Lens fov-coverage comparison chart

Years ago in film photography I had a handy visual-aid "chart", giving a quick visual view of what you'd get in a photo,

using a 35 mm camera, with various length lenses. IE a photo of an elk, taken at 500 yards or something, showing what

you'd get in the photo with a 50mm, with a 100, with 135, etc etc, all the "common" lens lengths. This is a supremely

handy reference, yet I have hunted the web using every term I can think of as a search-word, and can find nothing.,

Anyone know of where to download such a beast ?

<p>Canon has a series of books called EF Lens Work which is available for free download as a series of PDF files on the Canon Europe web site. There is a section in Book 7 that gives what I think you're looking for.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.canon-europe.com/support/documents/digital_slr_educational_tools/en/ef_lens_work_iii_en.asp">http://www.canon-europe.com/support/documents/digital_slr_educational_tools/en/ef_lens_work_iii_en.asp</a></p>

<p>You want the one entitled "The Basics of Interchangeable Lenses."</p>

thanks, most appreciated. Just took a flip into it, it doesn't actually have what I'm looking for exactly, it has 'some

sample images of some shorter lengths', and it has the FOV charts of pretty well every length you could think of (from

which I could, using math and taking a 10 meg image i shot at a length i know, then "build" what I'm after, but that is

a few days work, and i'm not kidding, it's a long process). However,,,,even tho it may not have what i'm after right now,

i really sincerely appreciate being sent to it because it looks like a superb site.

I'll explain the reasoning behind what I want for a quick-visual. My present equipment is beginning to age and likely no

longer cost effective to repair. So, I'm in the process of debating the "where do i go from here". IE I may switch from

Canon and go with Nikon. I may, either instead of or in addition to one item, buy a super-zoom (either fuji hs30 or the

Fuji XS1). In the dslr debate, i may pickup a nikon d5100 and/or a d3200... or....i may now go, finally, with the 'rebel'

series of canon.....in either nikon or canon, once i do choose, although it is only wise to buy new bodies, used lenses

are okay to buy....so...right now, for example, in canon, right now there is a used L-series 70-200 for sale....non

IS....and i'm trying to give myself a visual peek-a-boo at "what i get in view, from a 200, versus a 300"....because there

is also a 300 mm IS for sale used, good lens but not an "L"....so.....I want to play with "am i better off with the L

series clarity and then crop up out of a 200 mm image? or does the xtra length and IS, make it wiser to go with the

300 'lesser' quality lens" ?

I have built myself, in about an hour and a half last nite (using a photo of a bighorn sheep photo'd with an 85 canon at

10 meg as the starting point), a visual showing myself what I would have as a 'croppable image' of the actual bighorn

itself "if" I had photo'd the exact same photo, with that exact 85 mm lens, using a 12 meg camera, a 14 meg, a 15, a

16, an 18 (ie canon now has that sensor in 3 bodies), and, last but not least, the 24 meg sensor in the nikon d3200

(and Sony, but sony is out for other reasons). This was interesting, in that regardless of the "mental math" you do in

your head, it was really revealing to build the visual and "see" the difference. It really let me know, that moving from

ten meg to anything prior to and less than 18, would not really have been worthwhile...but....that moving to 18 is

worthwhile (which makes the canon a great choice) "and"....when I looked at what 24 meg does to it, I was

"astounded" at what that can mean.

So...."extend that", to taking into consideration what happens if you step up to either 18 meg, or to the 24 meg,

"then, how much lens do you need ?" IE, a 200 mil L-series, hooked to an 18 meg image, is a whole lot different than

my "experienced feel" has me thinking/feeling about because my "internal visuals" are based on years of my eyes

looking at 10 meg images. This may sound dis-jointed. Does what I am saying make sense ? You combine a high-

resolution 200 mil lens, to a 24 meg sensor, and nothing in my visual 'experience', in years of working at 10 meg,

gives me a "physical sensation" of how enormous a gain that is...and while obviously, going to 300 mil is 'more', i'm

only facing the question because a 200 mil L is there at a decent used price.

All this may begin to sound "anal" and overly analytical, which in fact I'm actually not, And there are people out there,

for whom 'one more' camera is no big deal, whose approach is "hey....go buy it".

But, I'm an artist and photographer, and I work out of a mobile set-up. I have limited space, I do not like clutter, and I

am trying to have a "small footprint". Trying to learn to buy the right tool, and only the right tool. So thanks for the

advice.

