108mm is showing great performance than 300mm

aq_mishu · May 27, 2009

guys, it's strange to me... my cousine is using a Sony DSC Handy Cam with 60x optical zoom. I found his lens saying f1.8, 1.8-108mm. Well, 108/1.8 = 60x. Fine... but max focal length is 108mm right??? Now today i tried with his and my SLR. both on tripod, same place, same distance, and same target. but at 108mm (i mean full optical zoom, i.e. 60x), the picture was much more near than my SLR's full zoom (means 300mm). So i need an explanation plz....

Yup, my one is not VDO cam, but still SLR. but i need the explanation on 108mm's zoom and 300mm's zoom. it was supposed to be at least half of mine... but how it could catch longer distance than my one???

guys, please... need explanation...

Guys... Need the reply.... plz...

My goal is wildlife photography...

sburatorul · May 27, 2009

wrong place to post this.

the difference is made up by the crop factor. look it up. on dslr with crop sensors its about 1.5 so the 35mm equivalent of your lens is 450mm. p&s camera have bigger crop factors, more like 3 or 4, i don't know for sure so it reaches further than 450mm. you need to google crop factor and 35mm equivalent focal length to really understand this.

aq_mishu · May 28, 2009

Heyyyy,
Thanks for the kind reply... yup... APS is smaller than 35mm... since my DSLR is in APS format, i have to multiply 1.5 with it to make equivalant for 35mm. So if my lense is 300mm for this APS, then it is actually 300x1.5 = 450mm right??? so instead of using an APS format, if i use a real 35mm, then it will cover the same distance of 300mm in APS at 450mm in 35mm right?? so right now since i am using the aps, if i use 35mm, then i have to consider that this 300mm is actually 450mm. right??

also i have seen that Video Cameras (sony handy cam) state 108mm which is equivalant to around say 600mm in 35mm. that was my actual problem... and has the ans now...

So for wildlife, if i use for DSLR, in APS format, a 600mm... (actually i have a SAL70300G From Sony and not covering the way i want. So planning to add a 2x magnifier lense) will it be okey????

Sincerely,
Mishu~

adamwilliamking · May 28, 2009

60 times zoom would be like 400 mills dude.
Crop factor is pretty easy find out what the crop factor is on your camera and times your millys by that number

So like, 24-70 on a 1.6 crop would be 24 x 1.6 = 38.4 and 70 x 1.6 = 112
So a 24-70 on a 1.6 crop body is 38 - 112 roughly w/o decimals

aq_mishu · May 29, 2009

i have the lens 18-70mm and 70-300mm. now my camera is sony dslr a200, (corp factor is 1.5). so 300mm is actually 450mm in 35mm right??

in this case i found it is not enough for wild life photography... so what is your suggestion for ultra long range cover for this camera? i mean 3rd party lens... and high zoom. also i am planning to take photos of moons, etc. any ideas??

Mishu~

aq_mishu · Jun 1, 2009

guys... need the ans...

thunderkyss · Jan 21, 2013

I'm digging up this old post to help better understand crop factor, in the OP, the poster states the 108 mm lens of a Sony Handy cam has more reach than his 300mm lens on his SLR. We found that the 35mm equivalent of his lens is 450mm. Considering the Handycam has a 2.9mm sensor and a 2.5 mm sensor has a 5.6 multiplier, the 35mm equivalent would be greater than 600mm

In this situation, the OP states that the extra reach is "better" for what he wants to do, however here it is mentioned the bigger image sensor delivers more "professional" results. I do not understand this, especially with the megapixel explosion. I mean surely there is a limit to how big you can blow up an 18 megapixel image, but that's pretty big.

What is the benefit of the larger sensor?

and another question, why doesn't this matter with the 3/4 sensors?

Overread · Jan 21, 2013

Larger sensors affect more than the angle of view, which is what the focal length conversions are comparing - remember they are only comparing to the angle of view of a normal 35mm film/sensor camera - and that value is generally used only because the vast majority of film SLRs were 35mm film - so for many it is the "normal" view.

First up they affect the nature of subject isolation/background blurring - a smaller sensor/film size results in a change to the circle of confusion which results in you getting much less blurring of background elements. This is why mobile phone and other smaller sensor cameras often find it hard to impossible to have any degree of background blurring in their photos.
The larger sensor/film size increases the degree of background separation and blurring - which is why the larger DSLR sensors still out perform smaller sensors in that regard (and why options such as medium and large format photography exist as well).

Another factor is noise and pixel size - the larger sensors allow for bigger pixel sizes, the upshot of which is that noise performance is improved. You can see this even between a crop sensor DSLR and a fullframe (35mm) sensor DSLR - where the bigger sensor (when used with the same software and processing codes) results in a higher usable range of ISO values and a generally cleaner shot.
Note that this area can be a little confused as many point and shoots often apply a lot of in-camera noise reduction and sharpening to their photos which boosts their apparent quality - DSLRs generally are a bit more conservative and allow the user more control in out of camera editing for this.

These things all still matter even with the 3/4 sensors which have become popular in the mirrorless interchangable lens cameras. The main reason these have become popular with many DSLR shooters is more because they offer a high quality performing camera, with interchangable lenses and also a small size and weight. This allows the DSLR shooter to shoot in a manner that they are accustomed to without having to lug around a heavy DSRL setup (as there are many times when its just not possible or practical to do so).