• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Digital SLR / DSLR Camera Question / DSLR Thread 2

Quick question about focal lengths.

The image below was shot on a 5D Mark II with a 35mm f/2 lens. Photo by Zack Arias, a photographer I really like. He's really doing some great stuff, especially for the photo community--I highly recommend his site. I'm posting the image below, but not hotlinking (as a courtesy), I hope that's fair use.

Thoughts:

1. I'm a lowly DX shooter. The 5DMKII is full frame, yes? What is the equivalent lens for this setup?

2. My math: solving for X,

35 = (1.6)*X

X~21mm

3. 21mm? Really? These photos (there are many other at THIS blog posting on his website) do not look like a really wide lens. Is it me, or are they REALLY as wide as 21mm on DX? Maybe I am smoking crack and they really are that wide.

4. When I look at the EXIF tags it lists the equivalent focal length as "238mm". REALLY?!@ (See screenshot below)

What's the deal?


30ws082.jpg

Photo by Zack Arias

2mopc48.jpg
 
Last edited:
5D's are full frame, so shooting with a 35mm focal length is... the same as the 35mm equivalent, no crop factor.

Yea, something like a 21mm lens would be close to the 35mm equivalent focal length. 21mm on a cropped sensor is not all that wide, its basically a wide standard focal length. I mean I guess it can be sorta subjective, as I'd say around 18mm on a cropped sensor is the start of wide angles.
 
It's hard to believe I'd have to have my kit lens opened almost all the way to get a shot like the one above. It didn't look that wide to me, but I guess I am just smoking crack. ! :laughing

Any guesses on why "35mm equivalent" is that wacky 238mm number above?

Also, what lenses do Nikonian DX people use for ~35mm equivalent? I see Nikon has a 20mm f/2.8D but there doesn't appear to be anything as fast as their 35mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/2 (full frame). It would be nice to have really shallow DOF as the one above, but maybe it's not possible on DX.
 
Yes, that looks about right for 35mm on a full frame. Get really close to your subject. Also notice the proportion of her shoulder relative to her face. You can tell the photographer is within arm's length, at the most.

And no, there aren't really any good wide, fast primes, especially for DX. :( Nikon's 28/1.4 was a slow seller in it's day, and now commands prices well over double it's original value. The 20/2.8 is supposed to be mediocre at best, especially on digital. Best you're gonna do it find a used 17-55/2.8, which won't be cheap, but the quality is excellent.

Or keep shooting the kit lens. At wide angles, the f/3.5 or so isn't really that limiting, since you can handhold slower shutter speeds. :thumbup
 
cycle61 said:
Yes, that looks about right for 35mm on a full frame. Get really close to your subject.

And no, there aren't really any good wide, fast primes, especially for DX. :( Nikon's 28/1.4 was a slow seller in it's day, and now commands prices well over double it's original value. The 20/2.8 is supposed to be mediocre at best, especially on digital. Best you're gonna do it find a used 17-55/2.8, which won't be cheap, but the quality is excellent.

Or keep shooting the kit lens. At wide angles, the f/3.5 or so isn't really that limiting, since you can handhold slower shutter speeds. :thumbup
Click to expand...

Yeah, the really close thing is no joke! I remember that photo you posted a while back with the two guys on the dock.

The truth is, although I don't know why, when shooting portraits I always reach for my 50mm f/1.8, or push my kit lens to a longer focal length, rather than getting closer and dialing down to something like 20mm. I should be more creative and experiment more in that range. Maybe I shoot that way because the nifty-fifty gives me the most shallow DOF--maybe I would be more inclined to shoot at 20mm if I had a lens capable of getting a shallow DOF like Zack Arias' photos above. I really like the way the background is expressed with the wider angles.

> Best you're gonna do it find a used 17-55/2.8, which won't be cheap, but the quality is excellent.

Holy crap! $1200 new! Maybe Sigma has a decent offering at a lower price...

Speaking of Sigma, I was just searching around and discovered they have a 20mm f/1.8. Know anything about this guy?
 
I've heard mixed reviews on the Sigma 20/1.8.

Ian, nice work on those. You've been keeping busy. :thumbup I need to do more shooting.
 
Cool... Well I'll keep that in mind and give the wider angle of my kit lens some exercise.

Another thing I've been wanting to ask about: monopods.

Awhile ago I watched a neat video by Microstock photographer Yuri Arcurs about his most favorite gadget, his monopod.

http://www.arcurs.com/episode-4-essential-gear-my-monopod

"Anyone who claims they can shoot freehand and get sharp images is wrong. You can do so, but you're lucky. So you do not have it under control. What you want to do is optimize your focus percentage by having a monopod. I shoot with it almost every time."