Assuming it loads, i'll post the composite photo i built as reference of what the bighorn photod at 10 meg would be in

other meg-sensors using the same lens from the same spot.<div></div>

okay, the image did go up. So now, using the reference image I built, my opinion is that to jump from 10

meg (my 40d's) to anything less than 16 meg would have been a wasted move regardless. Go buy a longer

lens. At 16 meg, it's "borderline", longer lens versus maybe time to go to a newer body and more megs.

Now that 18 is here and good quality, easy decision, 18 is a justified jump from 10. And 24 ? WOW. 24 is

definitely worth the move from 10. "But"....is Nikon's 24 worth skipping past Canon's 18 ? A heck of a lot

more Interesting as a visual, than it is as a 'mental math' exercise.

Craig: 11 minutes into the a.m. on wednesday....found it...the book you sent me to, page 125, has an

exact visual of 200 versus 300 i can use to convert.....on my first flip thru i'd seen it jump from 100 directly

to 400 and couldn't see the value in it...they showed the other, later....thanks again, great site....

If all pixels were equal you might be on to something, but they are not, so you are not. If you need 300mm then cropping

a 200mm is a poor substitute, a better thing to do is get a 1.4 TC to give you a one stop slower 280mm.

thanks for the input....if you're referring back to the original query for a fov chart to compare image size

gain from a 300 versus 200, then pixels are irrelevant to that portion of the topic (ie in film days, it

wouldn't matter if i was shooting 64 asa chrome or 800 asa black and white, the fov of the lens doesn't

change).... nor is the question of lens quality a factor in it......., the quality of the lens elemsnts will

impact on any images produced, but have nothing to do with fov coverage.....if you are referring to the

little "image chart" i tossed together using a photo of a bighorn sheep as a reference, then number of

pixels is the only relevant data involved "for that specific purpose", as again, the chart has nothing to do

with comparing "quality" of pixels coming off different sensors, its only application is to show the

number (regardless of quality) of pixels you'd have to begin working with for cropping purposes..........in

terms of quality though, cropping from a 200 mm L series Canon will "usually" produce a more

satisfactory finished image than anything taken out of a 300 mm canon 75-300 kit lens even though it

had longer reach and gave a "more pixels" image to work with, and the crop from a 200L f4 is going to

give a much better starting-point to work with something out of a lesser quality 200 with a tele attached,

another factor, from experience, one of the interesting things which impacts on lens choices etc, is that

it is definitely easier to gain accurate focus on something 200 yards off if you use a 300 lens, than it is

to have that same object in accurate focus in a 200 mm crop.....experience with each lens' own DOF

factors become involved... etc etc....(and so does the viewfinder you're looking through).....

i "may not be onto something" as you state.....but my experience tells me i probably are......IE, i get

more "basic image" to work with using a 200 mm lens on an 18 meg sensor in a rebel t2i, than i do with

an equivalent quality 300 mm lens on my 10 meg 40d......., and it definitely impacts on decisions as to

"how many of what to pack around, at six pounds apiece".....going from a 10 meg sensor in an xti to the

18 meg sensor in the t2i added nothing in weight to the rebel cameras....but from a 200 to a 300 lens in

the same brand etc usually adds weight and bulk ....

and whether i are or aren't onto something, you taking time to read it all and provide input is truly

appreciated......have a great day

<p>This page might help.</p>

<p>http://www.mylensdb.com/guide-field-of-view-calculator-visualizer/</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It isn't difficult to work out fov calculations from images if you know the starting point. Or just copy one of<a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00aRYb"> these images</a> to give you a feel out in the field.</p>

<p>With regards pixel density and cropping, if you up-sample the smaller mp to give you the same number of pixels and then display them next to each other there is often virtually no difference in detail. This is <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studio-compare#baseDir=%2Freviews_data&cameraDataSubdir=boxshot&indexFileName=boxshotindex.xml&presetsFileName=boxshotpresets.xml&showDescriptions=false&headerTitle=Studio%20scene&headerSubTitle=Standard%20studio%20scene%20comparison&masterCamera=canon_eos550d&masterSample=canon550d-iso100&slotsCount=4&slot0Camera=canon_eos550d&slot0Sample=canon550d-iso100&slot0DisableCameraSelection=true&slot0DisableSampleSelection=true&slot0LinkWithMaster=true&slot1Camera=canon_eos1000d&slot1Sample=canon1000d_iso100&slot2Camera=canon_eos550d&slot2Sample=canon550d-iso100&x=0.902465391255501&y=-0.977445476250013">one example</a>, if you download the 10mp and the 18mp files and upsize the smaller then the detail is virtually identical, even in perfect studio conditions where the differences should be maximised. Just move the sample square to the yellow feather and you will see the 80% more pixels give virtually no more resolved detail.</p>

<p>And before you think this is all hypothesis, here are two images of mine shot from the same place with the same lens with different cameras. Both are well over 100% crops but one image is composed of over twice the pixels of the other, common wisdom dictates it should hold much more detail, but it doesn't. It does have a little more detail, but not appreciably more and, again, these were shot in optimal conditions that should favour the resolution advantage of the higher MP camera.</p><div></div>

Bob S, that fov calculator visualization tool is exactly what i was looking for. Most appreciated.

