Well, yes, of course. In truth though, I only have one really long lens -- an A400/5.6 -- so I make do with that. There's no selection process involved <vbg>.
My only point was that when shooting a given object at a given percentage of frame fill, the 400 quite obviously delivers a perspective on APS digital identical to that of a 600 on 35mm film. In other words, the tests that Shel is going to perform will reveal exactly that. As you and others have said, the perspective is dependent on distance from subject (and therefore FOV) rather than focal length. > > On Jul 14, 2005, at 3:44 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > > > Perspective is a function of distance, but the distance one stands > > from the subject is a function of FOV. An example makes this > > relationship quite obvious: I frequently shoot front 3/4 or 7/8 > > pics of cars with a 400mm lens. Art directors like that with long > > cars because it bunches them up, bringing the back wheels forward. > > I used to use it with my LX. I now use it with my *istD. Because > > the *istD FOV is tighter, I'm further away from the subject when I > > shoot. The same distance from the subject I would be if using a > > 600mm lens on the LX. So, in effect, I get the same perspective > > with the 400 on the *istD that I would get with a 600 mm lens on > > the LX. > > Well, you can think of it that way too. BUT ... Listen to what you've > said: > > "Art directors like it that way because it bunches them up..." in > other words, you're trying to achieve a particular perspective. So > you go the distance required to get that perspective, and then fit a > long lens so that you can fill the frame reasonably with the primary > subject matter for maximum quality. > > With the D/DS's smaller format, you can achieve the same frame- > filling function with a 1/3 shorter lens at the same perspective > distance. > > Godfrey >
