Sejanus.Aelianus
Mu-43 Regular
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2015
- Messages
- 154
It is like politics, with as many political parties as there are photographers.
...and like politicians; the dafter the idea, the harder they'll push it.
It is like politics, with as many political parties as there are photographers.
I suspect that if smartphone makers change from the 30mm eq. that younger folks might have something to say as it is what they are most accustomed to. They may enjoy a new focal length, but I am sure that some will bemoan the loss of the "classic" smartphone lens. Just give it some time. What goes around comes around.I could be wrong but from what I think I see on forums is that most enthusiasts are in the older age bracket (me included) and like to relate sizes back to what they used in the old film days. Same as I often still think of some sizes in inches instead of mm.
Just guessing but do the younger people worry about the older size relativities of lenses, doubt it. However, I still relate to the older sizes a bit when buying lenses because I remember what I liked back in my younger days. Perhaps I do not have any more memory slots left.
That's the whole principle of micro 4/3Put a third way, if I take a standard portrait with an 80mm lens and get the typical head-and-shoulders shot, if I switch to a 35mm lens AND DON'T MOVE the perspective is identical, I'm just able to see more of the body now.
Short answer yes.Ok, this thread has kind of derailed and we have some number crunchers here too and we're already on the subject of FOV, so I'll ask my question regarding focal lengths.
Depth of field between different focal lengths.
As I understand it, DOF (at a given aperture and focal length) increases with distance from subject, but decreases inversely to focal length at a given distance at that same aperture. Right?
So: If I take a picture at with a 50mm lens with a set FOV and switch to a 100mm lens (for easy math) and I back up (to twice the distance?) to make the same scene fit on the image sensor, is my DOF the same between the two, assuming the aperture is the same??
ummmm..... no it's about Focal Lengths as clearly shown here ..... How to use Focal Length and Background Compression to Enhance Your PhotosWe often read about "long focal length compression", but that's just an effect of distance, not focal lengths.
You can look at this type of thing in a dof simulator like this:So: If I take a picture at with a 50mm lens with a set FOV and switch to a 100mm lens (for easy math) and I back up (to twice the distance?) to make the same scene fit on the image sensor, is my DOF the same between the two, assuming the aperture is the same??
On all the examples he gives, his distance with the subject is different, as explained in the comments.ummmm..... no it's about Focal Lengths as clearly shown here ..... How to use Focal Length and Background Compression to Enhance Your Photos
So he clearly shows the effect of the distance on background compression, not focal length.Good question, David and Michelle. Yes I did have to move much farther back from my dad in order to keep him the same size in the frame. At 270mm I was...oh, I'm just guessing here, but maybe 10 or 20 meters back whereas at 18mm I was only about a meter away. None of those photos have been cropped, so what you're seeing is exactly what I got in camera.
Most photographers believe that the lens is "compressing" the scene because they will take a test shot with a wide lens, and then back up to capture a similar composition with a telephoto lens. It's easy to see that the telephoto shot is far more "compressed" and it's also easy to completely overlook the fact that the camera has been moved and the field of view has changed.
Ok always happy to be educated and strangely i had read that article before, not sure why it didn't stick.A good article on the subject:
Lens Compression Doesn't Exist
Yes and I totally agree with that.My issue with the F-stoppers article is that even if we accept it as truth. (and i think i will) The real world usage of, stick a longer FL on the camera, frame the same image then you will get background compression still in pure lay terms comes back to a longer FL will compress the background for the same framing of the subject.
BAM! There it is, short, simple and accurate.However, it's interesting to know that the real driver is the position.
If you use a zoom and don't like the perspective, zooming won't change anything.
Moving will.
However, it's interesting to know that the real driver is the position.
If you use a zoom and don't like the perspective, zooming won't change anything.
Moving will.
And moving + zooming will change the perspective and keep the framing.
Short answer yes.
The depth of field will be approximately the same, but the rendering of the background will be totally different.
Yes.When you say rendering, you mean the amount of background included, right? I totally understand this "compression" idea - if I want to illustrate context, I usually go wide and get in close, if I want focus on the subject, I generally want a larger FL and then back off. The OOF area should theoretically be identical in terms of out of focus-ness, just cropped (I know "cropped" isn't entirely accurate)
Yes again. The only way to "simulate" what a larger sensor can achieve is larger aperture.The out of focus-ness is my question here. I can't make up for the increased DOF of a smaller sensor with longer glass and shooting further away. That won't decrease the DOF. A larger aperture is the only way to achieve this.
My only gripe is: Why don't we have a 22mm lens and maybe a 35-37mm as well?
That comment was a little tongue in cheek , but I owned that lens as well (just sold it a week ago). It is was good lens for macro, though as you said slow. I also used a 50mm lens on my Nikon APS-C DSLRs which is 75mm equivalent and it made a good portrait lens.I have used the 35mm Zuiko Digital on E-520 and with an adapter on µ43 but I find it an odd focal length ;-)
Good for what it is though: Macro shots. Or portraits maybe, but it isn't very fast.