This "35mm equivalent" thing came about because there are (getting to be more, were)no standards for sensor size in digital cameras. And there needed to be some way to compare FOV (field of view) between various cameras.
The problem is that folks try to use it to compare more than just FOV. And, as you say, that does not work. Their 50mm lens on the *istD does not work like a 75mm lens on a 35mm camera, it works like a 50mm lens on an APS camera.
--
William Robb wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul"
Subject: Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
I disagree, i think you can and should compare the digital sensor size with other formats. Its often a neccesary so as to descide which tool to use for a job.
Agreed, but what people are doing, by making the comparisons the way they are doing it, (eg, my 35mm lens is really a 52mm) is treating it like a mini 35mm format, and then they are running into these difficulties. I have the same issues with 35mm as compared to 6x7, the DOF seems to go on forever, and it's impossible to isolate the subject from the background. What we should be doing is learning the format by it's own merits, and learning what it's limitations are, not doing some comparative juggling act where we call one focal length 50% longer or some such.
William Robb
-- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com
"You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
