[HUG ] Re: SWC for sale?

I just have this gnawing sensation....
As its a bit of a slightly bad example.
35mm photography as it went down got turned around some and they ended up
using 50 for their so called normal.
It¹s really 43mm. And 50 is quite a jump from 43. I know from my broad
experience with 45mm lenses.
A 50 though puts a much less kinder gentler edge to so called normal
shooting.
As in you¹re working with a short tele. As you almost are. Things are
formalized and flattened. You get less.

After much 50 use with 35¹s as I have;
My first roll with 6x6 was with my Rolleiflex which I use now.
And its a good bit wider in not one butin  BOTH directions.
Especially of course as its a square its much wider than the 24mm short side
of the 35mm format.
60x60mms vs 24x36mms

This is why I think so many jobs were done with a Rolleiflex. And nothing
else brought along.
Just a Rolleiflex with an 80 and it just gets everything. Time after time.
You just don¹t worry about it or think about it. It gets the job done.
And you can crop quit a bit if that¹s all you need.

This less doable with a 50 on a 35mm camera.
You¹re kind of glad if you have the option which you probably do have to
bring along some other lenses.



mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mark William Rabiner




Snip
I think the answer is yes.  Likewise, is the perspective of an 80mm lens in
a 500CM the same as a 50mm lens in a Leica?   Are they both really "normal"
lenses?  Again, I think the answer is yes, but both these situations are
worth thinking through and I would appreciate being set straight by anyone
who knows more about this than I.
 
Sherman Bloom




 

On Jun 16, 2008, at 9:17 PM, Frank Filippone wrote:

> Eric.... this is, in my opinion, flawed thinking.... 
> 
> Technical terms should be used correctly.  If they are not, the meaning
> becomes obscured.....
> 
> Try "APO" for example of a word that has so many different meanings that its
> use has become useless......
> 
> Angle of view is precise, descriptive, and independent of format size.  
> 
> Hasselblad always speced their lenses this way......  and others used to put
> angle of view in the ads and specs of their lens lines ( Nikon, Canon,
> Leica, and others).
> 
> And Yes, I do remember the "Metrification of the USA".  Utter Failure.  
> 
> Frank Filippone
> red735i@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> angle of view make so sense in these days of a melange of sensors sizes.
> but getting people to talk about AOV would be like getting the US to
> convert to the metric system (any remember 1975??)
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ==============================================================================
> ===============================
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org
> <http://www.freelists.org>  and logon to your account (the same e-mail address
> and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
> 
>

Other related posts: