[OT] Lens and Filter Considerations (was RE: [OT] Digital Cameras)

7 posts ยท Apr 5 2001 to Apr 6 2001

From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@a...>

Date: 5 Apr 2001 13:03:17 -0700

Subject: [OT] Lens and Filter Considerations (was RE: [OT] Digital Cameras)

> On Thu, 05 April 2001, "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" wrote:

> OPTICAL Zoom. One of the important things is OPTICAL zoom.

Yes, this is very important.

Another thing to watch out for, which I don't see mentioned here, is the
"focal length" of the lens. I won't go into any optical physics here, but the
focal length indicates how wide a field of view you can take. This is a number
given in millimetres.

A focal length of 50mm is roughly that of the human eye. (Some prefer to say
35mm, but lets not quibble.)

Anything above 50mm is "telephoto". Things far away are brought closer to you.

Anything below 50mm is wide angle. You see a wider picture than your eyes can
see. The wider the angle, the more distortion you'll see. 35mm lenses
typically have very little distortion. You'll see a fair bit of distortion
(but you can usually live with it) at 24mm. I believe
fish-eye lenses (which you aren't going to find on an affordable digital
camera) start at 16mm.

For miniatures, a telephoto zoom (70mm and up) is more useful than wide angle.
You can back up the camera, and "zoom in" to the model to make it look much
bigger.

For almost every other type of picture I take on a regular basis (landscapes,
battlefields, group shots, conventions) wide angle is more useful.

Why is this important? Isn't knowing the zoom amount good enough?

The amount of zoom in a digital camera is usually rated as "#x" where "#" is a
number. Typical numbers are 2x, 2.5x, 3x, 10x. This is the number of times of
magnification that you can get out of the lens. The resulting image, though,
depends a lot on the focal length of the lens.

Some examples: I saw one digital (an expensive one) rated as 2.5x zoom, but
this was less meaningful than hearing that it's the equivalent of 28mm to
70mm. That means that you can take wide angle pictures up to slightly "zoomed
in" pictures. I saw another that was 10x zoom. Ah, much better, you may think.
10x versus only 2.5x. But this came out to 37mm to 370mm. It offered a bigger
zoom, pulling in images from MUCH further away, but it didn't have anywhere
near the same wide angle capability. If you wanted a camera that could take a
nice, wide battlefield shot, this 10x zoom camera isn't it.

I saw another, much cheaper, camera with a 3x zoom. Reading the specs, I found
this was equivalent to 35mm to 108mm. For miniature picture taking, this is a
more useful lens than the first expensive camera and is probably, practically
speaking, just as useful as the second expensive camera. Again, though, it
doesn't have that nice wide angle ability of that 2.5x zoom.

So, just hearing that it zooms better doesn't mean much. In fact, for average
folk, that 2.5x zoom camera is more versatile than either the 3x or 10x. You
want to know what the lens' focal length is along with the "optical zoom"
amount.

Oh, and one piece of advice. The rule of thumb for holding a camera in your
hand is 1 over the focal length of the lens. So, if you have a lens
with a focal length of 50mm, you shouldn't shoot any slower than 1/50 of
a second before you put the camera on a tripod. Likewise, if you have a 370mm
lens, you should have it on a tripod if you are shooting at less
than 1/400 of a second speed. For miniatures, you should be putting it
on a tripod anyway. Remember this when you look at cameras and when you
set the camera's speed and f-stop.

Ah, f-stops. Pay attention to the f-stop. This is a number following an
"f". The standard f-stops are f1.4, f2, f2.8, f4, f5.6, f8, f11, f16,
f22, and f32. This number represents how wide the lens can open to let more
light in. It's a fraction, so the smaller the number, the larger
the opening (think of 1/2 being BIGGER than 1/32).

Okay, so why is THIS important? The bigger the opening, the more light that
gets in. The more light that gets in, the shorter the exposure time. This is
usually only useful in "real life" with people moving around, and stuff. (And
when to mount the camera on a tripod, see above). Not a big deal miniatures
wise, you might think.

