Raoul Isidro Images wrote:

Well and good.

I guess you just have to discover it for yourself.

.

And to be honest, if I haven't found a reason to know the exact focal length of my shot as I'm shooting it in the last 12 years, I don't suspect I'll ever need to know.  But I am still interested to know why someone would.  It's the why that interests me about things.  Not so much the what.

Leighthenubian wrote:


Canon got spanked like the Democrats in the Senate this week. Pathetic to ask for increasing amounts of money for old, stale technology.

Thanks for posting this.  On the Christmas list?... D750... low light winner in this comparison...

Good Egg Productions wrote:
And to be honest, if I haven't found a reason to know the exact focal length of my shot as I'm shooting it in the last 12 years, I don't suspect I'll ever need to know.  But I am still interested to know why someone would.  It's the why that interests me about things.  Not so much the what.

Ok, I will tell you one reason: because you honestly want to know.

In the rendering of an AutoCad file that is generating a perspective stationary point of view where the angle of view for the required image has a specified focal length, the CGI image generator will render this image very accurately. Often times, the focal length are weird, such as 21mm, or 32mm etc.
In order to overlay the real world  layer over this CGI layer, it is necessary to get the real world focal length as close as possible to the computer generated image. If this is not done properly, the layers would look fake and funny. Perspective rendering has very limited tolerances when combining several images purporting the real world.
It is of great help to CGI and Photomontage renderers to know the exact focal length being captured, so it could emulate the perspective readings of the CGI wireframe.

There. I hope I explained it in as much concise manner as possible.

I teach manual Perspective Drawing in college, so I genuinely want to help and teach people.

.

CHAD ALAN wrote:
Where did Caitin go?

R Bruce Duncan wrote:
Sheesh.

My main concern is that newly signed agency girls leave this site.

The girls I want to shoot with.

And I don't--didn't--know too much about Caitlin, although she seemed like an able contributor.

Don't get me wrong.

For the permanent record, I'm not at all averse to you experts jousting about hardware.

Still, my preference would be to see more images, particularly of young agency qualified girls who have a chance of signing.

The kind of portfolio images that will get them real world jobs.

I'd like to emulate them.

RBD

?

I was just asking a question. I'm not bothered at all by her leaving.
I don't really get models from this site anymore, anyway.
I don't joust about hardware, Did I put you off in some way?

Cheers.

Raoul Isidro Images wrote:
Ok, I will tell you one reason: because you honestly want to know.

In the rendering of AutoCad that is generating a perspective stationary point of view where the angle of view for the required image has a specified focal length, the CGI image will generate this image very accurately. Often times, the focal length are weird, such as 21mm, or 32mm etc.
In order to overlay the real world  layer over this CGI layer, it is necessary to get the real world focal length as close as possible to the computer generated image. If this is not done properly, the layers would look fake and funny. Perspective rendering has very limited tolerances when combining several images purporting the real world.
It is of great help to CGI and Photomontage renderers to know the exact focal length being captured, so it could emulate the perspective readings of the CGI wireframe.

There. I hope I explained it in as much concise manner as possible.

I teach manual Perspective Drawing in college, so I genuinely want to help and teach people.

.

Your explanation does not make sense to me. The image is not computer generated by some device that need some reference point. It is recorded from the true focal length of an optical device. What you have is the display of the actual focal length of the optical device available to the shooter and of course to the camera. All other manufacturers also have the same feature (not the display). If it is not the case, please educated me.

Marco R wrote:
Your explanation does not make sense to me. The image is not computer generated by some device that need some reference point. It is recorded from the true focal length of an optical device. What you have is the display of the actual focal length of the optical device available to the shooter and of course to the camera. All other manufacturers also have the same feature (not the display). If it is not the case, please educated me.

The explanation was not about the camera at all. It is about several things needed to produce an image result, one of them being photography. Other things could be AutoCad or CAD. It could also include vector illustration that never loose resolution when blown up. The advantage of the Sony lens is knowing the focal length, in real time, as you shoot, so you can merge it later, properly, with a CGI image of a similar reading.

.

R Bruce Duncan wrote:
Sheesh.

My main concern is that newly signed agency girls leave this site.

The girls I want to shoot with.

And I don't--didn't--know too much about Caitlin, although she seemed like an able contributor.

Don't get me wrong.

For the permanent record, I'm not at all averse to you experts jousting about hardware.

Still, my preference would be to see more images, particularly of young agency qualified girls who have a chance of signing.

The kind of portfolio images that will get them real world jobs.

I'd like to emulate them.

RBD

So, I'd suggest going to the agency to shoot those new faces - not model mayhem.
It'll be less of a headache and you'll have more of that caliber to choose from.

I remember about a year ago, I spotted this great young girl on MM and asked if she'd be interested in testing. She said she'd just been signed with one of the major fashion agencies in So Cal and that she "wasn't testing anymore".
I couldn't stop laughing - You just got signed - all you're doing is testing.
I could of contacted her booker (agency I knew), but I didn't feel like dealing with her obvious attitude.

Go direct to the agency  - much less attitude from the newbies - when you go direct they're eager to please.

