[Marc Sabatella]

Hey Marc, I actually know all about focal length, perspective etc. which is why my empirical observations were confusing me.

As with my previous post in response "asdf", I kind of figured as much, and my comment weren't so much directed to you but were also intended to be useful to people reading along who don't have a background in these issues.

That partially makes sense. Although it might lead to the conclusion that for APS-C we need a 28mm lens with a viewfinder magnification that creates an impression of having a 43mm on the camera.

Otherwise this is finally a good argument for full-frame. Perhaps I am late coming to this realisation. Still learning here, and all.

Me too - that realization about FF hit you several hours before it just hit me while starting to type up this response! It also suggests how the notion of a 50mm focal length as "normal" managed to get so ingrained among 35mm film photographers: everything happened to come together at that focal length / FOV in a way it doesn't for APS-C. Extrapolating, I would assume - never having used one) that larger format cameras have the opposite problem - a lens that provides an equivalent field of view would actually produce an image that looked abnormally large in the viewfinder. On the other hand, larger format cameras are bigger, and maybe that would move the focus screen further away, canceling out the larger size? Of course, view cameras would then provide their own sets of issues.

WARNING: just thinking loud here:

I suspect what might be going on is that what makes 35mm/135/FF "special" is just a happy accident. That is, the image on the focus screen is the size it is - clearly, *MUCH* smaller than the actual scene before us (except for 1:1 macro photography). What makes it appear the "right" size to us is how far away that focus screen is from our eyes (along with whatever additional optics may be enlarging or reducing the image). Given that a camera of a certain size is going to tend to put that focus screen a certain distance away from our eyes, it stands to reason that for every focus screen size, there is one FOV that will happen to 100% magnification, and that the converse is true as well. That is - again assuming a focus screen that is a fixed distance from our eyes - for every FOV, there is only one focus screen size that will render that FOV at 100% magnification. And as far as I know, focus screen size = sensor size (assuming 100% coverage).

So if you take the FOV provided by a 50mm lens on 135 format to be the ideal normal FOV for whatever reason, then indeed, 135 format is the one format that will yield this FOV at 100% magnification. Other formats would need to place the focus screen closer or further away - and/or apply different optics to that image - in order to appear to provide 100% magnification at that FOV.

So it would seem that 135 format just happens to be the one that happens to yield 100% magnification with no additional magnification at the FOV that many would, for whatever subjective reason they care to state - consider "normal". And in that sense, it seems 135 format got something "right"in a way I've never seen discussed before.

I wonder if any of this actually makes sense?

[Rondec]

Just my two cents: you need to learn photography and about aperture control/ depth of field somehow. To me, the cheapest way is with a prime, but it is also reasonable to have a fast zoom to do the same thing. If you know that you are going to up grade your kit lens in short order, then it is a waste of money to "invest" in the kit lens.

The real problem with the kit lens is the inability to experiment with narrower depths of field. Even if you spend only 80 dollars on it, it would probably be better spent on one of the slightly sharper lenses such as the 16-45.

[rparmar]

So it would seem that 135 format just happens to be the one that happens to yield 100% magnification with no additional magnification at the FOV that many would, for whatever subjective reason they care to state - consider "normal". And in that sense, it seems 135 format got something "right"in a way I've never seen discussed before.

I wonder if any of this actually makes sense?

I followed the same thought process. So why has no-one else figured this out? A few options:

1. we are wrong in our reasoning
2. it's so blindingly obvious no-one ever states it
3. it is stated by experts all the time but we have missed it
4. we have discovered something brilliant and new

Maybe we need another thread for this. Yet another "normal" thread!

[soccerjoe5]

Just my two cents: you need to learn photography and about aperture control/ depth of field somehow. To me, the cheapest way is with a prime, but it is also reasonable to have a fast zoom to do the same thing. If you know that you are going to up grade your kit lens in short order, then it is a waste of money to "invest" in the kit lens.

The real problem with the kit lens is the inability to experiment with narrower depths of field. Even if you spend only 80 dollars on it, it would probably be better spent on one of the slightly sharper lenses such as the 16-45.

I agree that a 50 is a great way to learn, as a lot of people have also said in this thread, and no one is saying otherwise so far. However, there are more ways than big apertures for getting a narrow depth of field and getting your background all nice and blurry. There are some things that one may not learn when not being limited to a kit lens, otherwise the thinking would only be "oh blur background and thin DOF = big aperture"

Also, learning to play with the relationship of the subject and background with a zoom is priceless.

---

Last edited by soccerjoe5; 05-11-2009 at 04:46 PM.

