, , , ,

A couple of days ago, I proudly wrote a comparison of images produced by a Kodak DX6490 versus a Canon 700D. The Kodak – as I discovered recently goes from 38mm to 380mm – covers more distance than my Canon, which goes from 18mm to 250mm (across two lenses). This shortfall is something that has been making me uncomfortable ever since my purcahse of the 700D.

Hence I decided to compare the output. As mentioned in the post, the output produced by the Canon 700D actually covers 13x distance as compared to 10x for the Kodak. (Please note that ‘x’ zoom has been the way I have been looking at camera all these days). A comparison showed that the output at 250mm was similar to the output at 380mm. I was feeling smug at this comparison and posted the same.

But, I should have been careful. What the Canon is shooting is still 250mm. I only appears 400mm due to the 1.6 crop factor. In other words, the 700D still shoots 2500m but captures a smaller area, making it appear as if captured by a 400mm lens. So my 700D is till short by 150mm.

Why is this significant? Simply because it affects how much I can zoom into a distant subject. Larger mm means I can zoom into a subject that is further away.

Self-belief and over enthusiasm does not change the facts in some cases. You also get carried away by numbers in some cases.