If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Focal Length and Angles
Hello, All!
Eventually, it may not be a problem as sensors approach sizes that give a unitary lens factor but, is there much reason apart from tradition to use equivalent focal lengths? I wonder how long it would take to get people to think in angles? From the 94° of equivalent length 18mm to 3.5° at a length of 800mm, the angles are quite distinctive and informative. Even with the longest lenses that a non-professional is likely to afford, 400 and 800mm, the angles are 6° and 3.5°. Before someone else suggests it, just for the record, 94, 6 and 3.5° are 1641, 107 and 61 milliradians for those who like large numbers :-) James Silverton Potomac, Maryland E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Focal Length and Angles
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 14:24:46 +0000, James Silverton wrote:
Hello, All! Eventually, it may not be a problem as sensors approach sizes that give a unitary lens factor but, is there much reason apart from tradition to use equivalent focal lengths? I wonder how long it would take to get people to think in angles? From the 94° of equivalent length 18mm to 3.5° at a length of 800mm, the angles are quite distinctive and informative. Even with the longest lenses that a non-professional is likely to afford, 400 and 800mm, the angles are 6° and 3.5°. Before someone else suggests it, just for the record, 94, 6 and 3.5° are 1641, 107 and 61 milliradians for those who like large numbers :-) James Silverton Potomac, Maryland E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not I think it's primarily because folks over the last 40 or 50 years have been thinking 35mm - so the easiest thing is to give them equivalents. At least for telephoto, I tend to convert to magnification power - also quite distintive. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Focal Length and Angles
"ray" wrote in message
news On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 14:24:46 +0000, James Silverton wrote: Hello, All! Eventually, it may not be a problem as sensors approach sizes that give a unitary lens factor but, is there much reason apart from tradition to use equivalent focal lengths? I think it's primarily because folks over the last 40 or 50 years have been thinking 35mm - so the easiest thing is to give them equivalents. At least for telephoto, I tend to convert to magnification power - also quite distintive. That's a point! It *would* be useful to have magnification factors for long lenses. -- Jim Silverton Potomac, Maryland |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Focal Length and Angles
James Silverton wrote:
Eventually, it may not be a problem as sensors approach sizes that give a unitary lens factor but, is there much reason apart from tradition to use equivalent focal lengths? No. I wonder how long it would take to get people to think in angles? Several generations. Maybe. Take weight: Germany introduced the metric system back in 1870. My mom is still buying half a pound of cold cuts instead of 250g. Take power: Horse Power has not been a legal unit since 1977. Still virtually everyone is still using it instead of kW. jue |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Focal Length and Angles
James Silverton wrote:
That's a point! It *would* be useful to have magnification factors for long lenses. Kind of, except, ... well, you are just adding an additional subjective variable: what focal length (on 35mm analog film) corresponds to magnification factor 1: - 45mm? - 50mm? - 55mm? There are advocates for each of those and some people even argue for 40mm or 60mm. Besides, dividing the let's say 400mm focal length by 50mm to get the 8x magnification factor is really not that difficult. jue |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Focal Length and Angles
J|rgen wrote on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 17:30:52 GMT:
JE James Silverton wrote: ?? That's a point! It *would* be useful to have magnification ?? factors for long lenses. JE Kind of, except, ... well, you are just adding an JE additional subjective variable: what focal length (on 35mm analog JE film) corresponds to magnification factor 1: JE - 45mm? JE - 50mm? JE - 55mm? JE There are advocates for each of those and some people even JE argue for 40mm or 60mm. JE Besides, dividing the let's say 400mm focal length by 50mm JE to get the 8x magnification factor is really not that JE difficult. Admittedly, you could argue for factors other than 50 but it's an easy one to use mentally and absolute precision is not all that important if you can accept "equivalent focal lengths". James Silverton Potomac, Maryland E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Focal Length and Angles
On Jul 5, 8:24 am, "James Silverton"
wrote: Hello, All! Eventually, it may not be a problem as sensors approach sizes that give a unitary lens factor but, is there much reason apart from tradition to use equivalent focal lengths? I wonder how long it would take to get people to think in angles? From the 94° of equivalent length 18mm to 3.5° at a length of 800mm, the angles are quite distinctive and informative. Even with the longest lenses that a non-professional is likely to afford, 400 and 800mm, the angles are 6° and 3.5°. Before someone else suggests it, just for the record, 94, 6 and 3.5° are 1641, 107 and 61 milliradians for those who like large numbers :-) James Silverton Potomac, Maryland E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not I agree with you: angle of view would be the best way to go, but I also agree with others that the 35mm "standard" has become so ingrained that it may take quite some time before it's forgotten. -Karl Winkler |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Focal Length and Angles
