Herschel Mair wrote:
What is this factor nonsense.
When 35mm was becoming popular nobody said.. well it's a 90mm lens but
that's a factor of
2 X because it's a wide angle on a 4X5 but it's a longish lens for
35mm. or this is a 90mm but it's a factor of 1.5 for your mamiya so
it's like a150mm on a 4X5..
I don't believe (it predates me a bit) that people were routinely
mounting their old familiar 4x5 lenses on their new 35mm bodies.
Whereas in the DSLR world, we *are*, and in fact the new bodies look
very much like the old bodies. Many of us used them side-by-side for a
while, moving lenses from one to the other in the middle of a shoot.
So the relationship is more relevant now.
How ridiculous. I have to drill my students out of this stupidity.
It's useful to know , if you're experienced with 35mm, how the angle
of view changes but why institutionalize it.
Imagine a student who has never owned a 35mm camera asking me what
factor an old 35mm lens would be on his camera. It's all more wool
over the eyes by camera manufacturers.
A 35mm lens is a 35mm lens on whatever camera you use. No factors
necessary.
If your 35mm lens is not wide enough buy a 24mm and if your 135mm is
not long enough then but a 200mm.
Yeah, as I said in my physics rant, the physics always wins. And
certainly relating to 35mm film equivalent focal lengths is a silly way
to do things -- *except* for people with a deeply trained-in knowledge
of what 35mm focal lengths mean. Which turns out to be...practically
all the photographers on the planet.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/dd-b
Pics: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum, http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