[kthung]

I know the usual arguments though: "better rendering, sharpness, distortion, optics", "you'll eventually end up getting this lens" etc but these don't matter to a budding photographer. You've got to focus on the PHOTO itself, all these little technical stuff will mean NOTHING if it's a bad photo to start with.

Absolutely Correct! When people ask me for advice regarding their first dSLR purchase I always recommend the kit lens. It is an excellent tool for learning photography. Plus it is very light and compact. I'm pretty sure some people would be discouraged if they always had to carry around a 4-5 pound camera.

[Marc Sabatella]

I followed the same thought process. So why has no-one else figured this out? A few options:

1. we are wrong in our reasoning
2. it's so blindingly obvious no-one ever states it
3. it is stated by experts all the time but we have missed it
4. we have discovered something brilliant and new

I'd say 2 & 3 are incredibly unlikely. But a very likely possibility is that a few experts *have* pointed it out, but not often or prominently enough for us to notice. I'm kind doubtful on 4, but 1 is an all-too-likely possibility too...

[Jewelltrail]

jsherman999:
True, except for one thing - the nicer lens will give encouraging results, prompting the shooter to shoot more and work on technique in the process.

Note: "nicer" doesn't mean expensive, although it's hard to get cheaper than the kit lens. Consider The Tamron 17-50 2.8 zoom or F/FA 50 1.7 ($120 - $170) or even jumping ito MF primes to supplement the kit zoom.

Once you see the magic of a really nice lens, or any fast lens for that matter, you start to shoot more. I know people who's XT's and D40's sit in a drawer untouched because they were never given the advice of a kit lens upgrade, and they grew bored with the quality they were getting indoors.

I have to say that I'm on the other side of the issue here, Diego - If someone expresses an interest in getting better to me, I'm going to suggest a fast prime or constant-aperture zoom, and suggest they start honing technique from there - much more encouraging than just owning the slow kit zoom. I mean, the kit zoom can teach you something about framing and composition, but you can learn that from a 5x or 10x zoom point and shoot, also.

Jay's words above show me I am in his camp on this one. Many other people have expressed similar thoughts throughout the thread as well. The whole reason for coming to DSLR world is the GLASS--it is all about the GLASS!

soccerjoe5: I've always been stumped as to why a LOT of people here, and pretty much everywhere, always recommend newbies to buy all these expensive f/2.8 zooms and fast glass in their first few months.

No need to be stumped. We suggest these faster, pricier zooms because an OP starts a thread with a title like "Help Me Upgrade MY Kit Lens Please. So we do our best to help them, by answering their questions. I think our only obligation in such cases is to be honest and as supportive as we can, perhaps even providing our reasoning along with our choices.

After all, we are all adults here. And, like so many have pointed out, a newbie to the forum in no way means a newbie to photography. Never mind film camera experience; as Jay suggests, much can be learned on a P & S.

[GeneV]

Assuming one is coming to the DSLR world from P&S, isn't the who reasont to come to the DSLR world "IQ" rather than "Glass?" Glass is just a route to IQ. The combination of a decent kit lens, such as the Pentax, with the larger sensor and features of an SLR body put one a long way ahead.

Can the best P&S in the world really hold a candle to an inexpensive DSLR and its kit lens?

[Marc Sabatella]

Can the best P&S in the world really hold a candle to an inexpensive DSLR and its kit lens?

Shooting at low ISO, and being able to take advantage of the larger zoom ranges of many P&S cameras - and the surprisingly large apertures they can achieve for such large zoom ranges - I'd say yes, there are any number of situations where a P&S camera can do as well. Better even, if you consider shooting a telephoto shot on a superzoom P&S and trying to match it by shooting the DSLR + kit lens and then cropping.

But of course, there are also any number of situations where the DSLR will just blow the P&S away.

[GeneV]

Shooting at low ISO, and being able to take advantage of the larger zoom ranges of many P&S cameras - and the surprisingly large apertures they can achieve for such large zoom ranges - I'd say yes, there are any number of situations where a P&S camera can do as well. Better even, if you consider shooting a telephoto shot on a superzoom P&S and trying to match it by shooting the DSLR + kit lens and then cropping.

But of course, there are also any number of situations where the DSLR will just blow the P&S away.

True, but aren't the latter situations more common? The trend in the better P&S cameras seems to be to limit the zoom ranges to something no better than the 18-50mm kit lens, and the larger apertures are counterbalanced in most situations by lower usable ISO.

[Marc Sabatella]

True, but aren't the latter situations more common?

