Re: Focal Length and Angles
- From: Don Stauffer in Minnesota <stauffer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 07:17:06 -0700
On Jul 5, 9:24 am, "James Silverton" <not.jim.silver...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hello, All!
Eventually, it may not be a problem as sensors approach sizes
that give a unitary lens factor but, is there much reason apart
from tradition to use equivalent focal lengths? I wonder how
long it would take to get people to think in angles? From the
94° of equivalent length 18mm to 3.5° at a length of 800mm, the
angles are quite distinctive and informative. Even with the
longest lenses that a non-professional is likely to afford, 400
and 800mm, the angles are 6° and 3.5°.
Before someone else suggests it, just for the record, 94, 6 and
3.5° are 1641, 107 and 61 milliradians for those who like large
numbers :-)
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
There was a time, long long ago- late 19th century, I believe, when
some people tried to go this way. Problem then was that for people
using view cameras, lenses could be moved between cameras with
different format sizes. In a sense this is the same as today when
folks move same lens between film SLR and digital SLRs. Anyway, since
field angle depended on which format you used it with, it never caught
on.
Of course, there are those which think 24 x 36 mm format was ordained
by God, and no one should ever use anything else :-)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Focal Length and Angles
- From: James Silverton
- Re: Focal Length and Angles
- References:
- Focal Length and Angles
- From: James Silverton
- Focal Length and Angles
- Prev by Date: Re: Printing photos? ? ?
- Next by Date: Re: Freeware slide show creator?
- Previous by thread: Re: Focal Length and Angles
- Next by thread: Re: Focal Length and Angles
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|