Scott, of the two images above, the one on the right has much better detail, so my automatic guess is

that all other things being constant, it was from the higher pixel sensor. Re the feather sample at

dpreview, I took a quick glance at it but have to go back and play with it before commenting.

Without using the exact numbers from the bighorn sheep example I set up (I can go back and calculate

them but it'll take time and i was originally aiming at theory not exact numbers), here is my theory

behind what I've suggested:

If an object in the initial frame - ie the bighorn sheep - occupies, say, 10 percent (as an easy-round-

number) of the total image....and if the overall image is a ten megapixel image....then that object, the

bighorn in this case, is a one megapixel image......

okay,,,,you take exactly the same photo from the same spot, same lens, but with an 18 megapixel

sensor......the bighorn still, because of the fov of the lens being constant, still occupies 10 percent of

the overall image.......and, in this case, ten percent of the overall image, is now one point eight

megapixels in size.......thus when you take the bighorn you into digital manipulation, you are working

with a starting image which already has...it must have......one point eight times as many individual

points of data with which you are commencing work......

Right ? I am commencing work on a 1 point 8 megapixel data bighorn, versus previously starting work

with only a 1 megapixel data bighorn ......which either should make a difference, or we could all go back

to using the first big one-point-one megapixel "pro" camera from 1990.....

this incidentally is an issue "on top of" my original sample, but re your mention that not all pixels are

equal, that is very true.....as an added thought-comparison, take my original sample using the 10 meg

image from the 40d (which was actually in jpeg not raw, i was in the mountains for three days and

shooting fine jpegs to make sure i had card-capacity) and "pretend" it is a RAW image crop at one meg

sampled in a 12 bit processor, versus a one-point-eight meg sized crop from a sensor with a 14 bit

RAW processor......it "should" add even more usable quality to the mix....

the intriguing thing about the whole pixel-race of course, is that when we were using the original one-

point-one meg beasts and then they brought out two-meg beasts, they then published charts saying

"one meg is okay up to about 20x30 inch but over that you gotta go two meg"....and now they put out

charts claiming 12 meg is no good for anything larger than a 4x6.....ya gotta love 'em....

thanks for the feedback, both of you, most beneficial

Robert,

Don't confuse noise with resolution, the two images were unprocessed apart from the resizing. The version with more

than twice the pixels has more than twice the noise, but very little additional resolution, it should have 50% more at the

least.

I understood your initial premise, that is why I commented, the numbers do not add up, pixels are very far from equal, and

nothing beats sensor real estate. The logical extension of this is that a cropped high density 200mm image will not

compare favorably with a lower density 300mm image, well that has been my finding.

Scott, your findings, that the 200 high density crop is beaten by a lower density 300 non-crop, is vitally

important because determining that is my objective of this beginning this entire exercise. You haven't

mentioned in that however, "how much" denser an image your findings are based on. IE, there has never

been any doubt in my mind that moving from 10 to 12 meg was pointless, or 10 to 14 or 15.....at 16 it

struck me it was starting to enter a realm where it may though....and at 18 and up, it struck me the

math may start to make it appear to become sensible....all based on equivalent sensor size ie

apsc/apsh as a constant (with minor dimensional variance by mfr), and ignoring the differences in q

between nikon canon etc etc.....(that becomes a different factor in any discusssion).

What i started out to do, never found the fov chart i wanted and thus did not do initially, was to do the

math to determine, as i did re sensor-percentage-size of a given object, the percent size of that same

given object of the overall image, if photod with a 300 versus with a 200 as the only variable. The

number this produces will be the "reverse effect" of what my little bighorn-sample showed happens with

pixels.....in that study, more pixels in the original identical fov, the more pixels in a given object within

it.....now, in moving from a 300 image and "backing-off" to a 200 mm fov, the same number of pixels

have to cover a much much larger field....thus, the singular object, the bighorn, will consist once again

of a smaller number of the overall pixels....a smaller percentage of the total. And it is entirely possible,

that this math may show that in the end result, that object is back to being 10 percent or less of the

overall image, thus negating the potential advantage. This "may" or "may not" be.....I haven't used the

fov site to work it out yet.