Except, the wider the opening, the more light gets in from the "sides" of the
front of the lens. The effect is what's known as "depth of field". Only a
small band of area from in front of your subject to behind your subject will
be in focus. If you open the lens wide, the band is narrow. If you make the
opening very small, the band of what's in focus gets bigger. This is why,
those of us with glasses, can sometimes see better when we squint through our
eyelashes.

Zooming (optical zooming, that is, not digital zooming) has a big effect here.
A wide angle picture will have more of the subject in focus than if you zoom
in. A long focal length will result in a much narrower "depth of field".

How does this affect miniatures? Say you are taking a picture of a Stargrunt
figure aiming a gun. You have a long zoom lens on your camera. You have the
camera on a tripod and have backed it off a couple of yards away from the
miniature. The You have the camera set at f2. You look through the viewfinder.
The figure fills up the viewfinder (which is what you wanted) but you suddenly
realize only the figure's face and hand are in focus. The back of his helmet
and almost all of the gun are
blurry. You open it up to f32, and now all of the figure -- and the
piece of sky blue cloth you put behind it -- are in sharp focus. You
want something in between, maybe f5.6, or f11, to make the background blurry
but all of the figure crisp and sharp.

I like to have a lens that can go up to f11 at least for miniature work.
The more f-stops, the more options you'll have. Remember that the bigger
the focal length, the narrower this depth of field, so the longer the
focal length of the lens the higher the f-stop number you want. Test out
the camera at various f-stop settings in the store, if you can.

> LCD Viewer. An LCD viewer is a big help for situations like taking

One thing about an LCD viewer: some viewers aren't very powerful and it's all
you can do to see them in bright sunshine! This is a problem on a number of
low end cameras.

> Lense size. (Higher End Models only) Is the lens in a standard size

First, make sure the lens has a thread that can take filters!

Second, it probably IS a standard size, as there are a number of standard
diameters. The most common is 52mm (often shown on lenses with the number 52
beside a circle with a slash through it). I personally have lenses with
diameters of 49mm, 52mm, 58mm and 64mm. You can't go wrong with 52mm.

A UV filter is very worthwhile. So is a circular polarizing filter. This is
probably the most useful, but least understood by amateurs, filter you can
get.

Again, without any physics, a polarizing filter cuts out "polarized
light". In other words, it cuts out reflections off of non-metalic
surfaces. It won't stop you from taking pictures of someone in a mirror,
but it will cut down on glare on, say, a gloss-coated miniature (or
light bouncing off a piece of glass).

At GenCon last year, I let Mike Miserendino use my polarizer on his digital
camera. He took a picture of a B5 Minbari model, painted in gloss paint.
Without the filter, there was a lot of reflected glare on the model from all
the lights in the dealer's room. With my filter, he was able to cut down all
the glare except for some very extreme reflections on the leading surfaces of
the ship (which, in actuality, gave the ship a 3D look).

Polarizing filters also saturate the colours: blues look more blues, reds look
more reds, etc. Note that if you're a perfectionist on colours, some
polarizers will make people look pale and perhaps add a slight blue tint to
extreme whites (additional filters can correct this, or get a better
polarizing filter). For outdoor shots, the cut down the haze on a humid day,
and they can cut through light fog.

If you can't get a digital with a removable lens, or one with a macro setting
(which essentially takes a telephoto setting and lets you focus on something
VERY close up), you can consider "close up filters". These usually come in a
set of three, set for 1x, 2x, and 4x. Each filter magnifies the image. Add the
1 and the 2 to get three. Add all three filters and you get a 7x
magnification. These aren't as good, optically, as an expensive lens, but they
are an economical alternative.

There are lots of other filters you can get, some for special effects and some
for colour correction. Most digitals have built in colour correction for
florescent and indoor lighting, so that's usually not a problem (and one area
that digitals shine over traditional film cameras). If you get fancy, you may
want to use colour filters, gradient filters, fog filters, star filters (makes
a point of light burst into a many pointed star; and if you are thinking of
shooting FT ships and don't see how THIS can be neat, shame on you!), etc.

A good system for use special effects filters is the Cokin system. It's a
plastic holder that mounts on a ring that screws onto the lens. You slip a
cokin filter (sometimes these are round, but most often square, plastic or
glass) into the holder. They are cheaper than equivalent stand alone filters,
and come in a wide variety. I have a polarizing filter I hardly use with it,
having given it up for a standard polarizer. But I use it a fair bit with
special effects filters.

From: Roger Books <books@m...>

Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 16:16:13 -0400 (EDT)

Subject: Re: [OT] Lens and Filter Considerations (was RE: [OT] Digital Cameras)

I thought a normal lens for most of the digitals was around 35mm, is this
incorrect?

Also, the longer the lens the less depth of field you have. Holding close with
a wider angle should give you more DOF.

From: Derk Groeneveld <derk@c...>

Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 23:35:18 +0200 (CEST)

Subject: Re: [OT] Lens and Filter Considerations (was RE: [OT] Digital Cameras)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> On 5 Apr 2001 agoodall@canada.com wrote:

> A focal length of 50mm is roughly that of the human eye. (Some prefer

Keep in mind that, due to the small size of the actual CCD chip, to get a
focal length comparable to 50mm with an SLR< you need a digital camera with
25mm focal length.

Cheers,

From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@a...>

Date: 5 Apr 2001 14:39:02 -0700

Subject: Re: [OT] Lens and Filter Considerations (was RE: [OT] Digital Cameras)

> On Thu, 05 April 2001, Roger Books wrote:

> I thought a normal lens for most of the digitals was around 35mm,

That seems to be about right. It's pretty standard now, too, for SLRs. It's
slightly wider angle than the human eye. Or, rather, it's like the human eye
with some peripheral vision and seems to be more "realistic". My first Nikon
SLR came with a 50mm. I'd go for a 35mm to 70mm now. (Actually, my personal
favourite lens is my 24 to 50 zoom, which I leave on my camera most of the
time.)

> Also, the longer the lens the less depth of field you have.

Yep, I mentioned that. In there. Somewhere. *L*

> Holding

And I've used my wide angle for FT pictures. For SG minis, I find that you
can't take shots of solitary figures with the wide angle. The other problem is
sometimes the depth of field is TOO great. Sometimes you want that background
nice and blurry.

From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@a...>

Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 22:43:41 -0400

Subject: Re: [OT] Lens and Filter Considerations (was RE: [OT] Digital Cameras)

On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 23:35:18 +0200 (CEST), Derk Groeneveld
<derk@cistron.nl> wrote:

> Keep in mind that, due to the small size of the actual CCD chip, to get

I wasn't clear on that. The stats I was giving, though, when talking about
zoom levels were equivalent to SLR focal lengths. Most of the cameras I saw
were giving focal lengths as "equivalent to SLRs".

From: Derk Groeneveld <derk@c...>

Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 09:32:51 +0200 (CEST)

Subject: Re: [OT] Lens and Filter Considerations (was RE: [OT] Digital Cameras)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Allan Goodall wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 23:35:18 +0200 (CEST), Derk Groeneveld

Okay, in that case you will not need to do any conversion. An optical 14mm
lense will already be listed as (approx) equivalent to 28mm SLR.

Cheers,

From: Roger Books <books@m...>

Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 08:41:17 -0400 (EDT)

Subject: Re: [OT] Lens and Filter Considerations (was RE: [OT] Digital Cameras)

> On 5-Apr-01 at 17:41, agoodall@canada.com (agoodall@canada.com) wrote:

No, a 35mm SLR has a normal lens of 55mm. A "Normal" lens is the one that puts
the same area of view as the eye across the film. If you have a 35mm that's a
55mm, if you have a view camera with a 4inch x 5inch negative that's about
135mm.

> > Holding

Too much DOF with macro photography? I'm impressed.

As this is off-topic if you want to reply please do so off list.