Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: ie. 28mm 'normal' vs 28mm 'wide'  (Read 3217 times)
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3533



WWW
« Reply #20 on: May 17, 2013, 11:59:27 AM »
ReplyReply

PS. I forgot to add... Many people don't even print images theses days, they just view them on screen and although this can affect the perceived DoF I personally have found that (again, when keeping things reasonable) except at the very extremes of shallow DoF (when keeping the same framing) the smaller format APS-C and MFT can get a good way towards producing near enough the same image as a 35mm FF. And you can always reduce the DoF with smaller formats by reducing the camera to subject distance  Grin
Except that changes perspective and will give you a differently framed image or if you use a shorter focal length to maintain framing, then the DoF will stay constant. In reality small sensors make shallow DoF difficult to achieve when compared to larger [FF + above] sized sensors.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 866



« Reply #21 on: May 17, 2013, 02:22:57 PM »
ReplyReply

When I'm using a smaller-than-35mm format camera the last thing I do is think, "Gee, how do I get the 35mm look from this lesser format?"  Roll Eyes  I just work with the tools at hand. If I want shallow DOF I back up and use a long-ish lens at a wide aperture, or I place my subject farther away from background stuff. Or, on my Olympus OM-D5, I use one of the super-fast Voigtlander Noktons. Same deal when switching from 6x6cm medium format to 35mm. Different formats with different parameters and different tools lead to different techniques & strategies. This is good.

-Dave-
Logged
scooby70
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


« Reply #22 on: May 17, 2013, 04:21:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Except that changes perspective and will give you a differently framed image or if you use a shorter focal length to maintain framing, then the DoF will stay constant. In reality small sensors make shallow DoF difficult to achieve when compared to larger [FF + above] sized sensors.

I did say in an earlier post...

"The way this relates to the OP is that I think you can use a 28mm on APS-C and get pretty close to what you'd get with a 50mm on FF except the thin DoF at the widest apertures. The way to try and match the DoF would be to live with the different framing and reduce the camera to subject distance."

Not that I'd want to try and teach anyone to suck eggs but most people here would probably know that using a smaller format means using wider lenses to maintain the same FoV and that this will alter the DoF. My point was that if shallow DoF is your aim you can get it by reducing your camera to subject distance (or using a longer lens) if you can live with the different framing.

Personally I think that the DoF argument regarding CSC has been done to death and is almost certainly not as big an issue for most people as posts in forums would suggest and of course there can be advantages in using a smaller format... you can get about the same DoF (equiv to FF at something between f2-2.8 ) if not exactly the same look with wider apertures that allow the use of lower ISO settings and/or faster shutter speeds.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3533



WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 18, 2013, 10:22:13 PM »
ReplyReply

I did say in an earlier post...

"The way this relates to the OP is that I think you can use a 28mm on APS-C and get pretty close to what you'd get with a 50mm on FF except the thin DoF at the widest apertures. The way to try and match the DoF would be to live with the different framing and reduce the camera to subject distance."
But I wasn't replying to that post but one where you mentioned keeping framing the same.

Not that I'd want to try and teach anyone to suck eggs but most people here would probably know that using a smaller format means using wider lenses to maintain the same FoV and that this will alter the DoF. My point was that if shallow DoF is your aim you can get it by reducing your camera to subject distance (or using a longer lens) if you can live with the different framing.
If shallow DoF is your aim, use a bigger sensor or wider aperture is the better suggestion as moving closer gives you a different picture. Possibly one that doesn't work for example - if doing head shots and you want a shallow depth of field and try and move in close, then the perspective you get may then be unsuitable for a head shot.

Quote
Personally I think that the DoF argument regarding CSC has been done to death and is almost certainly not as big an issue for most people as posts in forums would suggest and of course there can be advantages in using a smaller format... you can get about the same DoF (equiv to FF at something between f2-2.8 ) if not exactly the same look with wider apertures that allow the use of lower ISO settings and/or faster shutter speeds
The difference between FF and the next sensor size down is quite marked, even more so with the smaller formats when it comes to DoF. And despite what you say, it is very hard to make smaller sensor shots look like FF, particularly with non-telephoto shots.
Unless you actually alter the optics such as is done with the metabones speed booster.
I'd take some shots to demonstrate the difference, but I gave my crop sensor camera away after it gathered dust for several years. And it didn't get used because the difference between it and my FF camera is in fact very marked, obviously not in a good way.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
duncanbourne
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #24 on: May 19, 2013, 08:21:06 PM »
ReplyReply

At the back of my mind as I think about this is the difference between the images from a hasselblad 40mm and my SWC(38mm). Although they're very similar the SWC images dont 'feel' as wide somehow, despite covering a slightly greater FOV. Personally I prefer the images from the SWC, I find them quite magical.

I understand the isues of symmetrical vs what I now know to be reverse-telephoto lens design, space for mirrors, distance from film/sensor. The SWC puts the lens very close to the film plane indeed.

I wonder if size of lens rear element comes into it? It's implied in the fuji literature about the lens in the x100. That might be a justification for chasing faster lenses, not so much their low-light capability as their larger rear elements being able to deliver better angles of incidence to the sensor.
Logged
Petrus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 531


« Reply #25 on: May 19, 2013, 10:59:58 PM »
ReplyReply

At the back of my mind as I think about this is the difference between the images from a hasselblad 40mm and my SWC(38mm). Although they're very similar the SWC images dont 'feel' as wide somehow, despite covering a slightly greater FOV.

Slightly off topic: the focal lengths marked on the lenses are not exact. I noticed this when comparing Sigma 35mm lens to 35mm Nikkor. I noticed that Sigma was wider, and I had to shrink the Nikkor image 97% to get them match. That means Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 is about 1mm longer in focal length, even though they are both sold as 35mm lenses.

SWC really is (was) a neat camera. Practically perfect for what is was designed for. I used to carry one while hiking.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad