35mm equivalent sizes

Discussion in 'UK Photography' started by pp, Jun 11, 2008.

  1. pp

    Bruce Guest


    No it isn't. It suffers from exactly the same problems as the focal
    length system.

    Let's take a 50mm lens as an example. On 35mm or full frame digital
    it will be a 1.15, 50mm being 1.15x the diagonal of the format. On
    most Nikon, Sony, Pentax or Samsung DSLRs it will be a 1.73 thanks to
    the smaller sensor. On most Canon DSLRs it will be a 1.85 because the
    sensor is slightly smaller.

    On a Canon 1D Mk III or Leica R9/DMR DSLR it will be a 1.50.

    On a Four Thirds DSLR it will be a 2.30.

    So the same lens can be a 1.15, a 1.50, a 1.73, a 1.85 or a 2.30.

    How does this make things any simpler? How on earth do you badge a
    50mm lens that could be used on any of the five formats?

    The easiest thing is to call it a 50mm lens, because its focal length
    doesn't change one iota, and learn what that focal length means for
    each sensor format. This requires knowledge that must be learned.

    The person behind these stupid ideas doesn't want to learn, and
    expects other people, especially the camera manufacturers, to do his
    thinking for him.

    But photography is an amalgam of many skills that need to be learnt.
    Some of them are artistic, and some are technical.

    Anyone who isn't prepared to make the effort to learn, and expects
    other people to do everything for him except press the shutter release
    is not fit to be called a photographer.
     
    Bruce, Jun 27, 2008
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. pp

    Trev Guest

    In
    So Lens need to be designated as .8, 2, 2.5, times the standard. Now all
    we need is a standard
     
    Trev, Jun 27, 2008
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. pp

    savvo Guest

    Having shot 5x4, 645 and 6x6 for several years, I know. But thanks for
    the egg-sucking advice.

    BTW, blow. Don't suck.
     
    savvo, Jun 27, 2008
    #23
  4. pp

    Rob Morley Guest

    So you agree that a more general system of ratio, rather than "35mm
    equivalent", makes sense? Jolly good.
    I thought it was the other way round ... no hang on, that was something
    else ...
     
    Rob Morley, Jun 28, 2008
    #24
  5. pp

    Rob Morley Guest

    You're never going to get away from the fact that effective zoom is
    dependent on the ratio of focal length to image size - we're just
    suggesting referring to it as a ratio rather than taking the extra step
    of converting it to "35mm equivalent" when the 35mm format is no longer
    relevant to many users.
     
    Rob Morley, Jun 28, 2008
    #25
  6. pp

    Rob Morley Guest

    It's a bit abstract compared to zoom ratio. The angle of view of the
    normal human eye (focal length ~ 24mm, retinal diameter ~ 24mm) is about
    180 degrees, which is like a 16mm lens on a 35mm camera, but a 45-55mm
    lens on a 35mm camera produces normal perspective. This disparity is
    caused by the curvature of the retina.
     
    Rob Morley, Jun 28, 2008
    #26
  7. pp

    savvo Guest

    Oops. Forgot the 6x9.
    No. I agree that "photographers, don't think in terms of 35mm
    equivalents." There is sufficient information in the focal length for
    anyone to know what's a normal/wide/long lens for the format they're
    working on.

    I've pondered a complaint to the ASA about Panasonic's current oxymoronic
    ad claiming their compact camera has a wide-angle 28 mm lens.
     
    savvo, Jun 28, 2008
    #27
  8. On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, John wrote:

    J> I find it a bit amusing that 'anti-camera shake setting' on some budget
    J> cameras merely increases the sensitivity. A young friend of mine revealed
    J> this to me - when she wasn't satisfied with some photos taken in quite good
    J> conditions, I found that they had been taken at ISO 800.
    J>

    I hope she took the oportunity to learn why from you.

    Auto iso might be a better option for her. My point-and-shoot seems to
    have an algorithm that will open up the lens as much as possible before
    upping the iso at some unknown speed level. I don't know if it is
    intelligent enough to bring focal length into the equation but it does
    seem to keep the iso as low as possible..

    On my Nikon D80 the speed at which auto iso will kick in can be set but it
    would be useful if that could be varied automatically with focal length.
    After all, these cameras and lenses know all about each other, so it
    should be easy for Nikon to implement that.


    --
    Alan
    http://rp.clifford.org.uk/potpourri/
    ( If replying by mail, please note that all "sardines" are canned.
    However, unless this a very old message, a "tuna" will swim right
    through. )
     
    Alan Clifford, Jun 28, 2008
    #28
  9. pp

    Bruce Guest


    You don't need to be young to be completely daft.

    Still, you have done us all a favour, by proving that the current
    system of referring to focal length and aperture cannot be bettered.

    What can be bettered is people's knowledge, but this is the 21st
    century and people of all ages are too darn lazy to learn.

    ;-)
     
    Bruce, Jun 28, 2008
    #29
  10. pp

    John Guest

    Do you mean they should learn about a format they may never use? The science
    of focal lengths and f numbers is not what I am arguing against -- it is the
    constant reference to it that is irrelevant to a large proportion of camera
    buyers.
     
    John, Jun 28, 2008
    #30
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.