Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews

Thread started 30 Dec 2017 (Saturday) 22:42

# Horizontal vs vertical field of view - focal length?

Dec 30, 2017 22:42 |  #1

Bit of a weird random thought recently but I assume it has to be easy to explain through math, which I can't think of right now.

Assume I am using a 16mm lens on a full frame camera in landscape orientation - any way to know what equivalent focal length would capture the same vertical field of view?

Found myself shooting more zoomed-in and telephoto panoramic landscapes and just wondering if there's an easy enough formula to calculate equivalent coverage at different focal lengths

 LIKES 0

Dec 30, 2017 22:58 |  #2

What is capture horizontally with a lens will be 1.5X the dimension of what your APS-C or FF digital camera (but not 4/3 format) will capture vertically.

1. So with 50mm mount on FF, at 10' distance it captures 7.08' horizontally. But to capture 7.08' vertically would need a 30.5mm lens to be mounted, so it is not a simple 50mm / 1.5 computation as you might think.
2. OTOH, if we start with 24mm at 10' it captures 14'9' horizontally. And to capture 14.9' vertically does take 16mm (24mm / 1.5)
3. Continuing that line of thinking, 20mm at 10' captures 17.9' horizontally. And to capture 17.9' vertically does take 13.3mm.

Go figure, why case 2 and 3 does it work to FL/1.5, but not case 1?!

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

 LIKES 0

Dec 31, 2017 01:27 |  #3

Wilt, my guess is that something is wrong with your first calculation; X/1.5 should work in any/every case. Even if X/1.63 is the answer here, the discrepancy is so small nobody will ever notice it.

Tom

 LIKES 1

Dec 31, 2017 05:39 |  #4

There is no difference in the calculation for horizontal or vertical, you use the same multiplier.
The lens actually transmits a circular image and the camera crops it to a rectangle.

 LIKES 0

Dec 31, 2017 06:17 as a reply to  @ Ramon-uk's post |  #5

Which has nothing to do with the question at hand. The 3:2 (1.5) comes from the aspect ratio of the sensor.

Tom

 LIKES 1

Dec 31, 2017 06:44 |  #6

Wilt wrote in post #18529830
What is capture horizontally with a lens will be 1.5X the dimension of what your APS-C or FF digital camera (but not 4/3 format) will capture vertically.

1. So with 50mm mount on FF, at 10' distance it captures 7.08' horizontally. But to capture 7.08' vertically would need a 30.5mm lens to be mounted, so it is not a simple 50mm / 1.5 computation as you might think.
2. OTOH, if we start with 24mm at 10' it captures 14'9' horizontally. And to capture 14.9' vertically does take 16mm (24mm / 1.5)
3. Continuing that line of thinking, 20mm at 10' captures 17.9' horizontally. And to capture 17.9' vertically does take 13.3mm.

Go figure, why case 2 and 3 does it work to FL/1.5, but not case 1?!

If focal length and angle of view are not "linear" then using a constant factor of 1.5 would not always work.

I've never looked into it, but it seems a reasonable explanation.

PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

 LIKES 0

Dec 31, 2017 09:02 |  #7

Wilt wrote in post #18529830
Go figure, why case 2 and 3 does it work to FL/1.5, but not case 1?!

Because, as usual, your math is wrong. The correct horizontal field of view for a 50mm at 10' is 7.2'.

Don't take this the wrong way, because I generally enjoy your posts, but as soon as you start using math to explain something I've learned to just skip on ahead. You have a pretty strong track record of basic math errors. Just the fact that you could come up with FL/1.5 as the correct answer in 2 out of 3 cases and then fail to recognize that the 3rd case is clearly a math error on your part is pretty strong evidence as to why any numbers you provide should automatically be regarded as suspect.

Anyway, anyone that wants to play around with the numbers without running the risk of making any math errors can use this FoV calculator here: http://www.bobatkins.c​om …hnical/field_of​_view.html

 LIKES 1

Dec 31, 2017 09:22 as a reply to  @ ShadowHillsPhoto's post |  #8

Doesn't seem you have to use complicated math for the OP's question. It's simple relational aspect ratio. If we do use your source, we find the equivalent vertical FOV for 50mm FF at 10' is 33.33mm FF at 10'. This is the same as using proportions:

2/3 = x/50 : 33.3
2/3 = x/24 : 16
2/3 = x/20 : 13.33

Canon 5D mk III , 7D mk II
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...

 LIKES 0

Dec 31, 2017 09:35 as a reply to  @ davesrose's post |  #9

Yeah, I know. And yet...

 LIKES 0

Dec 31, 2017 13:24 |  #10

Because, as usual, your math is wrong. The correct horizontal field of view for a 50mm at 10' is 7.2'...You have a pretty strong track record of basic math errors.

Forgive me sir for using a program -- not math -- to calculate the FOV (fcalc v1.14, 2005 by Tangentsoft).
My math is not wrong, but your supposition of my use of math for FOV calculation is sorely wrong.
Lighten up and do not be automatically so abrasive, it will get you farther in the world with less antagonistic responses from others.

You COULD try to answer the OP, with lens FL, rather than merely pointing out my errors.

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

 LIKES 1

Dec 31, 2017 20:59 |  #11

Folks, let's stick to the issue and knock off the personal bickering. Remember the rule: "Don't be a jerk."

T.D.
Moderator

 LIKES 2

1,901 views & 6 likes for this thread
Horizontal vs vertical field of view - focal length?
AAA
 x 1600 y 1600

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!