|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 28th, 2008, 03:58 AM | #16 |
Wrangler
|
FWIW worth, I spent the evening with a digital SLR mounted above the XH A1, comparing different focal lengths. Everything between 35mm and 135mm matched very closely with the EXIF data - including the FOV. So I'm inclined to use the numbers from the EXIF data to calculate the 35mm equivalent.
__________________
"Ultimately, the most extraordinary thing, in a frame, is a human being." - Martin Scorsese |
January 28th, 2008, 09:19 AM | #17 |
Obstreperous Rex
|
Well I'm still at a loss as to why there's so much disparity between the EXIF data and the F.O.V. test... but...
*If* we accept the EXIF data as valid, then here's a *rough* 35mm equivalency scale for commonly used focal lengths (except I know I'm missing a few of the more common 35mm focal lengths -- what are they?): Code:
Z00 32.5mm Z02 34mm Z06 36mm Z10 38mm Z12 40mm Z19 45mm Z25 50mm Z29 55mm Z34 60mm Z40 70mm Z46 80mm Z50 90mm Z54 100mm Z60 120mm Z64 135mm Z65 140mm Z70 165mm Z75 200mm Z80 240mm Z85 300mm Z90 380mm Z91 400mm Z95 500mm Z99 650mm |
February 1st, 2008, 03:28 PM | #18 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 157
|
common 35mm focal lengths
I've used Chris's method and a multiplication factor of 7.2222222 to determine some of the more common focal lengths as they relate to Z#s. Hope this is helpful to you all...
To get as uniform a reading as possible, I set the zoom speed to 1 and gently tapped the zoom button until the Z# changed thus taking the reading from the very start of the zoom value as opposed to midway through (that is, you can actually zoom through Z5 a little bit before it changes to Z6 etc.) all the values are usually accurate within a couple of tenths of a milimeter though at the upper end of the range (180mm and 300mm) they are within 2mm. 32.5mm=z0 35mm=z5 40mm=z12 50mm=z24 65mm=z37 75mm=z43 85mm=z48 100mm=z54 135mm=z64 150mm=z67 180mm=z72 300mm=z85 |
February 1st, 2008, 06:39 PM | #19 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 157
|
whoops! just noticed that my post is pretty much a repeat of your last one chris. Didn't mean to steal your thunder lol but I guess I over looked that last post. Anyways, seems like our numbers are pretty similar.
|
February 1st, 2008, 10:06 PM | #20 |
Obstreperous Rex
|
It's all good Cal. Reassures me that we're coming up with the same numbers.
|
August 27th, 2009, 08:12 AM | #21 |
New Boot
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Essex, England
Posts: 22
|
Chris, Cal, this is brilliant, thanks for working this out. I think in 35mm focal lengths and tend to be quite organised (read: pedantic) about what lens length is used for what shots so it's always irritated me not really knowing what focal length I was shooting at, even roughly. I'm printing a list of 35mm equivalents and sticking it to the back of my camcorder.
Nic |
| ||||||
|
|