----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Brick" <jim@xxxxxxxxx> To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 5:48 PM Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Depth of Field (35mm vs. 4x5 or 8x10) > At 04:36 PM 10/29/2004, Gene Johnson wrote: > > >>1600mm? You sure about that Jim? I was thinking more >>like 400. He used a >>100mm on his 35mm camera > > > The 4x5 frame is roughly 16x the 35mm frame. This is all > about image > magnification. 16x 100 = 1600. > > But I could be wrong and would gladly accept another > proof. > > Jim > > The diagonal of a 35mm frame and thus the equivalent focal length depends on whether the frame is cropped or not. Assuming it is cropped to the same aspect ratio as a 4x5 negative (1.25:1) the effective dimentions are 24 x 30 mm. The diagonal is about 38.5mm, this is then the "normal" focal length. The diagonal of the actual picture area of a 4x5 film is 150mm, so the angle of view for the 35mm camera with the 38.5 mm lens will be the same as a 4x5 with a 150mm lens. The ratio of the diagonals is about 3.9. This is the factor to multiply a 35mm lens by to get the equivalent 4x5 focal length or to devide the 4x5 lens by to get the equivalent 35mm FL. The diagonal of a full 35mm frame is around 45mm, the common 50mm lenses are slightly long focus. Since 35mm frames are very often cropped to 4x5 (1.25:1) dimentions I think the popularity of 35mm FL lenses for 35mm cameras is explained. --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ============================================================================================================= To unsubscribe from this list, go to 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.