One to one image - what's needed to achieve this?

[spencer_isaachsen]

<p>Hi,<br>

I'd like to take photos that appear as I see the subject in real life - in terms of size. I would also like them to appear in the viewfinder this way.<br>

I have a Nikon D80.<br>

Any thoughts would be appreciated.<br>

Thanks,<br>

Spencer.<br>

 <br>

 <br>

 <br>

 <br>

 <br>

 </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Photographs are almost always flat, two-dimensional objects that reflect the characteristics of the lens and the recording medium. They should not be confused with real life, nor expected to mimic real life. One of the key lessons to learn, as a beginner, is that photographs have their own intrinsic essence that is not the same as what is in front of the camera at the time it is being photographed. They are not the same thing, the differences are fundamental and must be understood by photographers.</p>

[robatkinson]

<blockquote>

<p>They should not be confused with real life, nor expected to mimic real life</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I believe he is mainly concerned with replicating the size of real life and not the look. In which case I would suggest that you use a Macro lens. Although not all macro lenses are created equal and not all macro lenses will be able to acheive the same amount of magnification. A lenses with 1:1 magnification will be able to focus closely enough to cover the sensor with an object the same size as the sensor. For example on an asp-c sensor a 1:1 macro lens could create an image of an approx 2cm wide coin where the coin covered almost all of the picture. (Basically the size of the object in the image on the sensor is the same as the size of the object in real life).</p>

<p>On the other hand, some macro lenses can only acheive 2:1 (or maybe it 1:2, not entirely whether the image or the object comes first). This means that with the same coin they can create an image where the coin covers half of the picture.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>A macro lens won't do much if the subject is 200 feet away. However, what I said applies regardless. Perspective changes dramatically as you move close and farther, up or down, side to side, which way does someone want it to look?</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Spencer: what are you talking about photographing, and what lens(es) do you have now?</p>

[spencer_isaachsen]

<p>Hi Guys, Thanks for your responses both philosophical or technical :) I have 2.8 24mm, a 1.8 50mm and an 18-200 - all Nikon. I'm mainly interested in urban scenes and I want to preserve the feeling of the place that I'm in. I know that I can achieve a larger image by using the zoom but I like to use available light and it's too dark and not terribly sharp at some apertures. I suppose I'm trying to capture what I see and the setup I have now seems to give results that are smaller than real life. It's not always possible to get closer either ... Thanks again! Regards, Spencer.</p>

[leighb]

<p>Hi Spencer,</p>

<p>You want to use a "normal" lens, which is about 50mm for a 35mm film camera or one with a full-size sensor.</p>

<p>That will give you the closest to "normal" rendering, which is why it's called a "normal" lens.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

[simon_hickie1]

<p>Hi Spencer. If I read this correctly then, you are trying to fill the frame with your main subject, sometimes from quite a distance away, sometimes in less that ideal light and with a good degree of sharpness. Your 18-200mm, if mine was anything to go by, will be weak at the longer end. For relatively static objects, VR will help in low light situations. I use the Nikon 55-300mm VR and have found this to be far superior to the 18-200mm in terms of sharpness and reach. Others also like the Nikon 70-300mm VR, at about 60% more money. With either lens you are limited to f5.6 at the long end. An f2.8 tele-zoom with VR will set you back an awful lot of money. In conjunction with your 24mm and 50mm lenses, the 55-300mm VR would be the most economical way forward, although an idea of budget would be helpful for us.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>+1 Leigh He is not after macro but reality as I read him. <br>

Mind you I do not believe that the 50mm [or 30mm on APC] is how I look at things and it it only becuase the eye rapidly changes to accomodate the 'normal ' view that we talk about the 50/30 lens as normal. My eye is normally seeing just one key on my keyboard when the board is on my lap .. probably the equivalent of a 300 to 500 mm lens. [Yet to work it out] <br>

Perhaps that is why a moderately long zoom appeals to me :-) Not for the perspective but for the tight framing. Recently buying a camera with just a 14-42 [ 28-84] lens was extremely frustrating until I got my 14-140 [28-280] lens. :-) Not as good as what I was used to [<432] but approaching it.</p>

[stephen_hipperson]

<p>I think you need to do some experimenting for yourself. Pick a single subject, maybe a park bench, kiosk, road crossing. Then photograph it using the suite of lenses you have - getting the image of the subject about the same size - which will mean walking towards and away from the subject. You can then see what works best for you.<br>

