Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

  

  Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #14243919 « Fujifilm GFX 50S Images »

  

gdanmitchell
Online
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


highdesertmesa wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote:
There are real, objective differences between various sensor formats that are worth understanding and considering, including between full frame and miniMF, but this isn't one of them.
n


Dan, do you think this may be because you're talking strictly about the sensor size's impact (in a lens-less theoretical sense), and I'm talking about the affect the change in focal length, lens design, and camera position required to get the same FOV has on the image?



In the post I responded to, the poster wrote:

One characteristic of the medium format cameras that's hard to get across in small web images is the different perspective you get using longer focal length lenses. With a wide lenses like the 23mm f4, you can capture a wide view without diminishing the size of your foreground subjects as much as you would with an equivalent angle of view on a miniature-format camera.

For example, in the vertical image I posted above (Gabriola Shoreline II) I would have needed an 18mm lens on my A7R II to get the same angle of view, but in order to keep the round rock the same size in the image, I would have needed to get a lot closer to it - and in this instance, I would have gotten wet.

This perspective change is inherently neither good not bad, just different... but the more I get used to it, the more I like it.


There are some accurate elements in that quote. For example:

- while the "perspective" doesn't change, you do get a narrower angle of view from longer lenses.

- wide angle lenses do, indeed, allow you to get closer to a primary foreground subject and simultaneously diminish the size of background elements — e.g. "capture a wide view without diminishing the size of foreground subjects."

The poster does understand a key fact that some others occasionally overlook — focal length choices have all kinds of implications beyond just getting closer to (or farther from) a subject, quite a few of which involve controlling the relationships between close and distant subjects.

However, the point in the second paragraph is wrong, whether as a result of a writing error (we all make them) or misunderstanding.

If you put lenses with the same angle of view on two cameras using different formats, by definition the size, etc. relationships between foreground and background subjects (e.g. — the "perspective") will be the same with both cameras if they are in the same camera position. In order to maintain those relationships you do not have to move the cameras — you have to keep them in the same position.

The reason I'm baffled by the poster's response to this is that this is a basic photographic concept that just plain isn't subject to debate. He seems to be experienced enough in photography to understand this. Anyone with two cameras that use different formats and two lenses that provide equivalent angles-of-view can easily confirm this.

Now, if you use lenses with different angles of view and then move the camera position to keep foreground subjects the same size, you will change the size relationships between these subjects, but that isn't what the poster was describing.

Anyone can make a mistake. (I recall when someone pointed out to me some years back that I was consistently mis-spelling "diffraction," and another occasion when someone set me straight on how effective apertures change when using macro lenses, for example. In this thread I made a mistake earlier by mistyping a focal length — I corrected it and acknowledged my mistake.) That's why I asked the poster to explain what I was misunderstanding about his post.

I would have acknowledged a mistake if he had pointed out what it was. He didn't. I'm confident that I'm correct about this.

Dan



Nov 06, 2017 at 12:59 PM
gdanmitchell
Online
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


highdesertmesa wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote:
There are real, objective differences between various sensor formats that are worth understanding and considering, including between full frame and miniMF, but this isn't one of them.
n


Dan, do you think this may be because you're talking strictly about the sensor size's impact (in a lens-less theoretical sense), and I'm talking about the affect the change in focal length, lens design, and camera position required to get the same FOV has on the image?



In the post I responded to, the poster wrote:

One characteristic of the medium format cameras that's hard to get across in small web images is the different perspective you get using longer focal length lenses. With a wide lenses like the 23mm f4, you can capture a wide view without diminishing the size of your foreground subjects as much as you would with an equivalent angle of view on a miniature-format camera.

For example, in the vertical image I posted above (Gabriola Shoreline II) I would have needed an 18mm lens on my A7R II to get the same angle of view, but in order to keep the round rock the same size in the image, I would have needed to get a lot closer to it - and in this instance, I would have gotten wet.

This perspective change is inherently neither good not bad, just different... but the more I get used to it, the more I like it.


There are some accurate elements in that quote. For example:

- while the "perspective" doesn't change, you do get a narrower angle of view from longer lenses.

- wide angle lenses do, indeed, allow you to get closer to a primary foreground subject and simultaneously diminish the size of background elements — e.g. "capture a wide view without diminishing the size of foreground subjects."

The poster seems to understand a key fact that too many forget — focal length choices have all kinds of implications beyond just "getting closer" to (or farther from) a subject, quite a few of which involve controlling the relationships between close and distant subjects.

However, the point in the second paragraph is simply wrong, whether as a result of a writing error (we all make them) or misunderstanding.

If you put lenses with the same angle of view on two cameras using different formats, by definition the size, etc. relationships between foreground and background subjects will be the same with both cameras if they are in the same camera position. In order to maintain those relationships you do not have to move the cameras — you have to keep them in the same position.

The reason I'm baffled by the poster's response to this is that this is a basic photographic concept that just plain isn't subject to debate. Anyone with two cameras that use different formats and two lenses that provide equivalent angles-of-view can easily confirm this.

Now, if you use lenses with different angles of view and then move the camera position to keep foreground subjects the same size, you will change the size relationships between these subjects, but that isn't what the poster was describing.

