Still hoping for some feedback on what I wrote about focal length, perspective and different formats.
I don't believe that I"m misunderstanding the poster's point, but if so I would welcome someone pointing out where I'm mistaken.
Thx.
I'm also interested in this. As molson states you obviously are missing his point, I would think he would be the best person to explain.
If you own more than one lens, or own a zoom lens, it's easy enough to just look through the viewfinder and see for yourself... how on earth did we survive before internet forums were invented?
Well, I do work with more than one lens and with both primes and zooms in two sensor formats, so I'm pretty familiar with these concepts.
If I look through a 23mm lens on my 1.5x cropped sensor camera and a 35mm (correction, I originally incorrectly typed 50mm) lens on my full frame camera, I'm looking at the essentially same angle of view, and if I use the same camera position I see essentially the same composition in both. (23mm x 1.5 = 34.5)
(Yes, I'm aware of differing effects of aperture and of what a previous poster refers to as "rendering," but that was not the point made in the post I responded to. That poster suggested that using lens on different format that provide the same angle-of-view coverage would lead to changing the camera position and changing the relative size of subjects at different distances in the composition. That doesn't make sense.)
highdesertmesa wrote:
Does this make sense to anyone else, or am I way off base here?
Your point is valid, but that is a different issue than the one I asked about and concerning which molson suggests I am "misunderstanding."
Still waiting for his explanation of what I'm supposedly missing here in response to his post. I'm willing to admit to an error when I make one, but I'm not so happy about implications that I'm ignorant followed by dogged refusal to explain why.
Still hoping for some feedback on what I wrote about focal length, perspective and different formats.
I don't believe that I"m misunderstanding the poster's point, but if so I would welcome someone pointing out where I'm mistaken.
Thx.
I'm also interested in this. As molson states you obviously are missing his point, I would think he would be the best person to explain.
If you own more than one lens, or own a zoom lens, it's easy enough to just look through the viewfinder and see for yourself... how on earth did we survive before internet forums were invented?
Well, I do work with more than one lens and with both primes and zooms in two sensor formats, so I'm pretty familiar with these concepts.
If I look through a 23mm lens on my 1.5x cropped sensor camera and a 50mm lens on my full frame camera, I'm looking at the essentially same angle of view, and if I use the same camera position I see essentially the same composition in both. (23mm x 1.5 = 34.5)
(Yes, I'm aware of differing effects of aperture and of what a previous poster refers to as "rendering," but that was not the point made in the post I responded to. That poster suggested that using lens on different format that provide the same angle-of-view coverage would lead to changing the camera position and changing the relative size of subjects at different distances in the composition. That doesn't make sense.)
highdesertmesa wrote:
Does this make sense to anyone else, or am I way off base here?
Your point is valid, but that is a different issue than the one I asked about and concerning which molson suggests I am "misunderstanding."
Still waiting for his explanation of what I'm supposedly missing here in response to his post. I'm willing to admit to an error when I make one, but I'm not so happy about implications that I'm ignorant followed by dogged refusal to explain why.