Intuitively, I feel 50mm on full frame is about right and I would move my position to give the frame fill I required. The critical issue is the angle of view, for me anyway, ie it's not the main subject but what is included in the background (whether that's in focus or not, is pretty irrelevant for a sense of scale/distance).</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>I want to preserve the feeling of the place that I'm in....</p>

<p>I suppose I'm trying to capture what I see and the setup I have now seems to give results that are smaller than real life.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That seem two different issues to me, and frankly in either case I doubt whether a lens is the solution.<br>

For the first thing, what Jeff said earlier is just very true. A photo is not the place you're in - the photo is the photo. You may be able to transmit the emotion you had while you were in that place (mainly a skill of good composition, framing, effective use of light), or preserve for yourself a memory of that place. This could be with either lens, really. It's got to do with your artistic skills more than anything.</p>

<p>The second, true, a "normal" lens might help, but then it also might not. The human eye is vastly different from a camera with a fixed focal lens. A normal lens may render the most "naturally" feeling perspective, but its angle of view is not identical to the human eye, and not all human eyes are identical either.<br>

For this, experiment with the 18-200, and see which focal length 'resonates' with you - and then see if you want/need to improve that focal length. This way, you can drill down much easier to lenses that would solve your problem, rather than solving the assumed problem. Judging from what you wrote, you tend to gravitate to the 200mm end of that lens. Instead of a 35mm, something like the AF 180mm f/2.8 might be a solution instead - but only you can tell us based on the focal lengths you actually typically use.</p>

<p>But since you stated you also want the viewfinder to show things bigger, I actually still wonder whether we understand what your problem is - the viewfinder and the image show the same thing, as the D80 has a quite good viewfinder. So maybe we're all guessing wrong still.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>The real solution is to use some patience and to take a methodical approach. Your 18-200 is your laboratory. Never mind that it's not super sharp when wide open, or that it's not as fast as a prime might be. What you're worried about are working distances, the perspective that results from changing working distances, and the focal lengths that add up to a certain type of framing/composition around a given subject at a given working distance.<br /><br />With your 18-200, you can <em>personally test those things</em> across a very wide range of focal lengths. You'll know very quickly if standing 10 feet from a person, with the camera vertically oriented while shooting at 30mm is more what you want to see than, say, standing 20 feet away, while using a 50mm lens, etc. <br /><br />Once you spend some time deliberately looking at the <em>perspective</em> that those workoing distances provides, you'll know what focal length(s) give you the look you're after, and you'll know what lens to shop for. <br /><br />On a DX format body, that prime lens for me would usually be Sigma's 30/1.4 HSM. But as Wouter points out, I'm still not entirely sure that we're clear on the problem you're really describing. But you're in good shape: you already have the perfect tool to evaluate, critically, your own situation. Pixels are free! Spend a few hours shooting very deliberately with that 18-200 across a range of working distances and focual lengths, and really <em>really</em> look at the relationship between the subject and the background, relative to how the scene felt to you.</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>For preserving the perspective that your eye naturally sees, you want to use what's referred to as a normal lens. For your D80, you will need a lens with a focal length of about 30mm. Use your 18-200mm zoomed to 30mm, or buy yourself the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (although, the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G is close enough in perspective that it will work fine).</p>

[jim_momary]

<p>Spencer said ... " but I like to use available light and it's too dark and <em><strong>not terribly sharp </strong></em>at some apertures ".<br>

Jim says ..." get a tripod to help iron out the unsharpness a bit ".<br>

Jim</p>

[maris_rusis]

<p>The simplest rule for making things in a photograph <em>look</em> as big as they do in real life is to inspect the camera image from a distance equal to the focal length of the lens that made the image. For example a 35mm transparency (24mmx36mm) made with a 50mm lens should be looked at from 50mm away . That's impractical! But magnifying things (pictures and viewing distances) uniformly makes things much easier.<br>

If the picture is enlarged by 10x (say) to 240mmx360mm and looked at from 500mm the angular size of all objects depicted is preserved. This same 240mmx360mm picture if carried back to the exact spot where the camera originally was and held 500mm in front of your eye will "fit" the scene perfectly!</p>

[spencer_isaachsen]

<p>Wow - thanks everyone for all your suggestions.<br>

You've certainly given me a lot to think about. I think what I was really asking about was perspective.<br>

I do need to be more methodical - that's for sure.<br>

Thanks again for all your help.<br>

Regards,<br>

Spencer.</p>