D800 in CS6, strange data
Posted 30 September 2012 - 21:15
I double checked an image from the D700 and each catagory agrees with the lens used. So that makes it even more strange since each camera is FF.
Posted 30 September 2012 - 22:56
Just shows the folly of the "crop factors" and the conversion of focal lengths derived from them.
Posted 01 October 2012 - 10:06
Posted 01 October 2012 - 11:15
Posted 07 October 2012 - 01:34
Posted 18 October 2012 - 00:26
If the D800 sensor is physically smaller than 36 mm x 24 mm then your EXIF data is probably reporting the correct figures for the "equivalent to 35mm" FL.
Posted 18 October 2012 - 00:45
Posted 18 October 2012 - 22:32
Aside from the folly of naming an equivalent focal length, I am even more irked when they give you an equivalent focal length for a frame which is a different aspect ratio, and to further fan the flames of uselessness, it's based on the diagonal angle of view.
Wouldn't that diagonal be the diameter of the image circle the frame fits in? Same image circle, same multiplier factor?
Posted 18 October 2012 - 22:55
Posted 20 October 2012 - 01:44
Posted 20 October 2012 - 12:18
When I mainly dealt with view cameras, I always carried a 6x12 cm or 4x5" back to put on my 6x9 cm camera. In case I didn't get the coverage (field of view) I needed, I just swapped the back. This practice presumed of course the taking lens had sufficient angle of view (which I got by employing lenses with a large image circle). No change in "DOF" of course occurred. All these distinctions and considerations so natural to the view camera user are lost with the silly crop factors. Plus people these days really believe the cropping alters "DOF" which is even more silly.
Posted 20 October 2012 - 18:07
The expression "Depth Of Field" now often carries a new meaning, which is:
"Lack Of Depth Of Field"
Posted 20 October 2012 - 18:36
In the very rare instances that I use LR, it sometimes convolutes the focus distance data to read as 4million klms.
eg. ApproximateFocusDistance: 4294967295
I think it must have something to do with having focused at infinity(or close too).
If that same image is saved using any other software the reported focus distance is close too, if not spot, on what the actual distance was.
Posted 20 October 2012 - 18:44
Largest positive integer in a double word (32 bit). Or infinity, if you so wish
Posted 20 October 2012 - 19:34
That part makes sense other than the fact that I know most of those images are focused at about 5m away.
actually!.. here's another version of the focused distance:
FocusDistance: 6.31 m
this info is copy and pasted from the exif viewer, and the only difference is the choice of editing/raw conversion software. The image is the same.
And then on the other hand, if it seems that they're using this double word computer speak in this one instance(of many that I've seen), then what does 0.4 mean?
There doesn't appear to be any distance metric used, so I assumed they were using cm.
The shot with 0.4 as the focused distance info was made using the 150mm Sigma macro lens, which I prefocused and then set the camera/lens to subject distance, and then tweaked the focus again.
On the image processed with LR, this exif data bit is listed as
(copy and pasted)
yet the same info, listed slightly differently when using CaptureNX2 to save the image
(copy and pasted again)
FocusDistance: 0.40 m
This is the same raw file image processed with two different software, and the data listed under the "Other Info" or Manufacturer or Camera heading in the exif data... depending on which exif data software is used.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
An appeal to all Fotozones visitors: please help me to keep this site going by starting your gear purchases using any one of the affiliate links shown below:
Amazon.com | Amazon.co.uk | Amazon.de | Adorama.com | thinkTank Photo | DigitalRev.com | OWC | B&H or Donate via PayPal