"This tool basically goes everywhere I go."

"It's something that I bring on every shoot I do."
​



25yyxk1.jpg



How much of that is hyperbole and how much is true? I always thought a tripod (or monopod) was something essential for shooting 1/60 or slower, but that first quote of his makes me wonder if it's a good idea for shooting at higher shutter speeds. He uses strobes so I can't image he's shooting below 1/60 if at all. Is a monopod necessary for 1/125? 1/250? Faster? I wish he was a bit more technical with his justifications in the video.

What do you guys think? Is this guy just extremely pedantic?

I can almost swear that in the documentary Annie Leibovitz: Life Through a Lens, she says she shoots freehand. What's an amateur to think?




,
 
Last edited:
Bollocks, IMO.

First off, a monopod doesn't remove all vibration, only some of the muscular tremors from holding the weight of the camera.

I could see it being useful with a long lens in low light, but with strobes?

Most flashes are less than 1/10,000th of a second. You'd have to have some serious Parkinsons and too much coffee for a monopod to make a difference.

That top pic in the last set I posted was 100ISO, 1/200th on a 300mm lens. In the full-sized version, you can see the texture on the stuff INSIDE his pores, clearly.

Without a strobe, I'm sure it helps. But then just go with a full-on tripod and be done with it.

If he's having focus issues because he can't hold that still, he needs to change the auto-focus mode on the camera to servo. But the monopod doesn't prevent movement in the X and Z, only in the Y - assuming you have the thing upright. And I'm talking about amounts of movement that are meaningful, before y'all get pedantic on me :twofinger
 
in a world of image stabilization and high iso cameras, monopods don't seem as useful as they once were. of course there are always extremes, such as shooting with huge lenses or maybe you actually are trying to shoot below 1/60 a lot
 
How do you fit $25,000 into a bag?

This is one way to do it. Check the video @ Chase Jarvis' blog: http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/2009/09/photo-gear-mania-shamwow.html

I counted $25,000 in gear in just the FIRST bag. :wow





D3 $5,000
D3x $8,000
70-200mm $2,000
2xSB800* $800
14-24mm $1,900
24-70mm $1,800
Tilt-shift $1,800
Teleconverter $480
16mm fish $900
Batteries* (3/body) $720
Shamwow $20
Pocket Wizards* $1,000
50mm 1.8 $120
Memory* $500
Backpack $200
_______________
$25,240



* Estimate. He doesn't state how many of these he actually has in the bag.


,
 
Last edited:
:laughing

On the way to the wedding last month, I had over $10k of gear strapped to the back of my $750 motorcycle. :party

Too bad most of it wasn't mine. :cry
 
Cycle61: that would freak me out! I would be paranoid just walking around with a decent body and a pro-grade lens.

Joebar4000: In his other bag he had a Hasselblad H3D-39 and handful of lenses. :teeth
 
I had yesterday off, so I dragged a friend of mine to Muir Beach for a bit of fun.

7121_140084482482_605697482_3048438_3860760_n.jpg


7121_140084467482_605697482_3048435_899981_n.jpg
 
wannabe said:
I had yesterday off, so I dragged a friend of mine to Muir Beach for a bit of fun.
Click to expand...

:thumbup

Strobist info plz. :D

I'm guessing the sunset is the rimlight and something else--maybe an reflective umbrella--at camera left.

EDIT: maybe it's a bare strobe, camera left... hmm.
 
VeloceMoto said:
:thumbup

Strobist info plz. :D

I'm guessing the sunset is the rimlight and something else--maybe an reflective umbrella--at camera left.

EDIT: maybe it's a bare strobe, camera left... hmm.
Click to expand...



The first one is all natural lighting. I don't like throwing specific numbers up because it does nothing for you. I just exposed for the ambient and went at it. I actually set up a strobe with CTO gel on it for a bit of cross lighting with this angle as well, but her left nipple kept popping out of her top, so I couldn't use them.

This was the top that I spoke of. I was so busy trying to get the lighting set up and shots framed that I didn't notice that her nipple was sticking out the whole time. :( I took this shot after the sun went behind the cliff. I single Vivitar 285 with the CTO gel at a 1/4 power this time.

7121_140084492482_605697482_3048439_5622308_n.jpg


The second shot was a couple hours earlier in the day. I just set up some cross lighting with the sun at her back and a Vivitar 285 on a stand at 1/2 power shooting directly opposite the sun. (no gel) I had to play around a bit with the strobe distance to get the right amount of fill, but it worked out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top