But you are talking the subtle differences in resolution, bokeh and so on that differentiate one lens from another that otherwise project the same image onto a field, aren't you? Those differences aside (and aperture adjusted to the same DOF) a 75mm lens DOES project the same image on a 35mm film than a 50 does on APS. Or am I missing something fundamental here?
Sven Zitat von graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Very correct, Bill. > > 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." > > >
