colker
Well-known
Nothing to do w/ coatings. A longer lens as a normal gives a sensation of volume to the subject unequaled by smaller formats.
That´s why there is medium and large format.
colker
Well-known
This^^^^^.
he knows. It´s about the rendering of volume and space. It has to do w/ lens, optics.. not resolution of any emulsion or sensor.
A panF 35mm film may have the same resolution of 120 panf or more than 120 trix but the 120 film pictures will give more of a feeling of space and volume
Corran
Well-known
colker, you're quite simply wrong.
I can use a 210mm lens on 8x10 and get the same perspective distortion as a 28mm lens on 35mm or a 18mm lens on APS-C. This is simple optical science.
The look of a "telephoto" lens is simply a longer distance to the subject. This doesn't change with format. If you want the telephoto look (ignoring the fact that most long-focus lenses on larger formats aren't telephotos), you'll need an 800mm+ lens on 8x10 (equivalent to about a 100mm on 35mm).
This is just simple facts and having shot 35mm up to 8x20 I have seen it. There's no difference in "rendering."
Now you can argue about larger formats (film) having smoother tonality and that kinda thing but this is a moot point in digital, where megapixels make up for sensor size (more sampling points).
I can use a 210mm lens on 8x10 and get the same perspective distortion as a 28mm lens on 35mm or a 18mm lens on APS-C. This is simple optical science.
The look of a "telephoto" lens is simply a longer distance to the subject. This doesn't change with format. If you want the telephoto look (ignoring the fact that most long-focus lenses on larger formats aren't telephotos), you'll need an 800mm+ lens on 8x10 (equivalent to about a 100mm on 35mm).
This is just simple facts and having shot 35mm up to 8x20 I have seen it. There's no difference in "rendering."
Now you can argue about larger formats (film) having smoother tonality and that kinda thing but this is a moot point in digital, where megapixels make up for sensor size (more sampling points).
colker
Well-known
There is an optical rule that says a picture taken thru a 24mm needs x more size than a picture w/ 50mm to create the same impact on your sensibility.
It´s based on this rule that magazine covers are made w/ long lenses.
No one shoots a portrait for a cover w/ 50 or even 85mm. It´s 105 mm up. This rule is way more determinant of lens use than optics formula. Tessar or Sonnar or Planar.. it does not matter. It´s the big lens that makes the magazine cover jump from the news stand.
The sensation you get from pictures taken w/ large format mostly comes from this rule. Landscapes done on 210mm lens jump from the print.
This is not opinion. It´s a rule. As far as i know it was never debunked. That´s the reason why the 300mm Nikkor has been used on fashion and swim wear catalogues. Maybe that´s why slrs are used in fashion and not RFs.
Corran
Well-known
I suggest you go take a portrait with a 105mm on a digital camera, then shoot another image with a 50mm lens at the same position, and then crop that image to the same relative composition as the first image.
You'll see that you have the same image and nothing has changed. If you want to get a bit more exact, use the same aperture diameter in each image (for example, f/4 with the 105mm would correspond to an aperture of 26.25mm. That would give about f/2 on the 50mm, so use that). This will equalize the depth of field.
This equates the usage of a larger format. The ONLY thing that matters when it comes to a longer lens is the different distance to the subject.
You'll see that you have the same image and nothing has changed. If you want to get a bit more exact, use the same aperture diameter in each image (for example, f/4 with the 105mm would correspond to an aperture of 26.25mm. That would give about f/2 on the 50mm, so use that). This will equalize the depth of field.
This equates the usage of a larger format. The ONLY thing that matters when it comes to a longer lens is the different distance to the subject.
colker
Well-known
Commercials are shot w/ long tele lens for the same reason. The TV screen used to be small. So directors would chose long lenses to compensate and draw attention. Sets in studio are designed so you can use long lenses.
zuiko85
Veteran
Back when, early 70's for me, we had a saying; 'The best lens is a tripod.'
Perhaps a bit of hyperbole, but close enough in many situations.
Perhaps a bit of hyperbole, but close enough in many situations.
colker
Well-known
I did the experiment already. The longer lenses amplify the image to your perception. That´s why the 180mm 2.8 and 300mm 2.8 are so popular within the fashion and advertising industry.
It´s not subjective. There is even a rule where you can calculate the difference of impact between focal lengths. Note: the film format, sensor format makes no difference in the rule.
Why people kept shooting 8x10? It´s way heavier, more expensive. They kept the format because of the optical rule.
Why do camera manufacturers do full format? Because the image is more powerful than crop.
I don´t care anymore... but the rule is there.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Where did you find these "rules"?
colker
Well-known
??... that´s silly. no one needs a tripod when shooting 1/250th of a second.
colker
Well-known
Books.
I read it a looong time ago. It makes total sense.
Why buy a D850???? Just use a crop sensor. Why is the full format better? pixels only? You believe that?
I am a photographer. My knowledge is optics. Not electronics.
giganova
Well-known
When I shoot MF, I always use a tripod and f/8 to capitalize on MF's ability of outstanding image quality. But the benefit of small sensor cameras is mobility and I sacrifice optimal image quality for that mobility that I don't have with a MF camera anyway. Two systems for two different approaches.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Corran
Well-known
I still shoot 8x10. Reasons? Tonality, resolution, contact printing, manipulation of the plane of focus (in all larger formats of course), etc.
