What are the optical advantages of MF over 35MM SLR - Found?

jjs wrote:
"Wayne" wrote in message
newspsoftwciikhyzh5@w...
Yes, I am talking about a FOV tests here.

So are you suggesting that because the MF lens is smaller that it
gets
greater FOV at small distances then the larger Minolta SLR lens?
So you
are saying that if the SLY had a smaller lens than the MF, then the

results would be reversed? I will have to test.

This whole thread is beginning to read like Dark Ages mythology.

(then someone else said)
But put a subject, say a cube, of 4 cm width in front of both
lenses, and
focus on that and the larger lens will not only see the side of it
facing
the lens, but its sides too. The smaller lens will only see the
side
facing it.

So if I use a large enough lens, I should be able to see all six
sides,
right? Man, this is getting stranger and stranger.

Y'know, John, for a change I agree with you.

The original post baffles me. Pick a pair of formats with the same
aspect ratio. Say, for example, 24 mm x 36 mm and nominal 6x9. The
normal lenses for each format (43 mm for 24x36, 100 mm for 6x9) will
place the same image on film if at the same distance from the same
subject.

If the formats chosen don't have the same aspect ratio, say 24x36 and
nominal 4x5, then images recorded with the formats' normal lenses (43
mm again, 150 mm) will have the same diagonal angles of view.

So what's the original poster really concerned about? I think he's
confused, needs a good think and the cold shower I usually recommend
for you.

Cheers,

Dan

"Wayne" wrote in message
newspsoftwciikhyzh5@w...
Yes, I am talking about a FOV tests here.

So are you suggesting that because the MF lens is smaller that it gets
greater FOV at small distances then the larger Minolta SLR lens? So you
are saying that if the SLY had a smaller lens than the MF, then the
results would be reversed? I will have to test.

Field of View is the angular coverage of the lens, usually given as the
horizontal. The physical diameter of the lens (front element) has so very
little to do with FOV that it can be disregarded for normal photography. If
you want to find a case where it might matter, then you would have to scale
down the subject distance to ridiculous terms.

What you need to concentrate upon is focal length. You should also consider
the definition of a nominal 'normal' lens, which considers the film format.

"Wayne" wrote in message
newspsoftwciikhyzh5@w...
Yes, I am talking about a FOV tests here.

So are you suggesting that because the MF lens is smaller that it gets
greater FOV at small distances then the larger Minolta SLR lens? So you
are saying that if the SLY had a smaller lens than the MF, then the
results would be reversed? I will have to test.

Field of View is the angular coverage of the lens, usually given as the
horizontal. The physical diameter of the lens (front element) has so very
little to do with FOV that it can be disregarded for normal photography. If
you want to find a case where it might matter, then you would have to scale
down the subject distance to ridiculous terms.

What you need to concentrate upon is focal length. You should also consider
the definition of a nominal 'normal' lens, which considers the film format.

"Dan Fromm" wrote in message
oups.com...

So what's the original poster really concerned about? I think he's
confused, needs a good think and the cold shower I usually recommend
for you.

Am I that bad?

jjs wrote:

So if I use a large enough lens, I should be able to see all six sides,
right?

Yes, *you* would.

Man, this is getting stranger and stranger.

In your mind, no doubt.
You obviously a) can't use your brain (no surprise there), and b) never
looked through windows, and c) never have used a stereoscopic miscroscope
(or if you have, never understood what you were doing then): two eyepieces,
two optical systems, looking through one (!) lens, yet seeing two different
images, producing 3D vision.
Same principle.

jjs wrote:

So if I use a large enough lens, I should be able to see all six sides,
right?

Yes, *you* would.

Man, this is getting stranger and stranger.

In your mind, no doubt.
You obviously a) can't use your brain (no surprise there), and b) never
looked through windows, and c) never have used a stereoscopic miscroscope
(or if you have, never understood what you were doing then): two eyepieces,
two optical systems, looking through one (!) lens, yet seeing two different
images, producing 3D vision.
Same principle.

jjs wrote:
"Dan Fromm" wrote in message
oups.com...

So what's the original poster really concerned about? I think he's
confused, needs a good think and the cold shower I usually
recommend
for you.

Am I that bad?

Um, you've had your moments.

Cheers,

Dan

jjs wrote:
"Wayne" wrote in message
newspsoftwciikhyzh5@w...

Yes, I am talking about a FOV tests here.

So are you suggesting that because the MF lens is smaller that it gets
greater FOV at small distances then the larger Minolta SLR lens? So you
are saying that if the SLY had a smaller lens than the MF, then the
results would be reversed? I will have to test.


This whole thread is beginning to read like Dark Ages mythology.

(then someone else said)

But put a subject, say a cube, of 4 cm width in front of both lenses, and
focus on that and the larger lens will not only see the side of it facing
the lens, but its sides too. The smaller lens will only see the side
facing it.


So if I use a large enough lens, I should be able to see all six sides,
right? Man, this is getting stranger and stranger.


Not if you are square on to the front side :-)

Alan

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:26:48 -0600, jjs wrote:

"Wayne" wrote in message
newspsoftwciikhyzh5@w...

So if I use a large enough lens, I should be able to see all six sides,
right? Man, this is getting stranger and stranger.


Actually that is probably true, as it will be bigger than the object and
collecting light from all sides {



--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

On 30 Mar 2005 05:36:00 -0800, Dan Fromm wrote:


jjs wrote:
"Wayne" wrote in message
newspsoftwciikhyzh5@w...

The original post baffles me. Pick a pair of formats with the same
aspect ratio. Say, for example, 24 mm x 36 mm and nominal 6x9. The
normal lenses for each format (43 mm for 24x36, 100 mm for 6x9) will
place the same image on film if at the same distance from the same
subject.

If the formats chosen don't have the same aspect ratio, say 24x36 and
nominal 4x5, then images recorded with the formats' normal lenses (43
mm again, 150 mm) will have the same diagonal angles of view.

I thought 43mm was the lower limit of normal, and 100mm was mid to upper
for MF.

So what's the original poster really concerned about? I think he's
confused, needs a good think and the cold shower I usually recommend
for you.

What we are really talking about here is the difference between image
foreground/background FOV etc at 43mm on SLR to 100mm on MF. While I am
getting lots of posts, most are not of much help as they are off topic and
not from an optical engineering perspective. Thanks for your and QG's
help though. I have still to do some more tests, so maybe in a few days.


Cheers,

Dan




--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/