11-28-2011, 04:44 PM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1322480625' post='13305']
Well, you still want to know what a 8.5mm f/1.9 is actually, don't you?
Whether you are taking the FF equiv. or the equiv. to your current mainstream system is meaningless - you just need a framework for comparison.
You can also say that Pentax Q has a 3.6x crop compared to your APS-C setup. In this case it is equivalent to a 31mm f/6.9 APS-C lens (which is still equivalent to a 46mm f/10.4 full format lens).
[/quote]
I fully agreed with you. Using quantification parameters like equal DOF and focal length are steps in good direction. PZ has been known as site which uses objective and measurable paramameters. That is why I and many other people relay on PZ data.
My point is that there are tousend of parameters that characterize one media from another.
That is why when experienced photographer talk different language.
If they say – This picture is taken with with luhof 6x12camera, Linhof Schneider Tele-Xenar 240/5.5 Fuji velvia 50 at A=22. The experienced photographer automatically know
- How good the details are rendered.
- What is the contrast
- What is grain ….. of this film at that format
- How good the colours are represented.
- How good is the Dynmanic ranger of negative.
- Etc etc.
The number of parameters are dependant of the photographer experience.
That is why they use such language. E.g the sentence above will be translate by unexperianed photographer with only equ. Focal length and DOF….
PS. I’m beginner mateur photographer and try to say that as more as I learn as more I know small part of this technique I know.
Actually I ending in Plato style – I know that I know nothing.
Well, you still want to know what a 8.5mm f/1.9 is actually, don't you?
Whether you are taking the FF equiv. or the equiv. to your current mainstream system is meaningless - you just need a framework for comparison.
You can also say that Pentax Q has a 3.6x crop compared to your APS-C setup. In this case it is equivalent to a 31mm f/6.9 APS-C lens (which is still equivalent to a 46mm f/10.4 full format lens).
[/quote]
I fully agreed with you. Using quantification parameters like equal DOF and focal length are steps in good direction. PZ has been known as site which uses objective and measurable paramameters. That is why I and many other people relay on PZ data.
My point is that there are tousend of parameters that characterize one media from another.
That is why when experienced photographer talk different language.
If they say – This picture is taken with with luhof 6x12camera, Linhof Schneider Tele-Xenar 240/5.5 Fuji velvia 50 at A=22. The experienced photographer automatically know
- How good the details are rendered.
- What is the contrast
- What is grain ….. of this film at that format
- How good the colours are represented.
- How good is the Dynmanic ranger of negative.
- Etc etc.
The number of parameters are dependant of the photographer experience.
That is why they use such language. E.g the sentence above will be translate by unexperianed photographer with only equ. Focal length and DOF….
PS. I’m beginner mateur photographer and try to say that as more as I learn as more I know small part of this technique I know.
Actually I ending in Plato style – I know that I know nothing.