Raoul Isidro Images wrote:
The explanation was not about the camera at all. It is about several things needed to produce an image result, one of them being photography. Other things could be AutoCad or CAD. It could also include vector illustration that never loose resolution when blown up. The advantage of the Sony lens is knowing the focal length, in real time, as you shoot, so you can merge it later, properly, with a CGI image of a similar reading.

.

So what is the big deal. Nikon has it for years, they just do not use it to process the image on the fly or display the actual focal distance. Just look at the EXIF data on any modern camera. So Sony does it to correct a barrel distortion on their lenses - not true RAW. Maybe would be better construct a better lens, but still it is a nice feature.

Maxximages wrote:

The hot shoe on the A7 is a standard hotshoe and accepts the same trigger as my Nikon

The A7s and the A7r have the multi interface shoe. It's the same size, but part of the connector prevents regular hot shoe accessories from fitting properly.

Marco R wrote:
but still it is a nice feature.

It certainly is. You don't have to go looking for the EXIF for the focal length anymore... it's right there in front of you! (Well, in the viewfinder/LCD screen, that is).

You mentioned Nikon. Nikon's kit lenses have ghastly barrel distortion, just like Sony's. But those lenses by Nikon, Canon, and Sony and all others, would only need a software fix to correct this defect, on their cameras. They won't do it. Sony did.

Contrary to what others may scoff at, the Nikon kit lens 18-55 DX VR is a wonderful lens except for strong distortion at the wide end. Why can't Nikon throw in a freebie and fix this? Don't know the answer to that one...

.

Raoul Isidro Images wrote:

It certainly is. You don't have to go looking for the EXIF for the focal length anymore... it's right there in front of you! (Well, in the viewfinder/LCD screen, that is).

You mentioned Nikon. Nikon's kit lenses have ghastly barrel distortion, just like Sony's. But those lenses by Nikon, Canon, and Sony and all others, would only need a software fix to correct this defect, on their cameras. They won't do it. Sony did.

.

You still need a software fix for the RAW file.  Unless the JPG comes out of the camera like you want it.  Maybe that's good enough.

Thank you for an explanation.  I will never have a use for it, but I can see where it could be useful for a very small number of CAD artists.

Raoul Isidro Images wrote:
It certainly is. You don't have to go looking for the EXIF for the focal length anymore... it's right there in front of you! (Well, in the viewfinder/LCD screen, that is).

You mentioned Nikon. Nikon's kit lenses have ghastly barrel distortion, just like Sony's. But those lenses by Nikon, Canon, and Sony and all others, would only need a software fix to correct this defect, on their cameras. They won't do it. Sony did.

.

For what? This is what everybody is asking - what is the point? What is the benefit of knowing the focal length at the time of shooting? So far you could not answer. We know you are sold to Sony, but give us a break - it just a display.

I do not have Nikon kit lenses. Nikon give me options to choose from.

Good Egg Productions wrote:
You still need a software fix for the RAW file.

There might be an option for this...

There is a toggle/switch on the Menu system but I found out it is only for the display.

The presets are in the proprietary software.

Yes, you need software fix for the RAW.

Cheers, man!

.

Marco R wrote:
We know you are sold to Sony, but give us a break

Incorrect perception I have no allegiance.

I just like how Sony is doing such innovations and scooping the big two.

Innovations benefit the users: us.

.

Raoul Isidro Images wrote:

Incorrect perception I have no allegiance.

I just like how Sony is doing such innovations and scooping the big two.

Innovations benefit the users: us.

.

If they develop the concave sensor similar to the human eye then it's a major development especially for lenses.
TV's are already sold in that concave design.

John Fisher wrote:
Another annoying thing, particularly on their highest end cameras, is the two memory card problem. The A99 Mark II will certainly have two card slots, but in the past that second card slot would take a Sony proprietary memory stick. Apparently these are still popular in Japan (I have no idea why), but are a non starter here in the US. So, two cards slots? Check! One unusable card slot? Checkmate!

InnerGlow Studios wrote:
Not true.  The a99 has dual card slots that both accept SD cards.  The second slot will optionally accept a Memory Stick.  Both slots are useable.

You are correct.

We were discussing the fact that the A77 Mark II didn't have duel card slots and Manny said that the A99 did, an SD slot and a memory stick slot. I assumed (never a good thing) that the memory stick slot was exclusively for memory sticks, which the report on DP Review confirms it isn't (which is a good thing!).

John
---
John Fisher
700 Euclid Avenue, Suite 110
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
305 534-9322
http://www.johnfisher.com

Good Egg Productions wrote:
And to be honest, if I haven't found a reason to know the exact focal length of my shot as I'm shooting it in the last 12 years, I don't suspect I'll ever need to know.  But I am still interested to know why someone would.  It's the why that interests me about things.  Not so much the what.