Anyone can make a mistake. (I recall when someone pointed out to me some years back that I was consistently mis-spelling "diffraction," and another occasion when someone set me straight on how effective apertures change when using macro lenses, for example.) That's why I asked the poster to explain what I was misunderstanding about his post.

I would have acknowledged a mistake if he had pointed out what it was. He didn't. I'm confident that I'm correct about this.

Dan



Nov 06, 2017 at 12:48 PM
gdanmitchell
Online
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


highdesertmesa wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote:
There are real, objective differences between various sensor formats that are worth understanding and considering, including between full frame and miniMF, but this isn't one of them.
n


Dan, do you think this may be because you're talking strictly about the sensor size's impact (in a lens-less theoretical sense), and I'm talking about the affect the change in focal length, lens design, and camera position required to get the same FOV has on the image?



In the post I responded to, the poster wrote:

One characteristic of the medium format cameras that's hard to get across in small web images is the different perspective you get using longer focal length lenses. With a wide lenses like the 23mm f4, you can capture a wide view without diminishing the size of your foreground subjects as much as you would with an equivalent angle of view on a miniature-format camera.

For example, in the vertical image I posted above (Gabriola Shoreline II) I would have needed an 18mm lens on my A7R II to get the same angle of view, but in order to keep the round rock the same size in the image, I would have needed to get a lot closer to it - and in this instance, I would have gotten wet.

This perspective change is inherently neither good not bad, just different... but the more I get used to it, the more I like it.


There are some accurate elements in that quote. For example:

- while the "perspective" doesn't change, you do get a narrower angle of view from longer lenses.

- wide angle lenses do, indeed, allow you to get closer to a primary foreground subject and simultaneously diminish the size of background elements — e.g. "capture a wide view without diminishing the size of foreground subjects."

However, the point in the second paragraph is dead wrong. If you put lenses with the same angle of view on two cameras*, by definition the size, etc. relationships between foreground and background subjects will be the same with both cameras if they are in the same camera position. In order to maintain those relationships you do not have to move the cameras — you have to keep them in the same position.

The reason I'm baffled by the response to this is that this is a basic photographic concept that just plain isn't subject to debate. Anyone with two cameras that use different formats and two lenses that provide equivalent angles-of-view can easily confirm this.

Now, if you use lenses with different angles of view and then move the camera position to keep foreground subjects the same size, you will change the size relationships between these subjects, but that isn't what the poster was describing.

Anyone can make a mistake. (I recall when someone pointed out to me some years back that I was consistently mis-spelling "diffraction," and another occasion when someone set me straight on how effective apertures change when using macro lenses, for example.) That's why I asked the poster to explain what I'm misunderstanding.

I would have acknowledged my mistake if he had pointed out what it is. He didn't. I'm confident that I'm correct about this.

Dan



Nov 06, 2017 at 12:42 PM
gdanmitchell
Online
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


highdesertmesa wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote:
There are real, objective differences between various sensor formats that are worth understanding and considering, including between full frame and miniMF, but this isn't one of them.
n


Dan, do you think this may be because you're talking strictly about the sensor size's impact (in a lens-less theoretical sense), and I'm talking about the affect the change in focal length, lens design, and camera position required to get the same FOV has on the image?



In the post I responded to, the poster wrote:

One characteristic of the medium format cameras that's hard to get across in small web images is the different perspective you get using longer focal length lenses. With a wide lenses like the 23mm f4, you can capture a wide view without diminishing the size of your foreground subjects as much as you would with an equivalent angle of view on a miniature-format camera.

For example, in the vertical image I posted above (Gabriola Shoreline II) I would have needed an 18mm lens on my A7R II to get the same angle of view, but in order to keep the round rock the same size in the image, I would have needed to get a lot closer to it - and in this instance, I would have gotten wet.

This perspective change is inherently neither good not bad, just different... but the more I get used to it, the more I like it.


(I have highlighted a few key points.)

There are some accurate elements in that quote. For example:

- while the "perspective" doesn't change, you do get a narrower angle of view from longer lenses.

- wide angle lenses do, indeed, allow you to get closer to a primary foreground subject and simultaneously diminish the size of background elements — e.g. "capture a wide view without diminishing the size of foreground subjects."

However, the point in the second paragraph is dead wrong. If you put lenses with the same angle of view on two cameras*, by definition the size, etc. relationships between foreground and background subjects will be the same with both cameras if they are in the same camera position. In order to maintain those relationships you do not have to move the cameras — you have to keep them in the same position.

The reason I'm baffled by the response to this is that this is a basic photographic concept that just plain isn't subject to debate. Anyone with two cameras that use different formats and two lenses that provide equivalent angles-of-view can easily confirm this.

Now, if you use lenses with different angles of view and then move the camera position to keep foreground subjects the same size, you will change the size relationships between these subjects, but that isn't what the poster was describing.

Anyone can make a mistake. (I recall when someone pointed out to me some years back that I was consistently mis-spelling "diffraction," and another occasion when someone set me straight on how effective apertures change when using macro lenses, for example.) That's why I asked the poster to explain what I'm misunderstanding.

I would have acknowledged my mistake if he had pointed out what it is. He didn't. I'm confident that I'm correct about this.

Dan



Nov 06, 2017 at 12:42 PM





  Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #14243919 « Fujifilm GFX 50S Images »

 




This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.