1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Poll - Which focal length, on a full-frame camera,

Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Damien_Demolder, Mar 12, 2013.

  1. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    First this is very old debate, seen thread from 3 or longer years ago on this. :rolleyes:

    Second since when has photography been about creating a sense of reality?

    Do we see the world frozen in time?

    Do we see the world with blur?

    Do we see the world in B&W?

    Photography is art therefore it's goal is surely to create a emotion a response.

    Even street photography which might use a focal that is suggested to give a eye view of the world does not result in reality it freezes that moment to tell a story.

    Take a shot of a homeless person being passed by a rich person. The expression on the faces is but a split second.

    But photography grabs that and creates a different reality so you can experience that second forever.

    If I recall the term photography means painting with light. Therefore the lens is part of the paintbrush so to speak. Would you ask a artist which paintbrush produces reality? :p

    So I don't see the point. A lens or focal length is but a tool to create the effect you wish to have in your art. :D If you think it shows reality that's fine by me.

    PS: So there should have been a none of the above option. :p
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2013
  2. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    I hadn't read Roy's original post ....
     
  3. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    ... but would like to offer you a chance to retract, apologise even, rethink perhaps.
     
  4. thornrider

    thornrider In the Stop Bath

    Oly mate - you've got no hope.:)
     
  5. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    OK, I apologise for being right and being incorrectly told I was wrong by someone else.

    Just what planet are you on where you don 't think you're the one who should apologise for misleading people and not even bothering to check the facts before wading in? Absolutely bizarre. :confused:
     
  6. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Rich coming from you. I've seldom found anyone so wrong so often and so unwilling to apologise for it. Absolutely ridiculous. :mad:
     
  7. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Oh dear, Nick, what are you on?

    Now you are wrong again, and this time I am right and so, it would appear is thornrider. If you read Roy's posts again, carefully, he speaks of looking through the viewfinder of the cameras and then comparing that with the scene he sees. Some period of time apart. Some possible eyesight change. What he sees.

    He is not talking about the angle of view of the respective lenses.

    49,000 posts and you had to walk into that one! Ouch!! :eek:

    Now do you want to say sorry?

    ;):D
     
  8. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    That's just not at all what he said - I can't begin to imagine where you've got that from, what he said is:

    "In the early days, around 1980, I had a Praktica MTL3 with a 50mm f/2.8 Tessar lens, which, if I looked through the viewfinder with one eye, and at the scene in front of me with the other eye, both views seemed to coincide for size."

    He then goes on to correctly surmise the truth:

    "That would seem to indicate that 50mm is correct. However, I suppose it does depend on the magnification ratio of the viewfinder, which I do not know."

    The confusion comes with this bit:

    "Using my Nikon D3100 with 18-55mm lens, the lens has to be set on 55mm to get coinciding views."

    Now I suppose I might possibly be wrong, but surely it's obvious that he's simply repeating the Praktica experiment, and coming up with a different answer simply because of the viewfinder magnification of the Nikon?


    So no, no apology from me for still being right - but I imagine hell will freeze over before you have the decency to apologise to me.
     
  9. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    It's not 100% view I think from D3100, the specs say:

    • Frame coverage 95% (approx.)
    • Viewfinder magnification approx. 0.8x with 50mm lens at infinity; -1.0 m-1

    Could that account for the 55mm issue with the D3100?
     
  10. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Thing is if and I stress if 43 or 50mm is suppose to be 'real' world view.

    Then why is 35mm focal length (film equiv) the stock and trade of street photography cameras like say the X100?
     
  11. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    I have two cameras (E510 and E5) where the images in the viewfinder are very different sizes, so clearly for whatever focal length on the E510 when the VF image coincided with the real world image that focal length would be different from the one on the E5.

    I think that's Nick's point and I think he is right.


    Roger
     
  12. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    When I was running a few cameras for the relic challenge last summer I used a number of old cameras with fixed focal length and, to my surprise, I found that the favourite FL that I had tested was 35mm, it was a very useful length for street photography - but that has nothing to do with how realistic it was just that it was the best length to use in Kings College Chapel et al. (Perhaps KCC is not street photography but it is a general point).

