11-29-2011, 09:11 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-29-2011, 09:27 AM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='miro' timestamp='1322555897' post='13325']
We all use camera to take picture don’t you?
When I look at picture my eyes react first on photographer dependand pearmeter – like line forme shapes, compositions, but they are also plenty of technical parameters. Like tonality contrast, colour, microcontrast etc etc……
If you don’t like Linhof camera, Could you plase calculate for me the APS-C lens equivalent of
4x5 view camera with 12" Voigtlander Collinear @ A=64 ,on BW sheet.
I want to have the same rendering as Ansel Adams iconic shoots. I’m not gonna use any post processing SW since this is not relevant.
My point is that you cannot compare two formats on the base of few parameter e.g. Anlge of view, DOF, shaprnes, CA, Bokeh.
Yes you can compare two formats – but you need to measure a hundreds of parameters.
This time I will end up with Bessargin
"Everything in the world is science,"
[/quote]
I am guessing you read somewhere this (to me) silly argument.
Thing is, it makes little sense. There are 3 things that determine the view of the image. 2 are lens related:
- depth of focus.
- field of view (partly in connection with the 3rd: )
The 3rd is format related:
- aspect ratio of the image.
All other things are subjective and have to do with the rendering, and are not at all relevant to discussing equivalent lenses for different formats.
For SURE the owner of whatever linhof camera KNOWS which equivalent lens gives him the same field of view on his Leica m6, and his Canon EOS 1Ds mk III. The owner of whatever linhof camera KNOWS his lens equivalents, if he knows what heis doing. Or she is doing. Same with the owner of a hasselblad. He/she KNOWS what lens is equivalent to get a similar field of view and DOF on his/her Epson R-D1x, and knows what lens to use as an equivalent on his/her Nikon D3s.
Of course, the owner of all those cameras ALSO knows which camera he prefers for which job. He/she may prefer one over the other for resolution. Or one over the other for portability, contrast, DOF rendering of a certain lens, or other aspects. But all that have nothing to do with the basic question of lens equivalence.
As i said above, the owner from that linhof camera for sure understands lens equivalence.
That we on a DSLR lens site talk about 135 format FF equivalents, just has to do with that we just happen to be used to the very popular 135 format. That camera manufacturers most of the times also express their lenses in 135 format equivalents (focal length wise) also has to do with the popularity of that format. But that does not stop the user of some mamiya MF camera to express lens equivalents in 6x4 format terms, for instance. Nor should it prevent the owner of an Olympus E-3 to express lens equivalents in 4/3rds terms.
We all use camera to take picture don’t you?
When I look at picture my eyes react first on photographer dependand pearmeter – like line forme shapes, compositions, but they are also plenty of technical parameters. Like tonality contrast, colour, microcontrast etc etc……
If you don’t like Linhof camera, Could you plase calculate for me the APS-C lens equivalent of
4x5 view camera with 12" Voigtlander Collinear @ A=64 ,on BW sheet.
I want to have the same rendering as Ansel Adams iconic shoots. I’m not gonna use any post processing SW since this is not relevant.
My point is that you cannot compare two formats on the base of few parameter e.g. Anlge of view, DOF, shaprnes, CA, Bokeh.
Yes you can compare two formats – but you need to measure a hundreds of parameters.
This time I will end up with Bessargin
"Everything in the world is science,"
[/quote]
I am guessing you read somewhere this (to me) silly argument.
Thing is, it makes little sense. There are 3 things that determine the view of the image. 2 are lens related:
- depth of focus.
- field of view (partly in connection with the 3rd: )
The 3rd is format related:
- aspect ratio of the image.
All other things are subjective and have to do with the rendering, and are not at all relevant to discussing equivalent lenses for different formats.
For SURE the owner of whatever linhof camera KNOWS which equivalent lens gives him the same field of view on his Leica m6, and his Canon EOS 1Ds mk III. The owner of whatever linhof camera KNOWS his lens equivalents, if he knows what heis doing. Or she is doing. Same with the owner of a hasselblad. He/she KNOWS what lens is equivalent to get a similar field of view and DOF on his/her Epson R-D1x, and knows what lens to use as an equivalent on his/her Nikon D3s.
Of course, the owner of all those cameras ALSO knows which camera he prefers for which job. He/she may prefer one over the other for resolution. Or one over the other for portability, contrast, DOF rendering of a certain lens, or other aspects. But all that have nothing to do with the basic question of lens equivalence.
As i said above, the owner from that linhof camera for sure understands lens equivalence.
That we on a DSLR lens site talk about 135 format FF equivalents, just has to do with that we just happen to be used to the very popular 135 format. That camera manufacturers most of the times also express their lenses in 135 format equivalents (focal length wise) also has to do with the popularity of that format. But that does not stop the user of some mamiya MF camera to express lens equivalents in 6x4 format terms, for instance. Nor should it prevent the owner of an Olympus E-3 to express lens equivalents in 4/3rds terms.