem for a modern digital camera, because they are vertically oriented, as you point out.

    in reply to: Working Classes-American Angler Mar 2006 #10982
    Zach Matthews
    The Itinerant Angler

    Thank you JP, that’s a good summation.

    in reply to: A Newbie to the site #10981
    Zach Matthews
    The Itinerant Angler

    Hey JP –

    Welcome!

    Zach

    in reply to: How to take fish pictures when you’re by yourself #60366
    Zach Matthews
    The Itinerant Angler

    Hey Bookworm –

    There’s a limit to how much you can do this, of course, and it takes setup time, but I frequently take pictures of myself.

    in reply to: Fishing trip #11007
    Zach Matthews
    The Itinerant Angler

    I agree.

    in reply to: The Itinerant Angler Podcast Episode #2 #10979
    Zach Matthews
    The Itinerant Angler

    Yeah, John’s a big wig.

    in reply to: Nikon D50 vs D70 #60391
    Zach Matthews
    The Itinerant Angler

    This is a good deal if you act quickly:

    http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-Nikkor-18-70mm-AFS-DX-Lens-for-Nikon-D70-D200_W0QQitemZ7595733814QQcategoryZ106863QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

    That one will set you back $215 with shipping, and it is like new.

    in reply to: Nikon D50 vs D70 #60390
    Zach Matthews
    The Itinerant Angler

    Drifter –

    That lens is older film-camera stock.

    in reply to: The Itinerant Angler Podcast Episode #2 #10977
    Zach Matthews
    The Itinerant Angler

    Thanks Creeklover.

    in reply to: Nikon D50 vs D70 #60388
    Zach Matthews
    The Itinerant Angler

    I’m not familiar with the 28-80 lens but the main difference in the two is the lense that comes with the kit.

    The D50’s 18-55mm is not a particularly nice lens.

    in reply to: Favorite Rods #11019
    Zach Matthews
    The Itinerant Angler

    Scott G2 8’8″ 5 weight

    St Croix Pro Graphite 9′ 5/6

    Sage Xi2 9′ 8 weight (don’t own)

    Zach

    in reply to: Fishing trip #11000
    Zach Matthews
    The Itinerant Angler

    Probably Utah.

Viewing 20 posts - 6,201 through 6,220 (of 6,660 total)