Re the two images you posted, just so there is no confusion, I am calling the one on "my" right as I look

at my monitor, the "right hand image". (if you look at it from a performing-stage view they'd state it

oppositely, so i wanted to clarify that). As I sit at my keyboard, the image on my monitor which appears

above the "8-9-0" side I am calling the right hand image, and the one above the "1-2-3" I am calling the

left hand image. And on my monitor, the right hand image is head-and-shoulders above the left hand one

in quality, the resolution of the details of edges of lines, and of clarity of shapes etc, is significantly

better than in the left hand one. IE if those two images were posted and claimed to be a "lens

comparison", I would be prepared to pay far more for the lens producing the right hand one vs the left.

Scott: re my comments about your two images, these are three of the objects I based my statement

on. In looking at the loop of wire, the wire itself is substantially crisper and clearer in the right hand, and

you really see it in the two highlights on the wire. In the left hand image, those two highlights "bulge"

out, as though they are balloons of highlight...in the right hand image those two highlights are very

obviously "part of" the image of the wire, they are captured "crisply", they don't "bulge out" beyond the

shape of the wire itself. Then, looking at the "scratch" on the metal surface running from the bottom up

to the "m"...on the left hand image that scratch is "blurry", while in the right hand image it is well-

defined, with crisp edge-lines....and the same thing when looking at the white scracthed areas of high

between the vertical marking lines above the "m"....in the left hand image those highs are "furry", in the

right hand image, they have clearly defined shapes and edges. The right hand image is far superior in

quality.

Getting to view that has been very, very, appreciated and helpful. It would be interesting to know the two

sensors involved.

<p>robert,</p>

<p>Yes the right hand image is the one with twice the pixels, but I would urge you to download them and do a simple contrast adjust to them, there is very little resolution difference when the images are optimised. The right hand image should contain considerably more detail than it does.</p>

<p>I don't recall the magnification, but it is considerably over 100%, but the right hand image contains well over twice the number of pixels. It is a comparison, effectively, between a 7mp camera and an 18mp camera, the higher number is also younger generation so should be even better.</p>

<p>But one comment of yours is very relevant, lens price. A 200 f2.8 non IS is $820, a 300 f4 with IS is $1,359, not a small difference. If you are going to start comparing 200mm primes against similar priced 300mm zooms then my findings might be reversed.</p>

<p>You have a lot more research to do to make your own conclusions, for my uses I discovered that pixel density is vastly overblown as a focal length "multiplier" and if I wanted a 300mm lens fov, using a 200mm lens on a higher pixel density body did not compare well to actually buying the 300mm.</p>

Scott, thanks for permission to download and play with the images. Actually, it downloads as a single

image, which is no sweat, as I'm able to, and did, work on each half of it independently in Elements.

Bottom line ? No matter what I did to the left hand, the one you indicate is 7 meg (? who made a 7 meg

camera who also now makes an 18 meg one ?) I could not get the lines, ie the little loop of wire, to be

as "crisp and accurate a line" as it was in the right hand image with no additional reworking at all.

I could add chroma saturation density which improved the overall image, I could adjust the levels adding

shadow density which improved it, I adjusted the contrast which improved the image a little as a single,

and I worked on it using 'sharpening' and with the 'unsharp mask'....all of which improved it "but" never

did manage to make the lines as crisp and certain as they were in the right hand as an untouched

image.

The only way I could have (and did not bother) added additional "crispness" to the wire-line highlights was to take the image into the 'distortion' tool and use a small, tight, brush to "push" the little bulgey balloon flares into being a crisp edge line. (it can be done that way if you only have one image and are forced to make it usable, and i have on a couple of occasions done so...and it is unbelievably slogging, time consuming work, make lottsa coffee before you start)

Then, I applied the exact same work to the right hand image, and the differences in what was available

to work with became hugely apparent, The saturation and density increases had significantly more

"goodness" to them, each color had far more quality-depth to it than the left one ...and when I played

with sharpness and an unsharp mask, I couldn't even apply the same amounts as I had with the left

hand image....the right hand was already sharp enough to begin with, that when i started "increasing"

that sharpness I was only able to even apply a minimal amount before it went "over the edge", into the

realm where it started to look "obviously overworked".

Bottom line: that right hand image is far, far, superior to the left one. Despite both coming down as

jpegs, the right hand one has considerably more information-per-pixel already inherent in it to work with

once you take it into post-processing.

You allowing me to work with them was most, most, appreciated. Everything you've been adding to the topic has made a huge jump in what I'm gaining from this.