They are for me, sure. Not necessarily for everyone. Anyhow, I wasn't trying to imply I thought anyone in particular was better off with a P&S - just pointing out that there *are* situations where a P&S can compete with a DSLR + kit lens.

[Jewelltrail]

GeneV: Assuming one is coming to the DSLR world from P&S, isn't the who reasont to come to the DSLR world "IQ" rather than "Glass?"

Gene, isn't the main reason the IQ is better on the DSLR the glass, even if it is the "kit lens"?

Yes, initially, many people are thrilled with their new DSLR and kit lens after they abandon their P & S. However, it is not long before better glass is sought after by most of them. For many people, myself included, the allure of the DSLR is the freedom it affords its user to select and mount any hunk of glass deemed worthy. It could be a 48-year old Auto-Takumar, or a brand new Da--this makes shooting a DSLR an exciting thing. Then there are specialty lenses, like ultra-wides and Macros. Adding to the seemingly endless choices of lenses, are the 3rd party options. Pick up an M42 adapter and presto, another door opens to countless more lenses. Pick up a medium format adapter..............................this could go on for a while.

Especially with Pentax' "Backwards Compatibility" does selecting a portfolio of glass become a real treat for the DSLR owner. A point & shoot, even the mega-zooms, are boring because the glass mounted to them are fixed and identical in performance to every other P & S of that model selection. For example, many people own a K10d, but few owners share exactly the same glass portfolio. You do not see a section in a P & S forum on lenses. I think this "Lens" section of our forum is the most dynamic.

It is an opinion, and only an opinion, but I think it is all about the GLASS! Many people here word it differently, for example: "Bodies come and go, but he glass is forever!"

[Ash]

And as we all know, it's also the flexibility and versatility the dSLR has over the P&S.

Try timing that split-second moment when a ball is struck, or a header is made, or a child does something silly only for that quick millisecond with a P&S...

[Mike Cash]

And as we all know, it's also the flexibility and versatility the dSLR has over the P&S.

Try timing that split-second moment when a ball is struck, or a header is made, or a child does something silly only for that quick millisecond with a P&S...

They're both stuck with some degree of shutter-lag, and the (d)SLR brings the additional disadvantage of the viewfinder being blocked off for the duration of the shot. This is part of the reason there are so many machine-gunners out there.

[GeneV]

Gene, isn't the main reason the IQ is better on the DSLR the glass, even if it is the "kit lens"?

Yes, initially, many people are thrilled with their new DSLR and kit lens after they abandon their P & S. However, it is not long before better glass is sought after by most of them. For many people, myself included, the allure of the DSLR is the freedom it affords its user to select and mount any hunk of glass deemed worthy. It could be a 48-year old Auto-Takumar, or a brand new Da--this makes shooting a DSLR an exciting thing. Then there are specialty lenses, like ultra-wides and Macros. Adding to the seemingly endless choices of lenses, are the 3rd party options. Pick up an M42 adapter and presto, another door opens to countless more lenses. Pick up a medium format adapter..............................this could go on for a while.

Especially with Pentax' "Backwards Compatibility" does selecting a portfolio of glass become a real treat for the DSLR owner. A point & shoot, even the mega-zooms, are boring because the glass mounted to them are fixed and identical in performance to every other P & S of that model selection. For example, many people own a K10d, but few owners share exactly the same glass portfolio. You do not see a section in a P & S forum on lenses. I think this "Lens" section of our forum is the most dynamic.

It is an opinion, and only an opinion, but I think it is all about the GLASS! Many people here word it differently, for example: "Bodies come and go, but he glass is forever!"

The glass is definitely a big reason for the high IQ, but for me, it is only one. As Marc pointed out, the glass in better P&S cameras now is often quite good.

The sensor and the viewing system are huge contributors as well which often negate the glass. A P&S with a beautiful zoom with a fantastic maximum aperature, but with with a tiny sensor, does me little good (except for the size savings). I am generally not satisfied with any any ISO over 200 in a P&S, and even that looks about like an SLR at 800. Noise is a huge problem. I say this as a disappointed purchaser of a decent P&S, who tried quite a few.

For me, (and this is just my problem) a camera without an optical viewfinder leads to shaky holds and poor IQ. Too often, I have to hold the camera almost at arms lenght to see the screen--darned middle age.

And then there is focus accuracy, and the inability to tweak focus, quirky automation with poor shutter speed choices, puny flashes, etc. etc.

There is also the shutter lag--not strictly an IQ problem, but it prevents many photos.

These little technical marvels have so much to contend with that the quality of their glass is overshadowed.