don't believe everything you read!

[arthurking83]

One thing that irks me more than a lack of information, is a glut of misinformation!

Just recently I was casually browsing through petapixel for any interesting news.
There was some(about some dubious info regarding the ability to see in near infra red!) and then noticed an article about photography on the cheap.

While many parts of this author's writings made sense, there was one particular aspect of it that 1/. made me laugh and 2/. forced me to post this thread.

be wary of stuff you read on the net

In this guy's blog post, he mentions getting a cheap (Nikon) D40 and a few lenses.
It's his interpretation of the lenses that irked me.

He claims that many 18-55 type kit lenses are listed on ebay, and that this is a good lens to be had for cheap .. (probably right .. can't personally remember)
Then he claims that many Tamron 90mm f/2.8 lenses are usually listed and this can be a great all purpose lens. (spot on! )
He says it can do good macro, portraits and so on. (still on the right track )

Then ... (I'll paraphrase, rather than risk copyright infringement)

Because the Tamron 90mm macro lens is a full frame lens, it's equivalent focal length on the D40 is 135mm.

Note how I underlined the word 'Because', because the implication he made there is that the poor old Dx only 18-55 is still an 18-55mm lens, yet the magical 90mm Tamron is no longer a 90mm lens when attached to the D40 .. it's transforms into a beautiful 135mm f/2.8 macro lens(which I've desperately been seeking since I first started photography!)

To a newbie, this is completely misleading(if they read it correctly to begin with!).
he simply should have written that both lenses on the D40 will provide a cropped FOV equivalent to a 27-80mm lens in the case of the 18-55, and 135mm lens in the case of the 90mm.

Instead, he's creating confusion by implying that one lens being a full frame type lens gives you magical focal length extending power, while the other being a native camera format lens isn't affected by the sensor's crop factor.

Note to newbies: THEY BOTH DO! the crop factor/equivalence focal length issue is camera specific, not a property of the lens.

Moral of the story(mainly to newbies) .. be wary of the information you're reading.

[ameerat42]

Such and utter PHOOLISHNESS!!!

This is about as reasoned as something you'r read on LARGE EDDY. (You know what that is.)

Am( disgustedly).

[jim]

He's probably trying to simplify for a newbie target audience, and in this case he's gone and oversimplified a bit and annoyed you.

Assuming we can believe you here that is.

[ameerat42]

Jim, it is less that he has annoyed anybody than that he is just WRONG. Nor has he even oversimplified anything.

Try running his "argument" backwards.

[arthurking83]

......

Assuming we can believe you here that is.

belief can only be a reality if you see/read it for yourself.

I won't post a link to the article, but it is(as of 24-08-2014@11:27) still currently in the main body of articles on PetaPixel's site( think third article from the top). The author is a Brian Spencer.

I have no issue with the general topic of the article, and he does explain the (some of the)pitfalls in choosing cheaper hardware over more capable or expensive hardware. For that he gets credit.

And as always, your disbelief of my article is a healthy attitude

[bitsnpieces]

Maybe he's secretly campaigning for Tamron! :P

[Glenda]

When I bought my first dslr a few years ago I spent hours trawling through articles, reviews etc and I know this is one aspect that did confuse me the most. Probably because so many articles do say "equivalent to ...mm on a full frame". Field of view is rarely mentioned. In fact I think it was actually on this site where someone raised the topic and posted a link about field of view that it started to become less hazy.

[ameerat42]

When I bought my first dslr a few years ago I spent hours trawling through articles, reviews etc and I know this is one aspect that did confuse me the most. Probably because so many articles do say "equivalent to ...mm on a full frame". Field of view is rarely mentioned. In fact I think it was actually on this site where someone raised the topic and posted a link about field of view that it started to become less hazy.

There's a lot in this comment, Llps. Way too much to try to tease out in a single post/thread/whole of AP! But what it raises for me is the plethora of
poor information that abounds in society - no less in the world of photography - and so often presented in a shrill and inaccurate way. Often, when someone asks for clarification, the response
comes even more shrill and inaccurate... You know, you'd be better of - no, we'd be MUCH better off - reading this salutary tale.

A[/enough of an almost rant, but more like a wistful reflection]m.