Why does fixed lens == wide?

C

cmedin

Well-known
Local time
9:27 AM
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
800
Looking at the past offerings of fixed lens cameras, and the more current ones as well, it seems that we're trapped in a 28-35mm range. Why aren't we offered 50mm or even 'narrower' focal lengths? If 50mm is the 'natural' field of view, why do point and shoot type cameras insist on being much wider?

Why can't we have a fixed lens digital P&S with a 50mm equiv? Lots of the older 'point and shoots' (fixed lens rangefinders) were in the 40-50mm range.

edit: should've said fixed focal length, most P&S cams are zooms these days.
 
Last edited:
One reason being that the wider the lens the more depth of feild you have. Its alot harder for mommy to get an out of focus shot of little johhny with grandma. Remember, consumer goods are no longer made with the thought that the general public might actually be able to do something for themselves.
 
they are wide because large DOF and because tourists usually wants to take their pictures in front of some famous buildings so they need wide lens for that.
 
pvdhaar said:
Well, there's the Ricoh GR-D, which is getting an update in the form of the GR-D II at the moment.

And, if it ever comes to the market, the Sigma DP-1.
Click to expand...

And I'd be very happy if I could get either of those wth a 50mm (equiv) lens. Are people really so enamoured with 'wide', or is the idea that you just crop out whatever you don't like?
 
Early P&S fixed focal-length lenses were usually around 50mm, but have been creeping down towards 35mm, even 28mm (or equiv). The "natural" focal length on 35mm (if the length of the diagonal is what you want ... the usual rule of thumb) is 43mm. For street photography, landscapes, and family snaps in smaller rooms, at tables in crowded restaurants, etc, the wider lens is often a better choice. That's probably the main reason for the trend.
 
Are people really so enamoured with 'wide', or is the idea that you just crop out whatever you don't like?
Click to expand...
I don't think it's even that complicated - I think most people who use a P&S just point the camera in the direction they want (giving little or no thought to angle of view or composition or any of that) and if they end up reasonably happy with the results then it's a "good camera". (And in case anyone thinks that is in any way insulting, I'm just thinking about the way my mother shoots - she has absolutely no idea what "focal length" means).
 
I read somewhere that '70's rangefinders went to ~40mm lenses because Japan is small.
This seemed ludicrous to me, until I asked my my trainer at Olympus, Mr. Okabe,
what he thought of America and his first response was "So much room!"...

Chris
 
I can remember in the seventies having a conspiracy theory that SLR manufacturers included a 50mm lens as standard precisely because it wasn't the best all-round focal length, and if they made something like 35-40mm the standard then they'd sell fewer additional lenses. (But since then I've come round to really liking the 50, so it was probably the nonsense that it sounds :D)
 
I agree with those who mentioned expectation. "Good enough" is what ails photography (I think) more than any other visual art form.

Most people uses P&S for family gatherings, so wider means less "Move closer!!" yelling ==> less hassle to use. But wider than 35mm means more complex lens construction and more distortion at the edges.
 
If you like taking group pictures indoors, 50mm is just a little too narow. You usually find yourself with your back to the wall.

As someone once said, 35mm is the second-best focal length for everything.
 
A wider focal length also gives you a little more shutter-speed leeway before camera shake sets in.
 
"Good enough" is what ails photography (I think) more than any other visual art form.
Click to expand...
But then, for most people photography isn't an art form - it's just a way of getting a record of things
 
oscroft said:
But then, for most people photography isn't an art form - it's just a way of getting a record of things
Click to expand...

So is video, so by correlation movies are not an art form then?

To most people, charcoal is also a means to cook barbeque. Is charcoal painting not an art form then?

:D
 
So is video, so by correlation movies are not an art form then?

To most people, charcoal is also a means to cook barbeque. Is charcoal painting not an art form then?
Click to expand...
The art is not in the medium, it is in the artist.
 
oscroft said:
The art is not in the medium, it is in the artist.
Click to expand...

But where does the art being recorded for someone (including the artist) to enjoy?

Unrecorded art is... nothing...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom