550D/GH13 comparision shot

Drew Ott said:
What focal length is closest to the human eye on a cinema camera? I've always heard that the 50mm is the most "normal" lens. Is that for stills or cinema?
Click to expand...

It would still be a 50mm given that the image is simply being cropped...50mm will still be "normal" (IE, no distortions vs human eye in terms of depth [telephotos compress space vs human eye, wides extend, 50mm does neither, kind of].) It will just have a smaller FOV. We see about 130º x 160º...you would need a crazy wide lens to get that kind of FOV....but the distortion would be insane vs human eye.
 
Thanks Barry for the clarification. IMO, FF like the 5D2 is "too much" when shooting wide open @ f2 and above. Maintaining focus when you're really close to the subject and pulling it on the fly is practically impossible. After using the 550D for a month, I feel that 1.6x is absolutely perfect both in terms of managing focus and utilizing existing 35mm fast glass (can someone show me a 28/1.4, LOL! - which on the GH1 is going to image like a standard FF 50/1.4 <--- can be had for $100 in mint). Apparently, Pentax made a M series 35/1.4 back in the day, but availability is listed as "once in a lifetime" on Bojidar Dimitrov's site!

Drew, yeah, the 50 has always been considered in the 35mm full frame photography world as most representative of our viewpoint.
 
Last edited:
This is probably one of the most confusing topics that comes up all the time, and what people don't realize is that when compared to 35mm film, it depends on the orientation of the image on the film. Full Frame and S35 are on 35mm film, it's just two different orientations and what makes S35 smaller to keep the same aspect ratio.

I wish I had the link I had found that showed these formats ON film so people could understand better.

I am a huge fan of the APS-C size and have in fact used a Full Frame (5D) and did not prefer it at all. I attribute it more to my experience with shooting on my lens on an APS-C and just *knowing* what I am getting.

In terms of 50mm being standard to the eye on FF, that is true, but we've found that we prefer 30mm as our 'normal' lens. It's close to the equivalent of 50mm on a FF in terms of FOV and I've not perceived any distortions that detract. (Unlike my 11mm Tokina which gets you crazy distortion up close).

The fact still cameras are being used for video I believe is where all this confusion began. The wealth of SLR lens information online is for still shooting. People read it and get confused.

I tell people the best thing to do is go to a camera store if you can and try out different lenses on different bodies to see what you like. It's the only way to be sure and its the only way you are going to understand. I am very happy that I did that myself as I wasted money buying two lenses that I NEVER use because they are crap.
 
"The fact still cameras are being used for video I believe is where all this confusion began."

well i'm not sure i agree with that. for those of us who have used FF 35mm for decades and have our brains calibrated to that focal "scale," we just need to know the correct multiplier (when dealing with crop sensors) to translate our 35mm lenses back to the FF SLR world.

And that's why I said that my FF 50 on the GH1 will now become the equivalent of a 100mm in the FF world and that means I'm going to have to back away from my subject quite a bit more compared to the 1.6x 550D which will adversely affect the degree of bokeh achievable (even wide open).
 
On LSD I used to think the human eye was equivalent to a very wide lens ( "fish-eye"?), in fact I felt that I could see the curvature of the earth.

So once again its all relativity guys.

Lenny
 
that means I'm going to have to back away from my subject quite a bit more compared to the 1.6x 550D
Click to expand...
But where you're wrong is thinking that there's that big of a difference between the 550D and the GH1. They're almost the same. The difference is quite minimal. When you put a 100mm lens on the 550D, you'd put an 85mm lens on the GH1 and have an almost identical field of view.
 
ajcourtney said:
"The fact still cameras are being used for video I believe is where all this confusion began."

well i'm not sure i agree with that. for those of us who have used FF 35mm for decades and have our brains calibrated to that focal "scale," we just need to know the correct multiplier (when dealing with crop sensors) to translate our 35mm lenses back to the FF SLR world.

And that's why I said that my FF 50 on the GH1 will now become the equivalent of a 100mm in the FF world and that means I'm going to have to back away from my subject quite a bit more compared to the 1.6x 550D which will adversely affect the degree of bokeh achievable (even wide open).
Click to expand...

But you're just proving my point. People used to Full Frame sizes are starting to talk to people in the cinema world who are used to S35 sizes frames. People in the cinema world typically talk about everything relative to S35. People in the still world typically talk about everything in the FF35 size. Now, when people like you start inquiring to a community of people who shoot cinematography, there is confusion, because you are trying to related everything to FF35 with your experience, and everyone else here is typically relating everything to S35, which is what their experience from a cinematography standpoint is related to.

The confusion comes in when someone says "Camera A has a crop factor of 1.18" Relative to what? S35? FF35? And hence, the confusion begins.
 
Which is why I specifically said it has a "Cinema Crop Factor" of 1.18. That inherently answers the question, and hopefully avoids the confusion, by specifying that the CCF is relative to cinema.

The "crop factor" (which has been the source of so much confusion that I have taken to occasionally calling it the "crap factor") is, by prevailing common reference, referring to FF35. Which has practically nothing to do with cinema, it's only relevant to people who shoot stills. Or VistaVision.
 
The standard for our video shooting purposes is cinema or movie field of view and characteristics not full frame still camera field of view/characteristics. So the 550 or 7D's APS-C sized sensor (1.6 crop from full frame STILL cameras) is very close to that cinema/movie standard. A 20mm cinema lens for movies is a 20mm lens for a 7d or 550.

Due to its smaller than APS-C sized sensor, to get that cinema standard on a GH1 divide your focal length by 1.16. So a 20mm cinema standard field of view would need a 17mm lens on a GH1.
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
Which is why I specifically said it has a "Cinema Crop Factor" of 1.18. That inherently answers the question, and hopefully avoids the confusion, by specifying that the CCF is relative to cinema.

The "crop factor" (which has been the source of so much confusion that I have taken to occasionally calling it the "crap factor") is, by prevailing common reference, referring to FF35. Which has practically nothing to do with cinema, it's only relevant to people who shoot stills. Or VistaVision.
Click to expand...

Haha, I hope you know that my comment wasn't about what you said, just a generalization of how these conversations have gone on before. I can say it was confusing to me at first when I was asking advice about lenses long ago and the discussion started with 'crap factor' immediately. :)
 
Hah! Yes, well, you are correct, there needs to be some relevance to WHAT we're comparing to. That's why I think we can leave "Crop Factor" at FF35, and "Cinema Crop Factor" at 35mm Academy aperture, and that way we will know what we're referencing.

And in that comparison, a FF35 camera has a CCF of 0.62.
 
ajcourtney said:
ok, Grunf, since you have both of these cams, you are the perfect person to answer this question. I have been shooting with a borrowed 550D for the past month and I think, using my fast 30-yr old Pentax primes, the 1.6x crop factor APS-C sensor is perfect for cinematic filming.

The way I have been using the 550D is for all closeup, cinematic selective focus shots while falling back on traditional video footage for wide shots. Even with a 50/1.4, I have no problems pulling focus on the little LCD screen (on the fly) standing as little as 4-5 ft away from the subject.

I'm concerned that the 2x crop factor is going to be too much - my 50 now images like a 100 which means I'll have to back away from the subject in order to get the proper cropping which will adversely affect the extent of selective focus (shallow DOF).

So, what say you?
Click to expand...


Despite being dragged trough video industry for two decades, I still love still-photography. So I normalize all lenses to "what it would look like on small-frame still-photo". 50mm on Leica format is "normal" lens. 85mm is "portrait lens". Everything above 100mm is "telephoto" and 35mm is what I found using the most.

55mm f1.2 FD on 2x crop is equivalent of 110mm and thus I would rarely use it except for dramatic portrait shots. So 55mm FD on GH1 is somewhat "one trick pony" despite extreme f1.2 speed. I would rather have something like 35mm equivalent (14mm on GH1) for general video work. And frankly, I feel that shallow DOF is getting little overused lately. ;)

There are 25mm f0.95 CCTV lenses which can be adopted to GH1 (with some vignetting). One of those lenses would be much more usable than 55mm one.
 
Great discussion everyone. I'm going to go along with Grunf on this one and say that there is a big enough difference between 1.6x & 2x as to render some great 35mm glass practically useless for close-up work.

For an example of what I'm talking about, check out this unedited sequence...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw3OMEu9RlA

this was shot using a 50/1.4 and it is just barely useable - and I even blew some of the framing with it because I just didn't have the room to maneauver.

So you throw multiple GH1s on sticks and use them for cutting to wide shots while putting 550Ds on steadicam or shoulder mounts for close up shots.
 
I use a 30mm F1.4 as my go to lens. I also have the Tokina 11-16mm F2.8, I find there is VERY FEW situations I cannot get good closeup work in tight places. I normally don't use my 50 for that reason.
 
agreed, the 30/1.4 for either cam would be terrific! i have a 28/2.8 which is just not fast enough. The Tokina is a great lens, but would not be useful in any of the set shots in that clip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top