    Roger
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2013
  13. beejaybee

    beejaybee Marvin

    Street photography is as specialist in its way as wild life, portraiture or landscape photography. Personally I'd prefer to use something even shorter than 35mm for street photography - trying to stay hidden (so as to have minimal influence on the imaged scene) implies not using the viewfinder & "framing by guess" implies cropping from an image captured with a shorter focal length / wider field of view lens. I haven't done street photography for many years (reasons are various) but when I did try it, I found 24mm about right. The shorter focal length also helps solve the "getting things in focus" issue (which autofocus doesn't address at all for this particular application).
     
  14. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    As well as, and more likely, a change in eye-sight. The point Benchista misses.
     
  15. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    1. I haven't been rude to you. (I would certainly be willing to do so had I been.)
    2. You are a Moderator with certain standards to uphold in the Forum but also have form on being overbearing and gratuitously rude to those whose personal viewpoints you do not agree with.
     
  16. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    When you say "had" presumably this means you haven't got both camera so you can do a side by side comparison?

    I think it just means the image looks smaller on your DSLR with it's APS-C sensor than it did on your 35mm SLR. Your DSLR is reflecting a smaller image because it has a smaller sensor and smaller mirror so the viewfinder would need to magnify the image more if it was to project as large an image as you see with a full frame SLR.

    It's fairly normal for the image in a crop sensor camera's viefinder to look smaller than the image in a full frame camera's viewfinder, particularly if the crop sensor camera is an entry level camera with a pentamirror as they are often a bit like looking down a tunnel at the image.

    There's more to it than just the viewfinder magnification.
     
  17. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    I agree. There might be some sort of ecclesiastical discussion on that bracketed sentence. (I like KCC. Went off to sleep during Evensong there, once on a Saturday in June, after some footslogging around town. Lovely. Very restorative!)

    40mm is pretty good on the street, too. I have been Tripping around a bit more, in public, recently.;) My first proper camera was 45mm fixed lens - an Agfa Silette. My first SLR had a 58mm lens. Perhaps I've bounced around some sort of median point!:eek:

    Guess you and I may be of a similar age and remember how there was something of an arms race, both for street, documentary & pictorial photographers as far as wide-angle lenses were concerned in the 1970s.

    It was almost a badge of honour among some to say '50mm is old hat, I use 35mm as a standard lens!' whereupon in a few months there would be articles and letters with photographers proclaiming 'I find 35mm too restricting, I USE A 28MM LENS AS MY STANDARD LENS!'. It was obvious when things were getting a bit silly, when the next thing we had were people saying that 28mm or 24mm lenses were their standard lens and they used a 50mm as a telephoto.

    Someone, it may have been in SLR Camera or Photo Technique {sounds like the sort of thing David Kilpatrick or Jack Schofield would do} or it may have been Vic Blackman in AP, got hold of a 20mm (or wider lens) and took a 'street' photograph where they were looking at hair up the subject's nose and then captioned: 'I've been using this wide-angle, it's terrific, it's now my standard lens'. :eek:

    Things quietened down a bit after that and it was multi-mode that came along to get everyone in a different sort of flap.:rolleyes:
     
  18. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member


    I do not remember Vic Blackman making that point, but he did tend to make a lot of points, not all in agreement with each other. One comment I do remember was him complaining about other 'togs who used wide angles and pushed to the front of the press scrum, getting in way of others with longer lenses - and in the process shortening the circumference of the press "arc" which meant that only a few could get a good view.

    Roger
     
  19. beejaybee

    beejaybee Marvin

    Depending on context ... what makes sense in one set of circumstances isn't always sensible in a different environment. Vic was very sensible & one should therefore not expect a "one solution to all problems" attitude in his writing.

    Yeah, it's called "eliminating the competition" ... people will use your crap if no-one else can even get a shot ...
     
  20. thornrider

    thornrider In the Stop Bath

    Good morning Nick - you are a Moderator of this forum and you have, I believe, the partial responsibility, to uphold the decorum of this website, by ensuring that we are all polite and decent to each other.

    Yet you maintain a level of venom and spite towards users that passes my understanding. Should you not agree with something someone says, and they do not give in and go away, then you make personal remarks about those people. I especially could not believe the personal remarks you made about P Stoddart in particular. On the one occasion you have attacked me I apologised to the OP as you requested in case he was offended by our opposing opinions. You do not seem to have noticed this. Now you are attacking Olybacker in a way I consider offensive.

    This is just to let you know that I am of the opinion that you should warn people when you are on the Forum so that they can chose to beware.
     

Share This Page