This image is a composite:

18+ http://images.exartica.com/Rhus07316-07374-web.jpg

To simplify my work in post, the camera was on a tripod and the lens was left at the same focal length the entire afternoon so I would not have any difficulty lining up the static element (the table) in shots taken from the two series.  This meant the lens was left to shoot the widest composition that I expected and tighter shots were cropped from that.  It would have been helpful to change the focal length at times during the first series and then exactly match those settings during the second series.  A display that showed the focal length before I took the shot would be a nice convenience over approximating, shooting, reviewing the EXIF, adjusting and repeating as necessary.

exartica wrote:

This image is a composite:

18+ http://images.exartica.com/Rhus07316-07374-web.jpg

To simplify my work in post, the camera was on a tripod and the lens was left at the same focal length the entire afternoon so I would not have any difficulty lining up the static element (the table) in shots taken from the two series.  This meant the lens was left to shoot the widest composition that I expected and tighter shots were cropped from that.  It would have been helpful to change the focal length at times during the first series and then exactly match those settings during the second series.  A display that showed the focal length before I took the shot would be a nice convenience over approximating, shooting, reviewing the EXIF, adjusting and repeating as necessary.

Don't you have numbers on the lens barrel?

I get it.  There are extremely unique situations where this on-screen real time focal length information would be useful.  But I think that in your case, you're looking for a problem for the solution to go with.  If your plan is a composite, then you did what you should have done and shot locked down and not touch the settings.  Every time you touch your camera in that situation, you risk slight movements that could jeopardize your ease of post work to make things look right.

Not for nothing, but Rhus is a joy to work with.

exartica wrote:

This image is a composite:

18+ http://images.exartica.com/Rhus07316-07374-web.jpg

To simplify my work in post, the camera was on a tripod and the lens was left at the same focal length the entire afternoon so I would not have any difficulty lining up the static element (the table) in shots taken from the two series.  This meant the lens was left to shoot the widest composition that I expected and tighter shots were cropped from that.  It would have been helpful to change the focal length at times during the first series and then exactly match those settings during the second series.  A display that showed the focal length before I took the shot would be a nice convenience over approximating, shooting, reviewing the EXIF, adjusting and repeating as necessary.

If you are cropping and compositing, I would expect shooting from the same position would be more important than shooting the exact same focal length.  Changes in focal length can be compensated for by scaling in post-production.  Changes in perspective are much harder to correct.

If you have the camera locked off, and want the same perspective and framing for each shot, I would use gaffer's tape to lock down the zoom ring, or shoot with a prime lens.

Although a real time display of focal length is nice, I would not trust it to be exact.


Getting back to displaying focal length in the viewfinder.  I got my start with a fancy film SLR that had a "match needle" meter in the viewfinder.  Focus, aperture and shutter speed were all manual.  When the needle was centered in the meter, the camera though the exposure was correct.   The in-camera meter was considered a luxury item.

In my opinion, most of the features on modern DSLR cameras are luxuries.  Yes, they are nice to have, and they are helpful, however very few of them are absolutely necessary.

That being said, there are many different styles of photography.  Many of todays features are useless to most, and incredibly appreciated by a few.   I can believe that most people don't have a desire for a real time viewfinder display of focal length.  I can certainly imagine that there are a few who will appreciate it, and a few who will find it a godsend.

To be fair, photographers worked for decades without autofocus, auto exposure, electronic strobe, etc.   The question is not whether or not we need a feature, but whether it will make some photographers happy, or perhaps make their lives a little easier.

John Fisher wrote:

Taken with a new EOS 1n, I remember thinking, "can it get any better than this?"

Nothing against that shot. It's a great one!

I don't think it got "any better" than that shot on IQ alone. Being able to change ISO/ color to b&w mid roll in the same camera is a different story...so is not having to pay for film processing and scanning every single time.

I'd be perfectly happy with an immortal 5D ^_^

Good Egg Productions wrote:
Don't you have numbers on the lens barrel?

They are irregularly spaced and might not be where I need them.  That's the joy of zooms.  You don't have to use them at focal lengths that are multiples of 5 or 10.

Still, we are talking about a feature that would provide a nice convenience in specific circumstances.  It's not a deal breaker.

exartica wrote:

They are irregularly spaced and might not be where I need them.  That's the joy of zooms.  You don't have to use them at focal lengths that are multiples of 5 or 10.

Still, we are talking about a feature that would provide a nice convenience in specific circumstances.  It's not a deal breaker.

And since this information is recorded in the EXIF data, every camera COULD do this, but they choose not to.  Maybe for battery reasons.  If the camera is constantly in communication with the lens, I'm sure that require some level of power, albeit small.  Then again, maybe it wouldn't work.  From what I can gather, this is a powered zoom lens.  It's got focus by wire, and when in a manual zoom mode, it will zoom with the focus ring.  (?!)

After reading all that, I'll just stick to my regular olde-timey lenses with separate mechanical zoom and focus rings.  I've used this sort of "by-wire" system on video cameras and I'm not impressed.  Sure, there's no hard stops, but there's also disconnect in the feel.  It was almost a lag of sorts.

So, yes, if it's done by wire, you almost NEED to have a real time readout of where you are with the focal length.  Just like on any video camera, except that little dot on the bar between W and T is just converted into a number.

Had I done the research on the lens and camera system, I would have saved myself a lot of typing.  My bad.