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

"Wayne" wrote:
Dan Fromm wrote:

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.

Dan was talking about 4x5, which is large format, not medium format.

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.

I don't see what the question/problem is. If the focal lengths are
"equivalent", then other than DOF (and image quality), the images will be
exactly identical. This is true for everything from LF through the tiniest
of cell phone cameras. The projection of the image scales; there isn't
anything magic or transcendental going on.

The relative magnification of forground and background objects on the film
is determined solely by the relative distance from the camera, not focal
length or format. Again, this is true for everything from LF through the
tiniest of cell phone cameras. If you stand at the same point and take the
same picture with a cell phone camera and a 4x5 camera, and print them both
at 4x5, they'll look pretty much the same (other than the cell camera photo
being really poor).

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Wayne" wrote:
Dan Fromm wrote:

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.

Dan was talking about 4x5, which is large format, not medium format.

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.

I don't see what the question/problem is. If the focal lengths are
"equivalent", then other than DOF (and image quality), the images will be
exactly identical. This is true for everything from LF through the tiniest
of cell phone cameras. The projection of the image scales; there isn't
anything magic or transcendental going on.

The relative magnification of forground and background objects on the film
is determined solely by the relative distance from the camera, not focal
length or format. Again, this is true for everything from LF through the
tiniest of cell phone cameras. If you stand at the same point and take the
same picture with a cell phone camera and a 4x5 camera, and print them both
at 4x5, they'll look pretty much the same (other than the cell camera photo
being really poor).

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Wayne wrote:
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/

"normal" has many definitions.

One is normal by convention. By convention, the normal focal lens for
16 mm cine is 25 mm. By several conventions, the normal lens for 35 mm
still is 50 mm, 55 mm, or 58 mm.

Another is normal = diagonal of the format. That's my working
definition. There is no range. The diagonal of the 24x36 35 mm still
frame is 43 mm. The diagonal of the nominal 6x6 frame, actual size
56x56, is about 80 mm. The diagonal of the nominal 6x7 frame, actual
size usually 56x72 is about 90 mm. The diagonal of the nominal 6x9
frame, actual size often 56x82, is about 100 mm.

Now, when you say "MF," what do you mean? MF as conventionally used
includes more than one format.

And when you say "the difference between image foreground/background
FOV," what do you mean?

And why do you think this is an engineering problem?

You still come across as confused or, to be nicer, not in full command
of the language.

Wayne wrote:
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/

"normal" has many definitions.

One is normal by convention. By convention, the normal focal lens for
16 mm cine is 25 mm. By several conventions, the normal lens for 35 mm
still is 50 mm, 55 mm, or 58 mm.

Another is normal = diagonal of the format. That's my working
definition. There is no range. The diagonal of the 24x36 35 mm still
frame is 43 mm. The diagonal of the nominal 6x6 frame, actual size
56x56, is about 80 mm. The diagonal of the nominal 6x7 frame, actual
size usually 56x72 is about 90 mm. The diagonal of the nominal 6x9
frame, actual size often 56x82, is about 100 mm.

Now, when you say "MF," what do you mean? MF as conventionally used
includes more than one format.

And when you say "the difference between image foreground/background
FOV," what do you mean?

And why do you think this is an engineering problem?

You still come across as confused or, to be nicer, not in full command
of the language.

"Wayne" wrote in message
newspsohg451mkhyzh5@w...

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

"Normal" is defined as the diagonal of the format - sqrt(h*h+w*w). (There is
a mild argument that for comparing perspective between format of different
aspect ratio one can take the longest side of each as both parenthetical
arguments.)

What we are really talking about here is the difference between image
foreground/background FOV etc at 43mm on SLR to 100mm on MF.

Do you really have a 43mm lens on the 35mm?

"retoohs" wrote in message
...
[jjs]
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 :-)

Ah hah! You did not specify the relative motions of the subjects! If either
is traveling very close to the speed of light, then the other can see around
the other! (talk about arcane!)

"retoohs" wrote in message
...
[jjs]
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 :-)

Ah hah! You did not specify the relative motions of the subjects! If either
is traveling very close to the speed of light, then the other can see around
the other! (talk about arcane!)

jjs wrote:
"Wayne" wrote in message
newspsohg451mkhyzh5@w...

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

"Normal" is defined as the diagonal of the format - sqrt(h*h+w*w). (There is
a mild argument that for comparing perspective between format of different
aspect ratio one can take the longest side of each as both parenthetical
arguments.)

What we are really talking about here is the difference between image
foreground/background FOV etc at 43mm on SLR to 100mm on MF.

Do you really have a 43mm lens on the 35mm?


Nikon 45mm f/2.8 AI-P lens is very close to it. Besides that its a very
good, fast and above all light and compact lens.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

jjs wrote:
"Wayne" wrote in message
newspsohg451mkhyzh5@w...

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

"Normal" is defined as the diagonal of the format - sqrt(h*h+w*w). (There is
a mild argument that for comparing perspective between format of different
aspect ratio one can take the longest side of each as both parenthetical
arguments.)

What we are really talking about here is the difference between image
foreground/background FOV etc at 43mm on SLR to 100mm on MF.

Do you really have a 43mm lens on the 35mm?


Nikon 45mm f/2.8 AI-P lens is very close to it. Besides that its a very
good, fast and above all light and compact lens.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...

Nikon 45mm f/2.8 AI-P lens is very close to it. Besides that its a very
good, fast and above all light and compact lens.

Very cool. Nice lens. But I was talking to Wayne who will come around in any
event.