Wayne wrote on Fri, 06 Jul 2007 01:26:10 GMT:
?? Eventually, it may not be a problem as sensors approach ?? sizes that give a unitary lens factor but, is there much ?? reason apart from tradition to use equivalent focal ?? lengths? I wonder how long it would take to get people to ?? think in angles? From the 94° of equivalent length 18mm to ?? 3.5° at a length of 800mm, the angles are quite ?? distinctive and informative. Even with the longest lenses ?? that a non-professional is likely to afford, 400 and ?? 800mm, the angles are 6° and 3.5°. W Angles are not distinctive, and would not help the W "equivalent" problem you mention. You are quoting lens W angles for 35 mm film frame cameras, but the angle for one W lens would be a different angle for the same lens on a W different sensor size... the same 1.5x factor or whatever W (inversely for angles). This differing angle is the reason W why we need the concept of equivalent focal length. W Most of us are already used to what 28mm eqivalent means (it W wasnt that long ago). We may not be able to state the exact W degrees, nor do we care about degrees, but we do know the W situation that it will cover. And focal length is marked on W the lens (35 mm film reference). So we really dont need W some new system with the same problem. W But agreed, the time will come someday when no one has ever W seen a 35 mm film camera, and the reference will be hard to W explain then. But the angles of those same 35 mm film W camera lens wont be any better help. I can't really disagree with what you say but the "equivalency" values are mostly used for 35mm type cameras and by those who use them. An angle does give an exact measure of what the lens will cover. I suspect those people using larger cameras would be professionals with a deeper knowledge and I just wondered if the time was coming when the traditional notation would be given up but I'll admit that conservatism is a very powerful emotion in many fields. James Silverton Potomac, Maryland E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Focal Length and Angles
"ray" wrote in message news On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 14:24:46 +0000, James Silverton wrote: Hello, All! Eventually, it may not be a problem as sensors approach sizes that give a unitary lens factor but, is there much reason apart from tradition to use equivalent focal lengths? I wonder how long it would take to get people to think in angles? From the 94° of equivalent length 18mm to 3.5° at a length of 800mm, the angles are quite distinctive and informative. Even with the longest lenses that a non-professional is likely to afford, 400 and 800mm, the angles are 6° and 3.5°. Before someone else suggests it, just for the record, 94, 6 and 3.5° are 1641, 107 and 61 milliradians for those who like large numbers :-) James Silverton Potomac, Maryland E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not I think it's primarily because folks over the last 40 or 50 years have been thinking 35mm - so the easiest thing is to give them equivalents. At least for telephoto, I tend to convert to magnification power - also quite distintive. Each way of referencing the lens view has its own plusses and minuses that may be of different importance to different photogs. For those who have become used to many decades of single focal length lenses on a 35mm film camera they have trained their "eye" to compose an image with relation to the focal length of a particular lens. For these people the 35mm equiv number is of great use. When looking at a scene they can "see" that they need a particular FL to catch the scene they want. Then by converting to the digital version they can catch the scene to match what is in their mind. For those of us who were early adopters of zoom lenses and who were used to composing in the eyepiece and zooming to match our intended view (with almost no concideration of the precise FL used) the equiv numbers are of little concern. We can still compose in the eyepiece. For the idea of using "angle of view" this could be a good idea, but when you figure that the same lens may be used on several cameras with different sensor sizes and thus different angles, the number can become less than useful. Also many of the formulas for things like DOF and such depend on a standard FL across all cameras. Also we would have to standardize what "angle" we are talking about. A simple statement of an angle of 45 deg of view could mean 45 degrees along the horizontal plane, the vertical plane or the diagonal. So as I said each of these ideas has their own plusses and minuses. Without any overwhelming reason to change, the "old method" will probably prevail. Of course this means that when an EXIF shows the image was taken with a particular camera and a 85mm lens, anyone who wants precision measurements will have to learn the specifics of the sensor dimensions for that camera and do the math to find the specific angle of view along the particular plane of interrest for that particular image. Most of us won't worry about it too much. JMHO Randy ========== Randy Berbaum Champaign, IL |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Computation of focal length | BrJohan | General Photography Techniques | 0 | May 25th 07 09:28 PM |
Focal length manipulation | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 5 | April 14th 07 03:08 PM |
Is there a formula to convert digital lens focal length to 35mm focal length ? | narke | 35mm Photo Equipment | 5 | March 1st 05 12:31 AM |
Focal length chart | LEICA | Digital Photography | 16 | January 20th 05 04:29 AM |
focal length calculation | TS | Other Photographic Equipment | 2 | August 7th 04 08:33 PM |