Canon user thread - post your pictures here

We all hear...... An 80mm mf lens is equivalent to a 50mm in thirty-five..... Or my 40mm mf lens is the same as a 28mm in thirty-five. Only part true..... The angle of view may be similar..... Meaning from this distance I can get the whole car in the frame from edge to edge..... That's angle of view.

Now for my lack of being able to explain things... were gonna do a little visual exercise.

Get your cropping L's out or make your hands do the Directors framing thing....... Frame something up..... Now open up your L's to get a wider angle of view..... Now do it again and look at your background.... It stayed the same distance away. By opening up your L's your doing the same thing as shooting to a bigger sensor.

If you were to take a photo of a car with that 40mm mf and take the same photo with a 28mm thirty-five.... Yes, edge to edge you get the same amount of car.... But you will notice the thirty-five back ground looks farther away.... That's field of view.

Now think how obvious this would be when you compare a 35mm image to an 8"x10" image !!!

The same thing happens with movie cameras..... That's why 70mm movies look so much bolder than 16mm movies....

Hope I explained somewhere near understandable!

frisco



egproductions said:
Thank you. I almost gave up on the idea on digital backs after a disaster with my weddings pics on a 75s but you bring up some very good points. Dynamic range/latitude is definitely amazing on medium format digital.

I just want to try to understand one concept. Are you saying that a medium format lens that will give you the same field of view and depth of field as a different lens on a 35mm camera (ex. 135mm f.3.5 v.s. 85mm f2.0 - I know this probably doesn't match up but just the idea) Are you saying that the medium format lens will give you a bigger presence or feel because there is less distortion from a longer focal length (is this what you meant by the background is closer? If you can, please try to explain where you were going with this idea.
Click to expand...
 
I always attriubuted that bolder look to the shallower DOF at the equivelent angle of view. For instance if you have an 80MF and a 50 35mm then the angle of view would be the same but the dof is shallower on the 80. I don't know if you have any comparisons that can show the differences. Ide like to see something with the equivelent angle of view 80/50 and the equivelent aperture/dof (fx.x/fx.x) to see the difference in background your taking about. Just so you don't get me wrong, I'm not contensting you, I'm very intersted.

Thanks
 
dirty

qs7lrwgt.jpg
 
thanks man. :) After several hours of watching this pic I really wasn´t sure anymore about it.
 
heaps of energy....

was it a 1/250th? cause theres a little bit of motion blur.... but not much....
 
Phillip - fantastic shot. Really love the little bit of motion blur and fantastic colors.

SilverWolf - great photo as well! Really clear, beautiful colors and nice composition.

-Kegan
 
WoW that last motocross photo is really stunning. The clouds, the dust......everything looks great. At least it does for me:thumbup:
 
Tom, were the first two photos taken from the exact same postion? I was almost sure but I don't see the trees in the night shot.

The photos are areally nice but If could take the second photo and bring out the exposure from the reflection in the lake (manually) that would really look amazing I think.
 
Thanks, guys. The second (night) one was taken from roughly where you see the tripod on the lake shore in the first pic.
 
Barney Lake, near Bridgeport, CA. Fantastic place. You take the trailhead out of Mono Village, Twin Lakes.
 
Tom, those photos are awesome, the first one looks like taken from a film.
Would you mind sharing your camera settings in the second photo, cause in that photo stars are well defined and have a great color.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top