Showcase your province's varied landscapes - Page 46

Chadillaccc · #**901** Posted **Jan 5, 2015, 6:06 AM**

The majestic landscape of southwestern Alberta from the Calgary Tower. As always, no telephoto required

Suburban Mountains by Chadillaccc, on Flickr

Front Range by Chadillaccc, on Flickr

South View by Chadillaccc, on Flickr

Heavenly Vista by Chadillaccc, on Flickr

Beauty and the Beast by Chadillaccc, on Flickr

Elysium by Chadillaccc, on Flickr

uzi · #**902** Posted **Jan 6, 2015, 2:08 AM**

what kind of lens do u have?

1ajs · #**903** Posted **Jan 6, 2015, 4:04 AM**

hes not using one

Monolith · #**904** Posted **Jan 6, 2015, 4:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by uzi

what kind of telephoto lens do u have?

It is a NIKKOR VR 30-110mm f/3.8-5.6 lens attached to a Nikon 1 J2 digital camera. According to his Flickr page, they were shot at 110mm. This would give a 35mm equivalent focal length of approximately 300mm.

Daveography · #**905** Posted **Jan 6, 2015, 4:27 AM**

EXIF says they were shot at about 110mm, which on a little point-and-shoot sensor is about a 150-200mm equivalent on 35mm film or sensor. That's actually pretty much telephoto.

Chadillaccc · #**906** Posted **Jan 6, 2015, 8:02 AM**

I have no idea, I just know it's the new lens I got for my birthday and it shoots at 30 - 110 x zoom. When I think of telephoto, I think of that kind of lens that makes everything look really packed and or close together, with the background being bigger than it seems when compared to closer objects... basically distorting reality. While my lens does not.

That being said, I don't know much about cameras. I just think of zoom as zoom and telephoto as exaggeration/distortion for artistic effect.

eemy · #**907** Posted **Jan 6, 2015, 12:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

I have no idea, I just know it's the new lens I got for my birthday and it shoots at 30 - 110 x zoom. When I think of telephoto, I think of that kind of lens that makes everything look really packed and or close together, with the background being bigger than it seems when compared to closer objects... basically distorting reality. While my lens does not.

That being said, I don't know much about cameras. I just think of zoom as zoom and telephoto as exaggeration/distortion for artistic effect.

It's an affect you pretty much can't get away from, though it is far less noticeable if you don't really have any objects in the foreground. If you use a zoom lens, large focal lengths are always going to make items in the background larger relative to the foreground and vice versa. It is an unavoidable effect, due to the way the light enters the camera.

uzi · #**908** Posted **Jan 6, 2015, 4:04 PM**

sorry I didn't mean to write telephoto.

Chadillaccc · #**909** Posted **Jan 6, 2015, 5:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

It's an affect you pretty much can't get away from, though it is far less noticeable if you don't really have any objects in the foreground. If you use a zoom lens, large focal lengths are always going to make items in the background larger relative to the foreground and vice versa. It is an unavoidable effect, due to the way the light enters the camera.

Ohhh I see. But some do actually use that effect and exacerbate it I've seen, such as the shots of the Metrotown Skyline as seen from the Gulf Islands and what not. I thought that's what telephoto is, didn't realize that it was any kind of zoom.

ciudad_del_norte · #**910** Posted **Jan 6, 2015, 7:03 PM**

I think part of the confusion with telephoto/zoom is just mind tricks we play on ourselves. Our minds are usually pretty good at processing the size/distance of things in person, at least to an extent. The mountains from Calgary for example, do not really dominate the horizon to the extent that the pictures may suggest or that most people would draw from memory. But if you see the mountains from Calgary your mind computes a considerable distance and tends to magnify their size a bit because we know that things that you can see at such a distance are actually huge.

It's difficult to really account for the eye-brain perception of depth and size with the way cameras capture images. It's especially hard when you are dealing with things the size of mountains. I think that is why there are so many arguments and confusion on here about to what extent mountains may or may not loom over cities. When you are there the sense of magnitude that people percieve is hard to capture without some form of zoom that does some of the work your brain might do in person.

There are obvious cases where it's taken to an extreme and looks silly but I think while in many cases the zoom doesn't accurately portray the actual image you would see as a person, the distortion may accurately portray the sense of size certain objects may have in the landscape if that makes any sense.

Boris2k7 · #**911** Posted **Jan 7, 2015, 5:47 PM**

A gorgeous shot of Banff, in Canada's most majestic landscape.

Banff by Jay Daley, on Flickr

Trans Canada · #**912** Posted **Jan 7, 2015, 6:23 PM**

Zoom is zoom. Telephoto is just a term for a stronger zoom. Nothing is "distorted", it's just with a strong enough zoom you focus in on a tiny segment of a scene.

For example Chad in this photo of yours, if you had a larger zoom, from the exact same perspective you could make Calgary's suburbs look completely dwarfed by mountains:

I just blew up that section in Paint but if you had a "telephoto" you could get the exact same photo but clear/focused.

And the same, Chad if you took a $50 point-and-shoot and took a picture in the same direction, your original image posted above would be a small square of that unzoomed point-and-shoot image.

Both credit Chad photo: https://flic.kr/p/qvrNs5 user: https://www.flickr.com/people/66175113@N06/

franktko · #**913** Posted **Jan 7, 2015, 6:43 PM**

^^
That's not a good explanation. You did a digital zoom where everything is zoomed "equally". With a lense, the further the object, the more it's zoomed. See this example video where the apple stays basically the same size but not the background:

• Video Link

So with a lense, the zoom you did on those suburban homes, the mountains in the background would end up much much bigger...

Calgarian · #**914** Posted **Jan 7, 2015, 6:47 PM**

That Banff shot is awesome!

someone123 · #**915** Posted **Jan 7, 2015, 8:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trans Canada

I just blew up that section in Paint but if you had a "telephoto" you could get the exact same photo but clear/focused.

The effect would be more dramatic than that. To a human eye, objects that are farther away appear smaller than nearby objects of the same size. With a zoom lens that effect is suppressed. Two identical houses would have the same height in pixels in a photo taken with a theoretically perfect telephoto lens even if one were 10 meters away and the other one were 100 kilometres away.

uzi · #**916** Posted **Jan 9, 2015, 12:51 AM**

not sure whether shared this shot of bridal veil falls with you guys before or not. took this shot in summer 2014. i submitted this pic in a Nikon photography contest and won second prize. i don't know what did they like so much about my pic.

[IMG]

bridal veil falls by Uzair Shahid97, on Flickr[/IMG]