Again, you are simply wrong. Here's the proof.
These were shot with a Nikkor 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, and 135mm f/2. Each was shot at correspondingly larger apertures to match DOF - specifically the 35mm at f/2.8, 50mm at f/4, and 135mm at f/11. To match exposure, I changed only the ISO, which also gives slightly better image quality to help lessen the effect of cropping in of the shorter lenses (same reason why smaller sensors can give the same image quality of larger sensors when shot at lower effective ISOs).
Which is which? I simply matched exposure and also put on the proper lens correction profile so as to lessen the effect of distortion differences between these lenses, which is not in question. All were focused at the tip of the dog's nose. The only difference I can see is slight differences in contrast and color, normally attributable to small differences in any two lenses, not formats.
Again, you are simply wrong. Here's the proof.
These were shot with a Nikkor 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, and 135mm f/2. Each was shot at correspondingly larger apertures to match DOF - specifically the 35mm at f/2.8, 50mm at f/4, and 135mm at f/11. To match exposure, I changed only the ISO, which also gives slightly better image quality to help lessen the effect of cropping in of the shorter lenses (same reason why smaller sensors can give the same image quality of larger sensors when shot at lower effective ISOs).
Which is which? I simply matched exposure and also put on the proper lens correction profile so as to lessen the effect of distortion differences between these lenses, which is not in question. All were focused at the tip of the dog's nose. The only difference I can see is slight differences in contrast and color, normally attributable to small differences in any two lenses, not formats.
colker
Well-known
Just use 125th or 250th of second on MF. Shoot Pentax 67 handheld. So does Bruce Weber. Helmut Newton. Avedon. Ritts.
giganova
Well-known
colder -- all you are referring to is shallow DOF, correct?
colker
Well-known
I still shoot 8x10. Reasons? Tonality, resolution, contact printing, manipulation of the plane of focus (in all larger formats of course), etc.
Again, you are simply wrong. Here's the proof.
These were shot with a Nikkor 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, and 135mm f/2. Each was shot at correspondingly larger apertures to match DOF - specifically the 35mm at f/2.8, 50mm at f/4, and 135mm at f/11. To match exposure, I changed only the ISO, which also gives slightly better image quality to help lessen the effect of cropping in of the shorter lenses (same reason why smaller sensors can give the same image quality of larger sensors when shot at lower effective ISOs).
Which is which? I simply matched exposure and also put on the proper lens correction profile so as to lessen the effect of distortion differences between these lenses, which is not in question. All were focused at the tip of the dog's nose. The only difference I can see is slight differences in contrast and color, normally attributable to small differences in any two lenses, not formats.
The rule of viewing distance. A 50mm is a normal lens because there is a normal viewing distance of pictures.
A 180mm lens implies a longer viewing distance.
By manipulating this optical rule and using the 180mm lens for a picture to be seen at a normal viewing distance, the size "seems" bigger and the subject jumps from the frame.
Da Vinci wrote about this: the ideal distance to see a picture.
I believe this video touches on the subject.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science...-focal-distance-relationship-proof-of-formula
colker
Well-known
so. If a 50mm lens implies a 50cm viewing distance and an 80mm lens implies an 80cm viewing distance, what happens when you view an image made w/ 80mm lens at 50cm distance? You feel closer and the image feels bigger than it´s actual frame.
Corran
Well-known
What you appear to be saying, and is confirmed in that video, is that the only thing that matters is the distance to the subject, which I have continually said. Of course the look of an image is different with different focal lengths, if you move closer or farther away from the subject to get approximately the same composition/framing. This is called perspective distortion and is well understood.
The confusion you have is because you think perspective distortion is tied to focal length, which it is not - only to distance between camera and subject. When you use a longer focal length with a correspondingly larger format, but at the same camera position and field of view, you get the same rendering of objects in the frame. This is proven by the above examples. There is some distinction to be made with larger magnifications but for ease of understanding we will leave that aside.
You are also muddling the waters with viewing distance. That is irrelevant within the scope of the argument. Again, just look at the images above and answer my question. These images correspond to the image being shot on a 36 x 24 millimeter FF sensor (they were, a Nikon D800), and then a 13.33 x 8.88 millimeter sensor, and finally a 9.33 x 6.22 millimeter sensor. Which is which?
The confusion you have is because you think perspective distortion is tied to focal length, which it is not - only to distance between camera and subject. When you use a longer focal length with a correspondingly larger format, but at the same camera position and field of view, you get the same rendering of objects in the frame. This is proven by the above examples. There is some distinction to be made with larger magnifications but for ease of understanding we will leave that aside.
You are also muddling the waters with viewing distance. That is irrelevant within the scope of the argument. Again, just look at the images above and answer my question. These images correspond to the image being shot on a 36 x 24 millimeter FF sensor (they were, a Nikon D800), and then a 13.33 x 8.88 millimeter sensor, and finally a 9.33 x 6.22 millimeter sensor. Which is which?
ptpdprinter
Veteran
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.