• brucethemoose
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    In practice, people use the term “focal length” as field of view/zoom for the final image, especially when we start talking smartphones and full-frame “equivalent” focal lengths.

    I don’t disagree, the article I got this image from explains exactly what you did, but… I think the semantic ambiguity is acceptable, in this case. The actual angular field of view in a shot isn’t advertised in specifications. Neither is the sensor crop factor in post processing. It’s all kind of impractical to calculate, so using FF equivalent focal length as a “zoominess” standard people can understand makes sense.

    • BorgDrone@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      Sure, focal length as proxy for field of view makes sense, but that still doesn’t mean it’s helpful to incorrectly claim it distorts the image. Using a shorter focal length doesn’t mean you have to get closer to the subject.

      • brucethemoose
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        But if you don’t get close, it makes the subject smaller on the sensor, though.

        • BorgDrone@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          So? There is no law saying your subject has to fill the frame.

          It’s useful to know what affects what. That way you can make informed decisions. Distance affects the ‘distortion’, while zoom is more of a tool for composition.