 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / General Topics / August 2008Standard Lens- High Pressure
I recently needed to give myself some pressure because I am getting a bit bored so I went on a job with 1 lens, a 50mm 1.4. It was great, the quality and colour is noticeably punchier than a 24-70 and the bokeh (out of focus elements) is really nice. It's great for portraits and small groups too. There were moments when I couldn't fit everything in, so I moved back a bit, other times I was too far away, so I moved forward a bit. Try it, it's exciting. > I recently needed to give myself some pressure because I am getting a bit > bored so I went on a job with 1 lens, a 50mm 1.4. It was great, the quality [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > other times I was too far away, so I moved forward a bit. Try it, it's > exciting. Welcome to Paris and Henri Cartier-Bresson's Leica IIIg with a 50mm/2.0 Summicron. 50mm is an astounding focal length, even is sometimes we have to force ourselves to use it :-D > 50mm is an astounding focal length, even is sometimes we have to force > ourselves to use it :-D What is astounding about it? Serious question.  SignatureBlinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html > > 50mm is an astounding focal length, even is sometimes we have to force > > ourselves to use it :-D > > What is astounding about it? Serious question. Well, Cartier-Bresson used it for 90% of his photography. It's a focal length that represents the average angle of view of the human eyes (45mm - 55mm). It's a focal length that is popular to disdain, easy to ignore, but can be difficult to use effectively. It is nearly perfect for street photography. it is situated between moderate wide angle (28mm - 35mm) and moderate telephoto (75mm - 90mm) without the "effects" of either. Leica made an f/1.0 version and Canon made an f/0.85 version. I'm sure there's more... >> I recently needed to give myself some pressure because I am getting a bit >> bored so I went on a job with 1 lens, a 50mm 1.4. It was great, the quality [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 50mm is an astounding focal length, even is sometimes we have to force > ourselves to use it :-D Huh??? For decades it has been the *standard* focal length for cameras. Where have you been? Auntie 50mm WAS the standard focal length for film.... and maybe is still now for Full-frame cameras...but..with most modern DSLRs having a "crop factor" of 1.5 or 1.6 or even 2.0 (four thirds system) that 50mm replicates a 75mm film frame. So, I'd guess if we really wanted to duplicate the older standard, we'd have to use a 37 mm lens. What say you? Rich > 50mm WAS the standard focal length for film.... and maybe is still > now for Full-frame cameras...but..with most modern DSLRs having a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So, I'd guess if we really wanted to duplicate the older standard, > we'd have to use a 37 mm lens. What say you? Rich I bought a Nikon 35mm f2 Autofocus for my D80. About equal to the earlier 50mm lenses on 35mm film cameras. >> 50mm WAS the standard focal length for film.... and maybe is still >> now for Full-frame cameras...but..with most modern DSLRs having a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I bought a Nikon 35mm f2 Autofocus for my D80. About equal to the > earlier 50mm lenses on 35mm film cameras. I use a 35mm f/1.4 Ai manual focus on a D200 as a standard lens. A friend is asking me to recommend a DSLR for her but I'm pretty sure she doesn't want to spend much or change lenses and will not want more lenses. She was looking at stabilized P&S because of motion blur problems with indoors social shots and noticed noise problems. I'm thinking a used D40 and Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is the best bet for maybe $650 used versus $1000 for the D80/35AF setup. I know nobody gets just a fast normal lens these days but honestly if you want a DSLR I think it makes sense to get the selective focus advantage of a fast lens and people got along just fine with nothing but a normal lens for decades. I would almost recommend an Oly or Samsung or something with stabilized body, the oly for small size, Samsung for small price with kits lens if not going for a fast lens. Or if P&S, I forget which Panasonic has 24-70 f/2-2.8 with a simple elegant compact body and stabilization but no optical viewfinder, that means poor posture & more shake problems. SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam > 50mm WAS the standard focal length for film.... and maybe is still now for > Full-frame cameras...but..with most modern DSLRs having a "crop factor" of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So, I'd guess if we really wanted to duplicate the older standard, we'd have > to use a 37 mm lens. What say you? Rich I would say *if* you want it to match the 50mm distance then you are right. > 50mm WAS the standard focal length for film.... and maybe is still now for > Full-frame cameras...but..with most modern DSLRs having a "crop factor" of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So, I'd guess if we really wanted to duplicate the older standard, we'd have > to use a 37 mm lens. What say you? Rich Yes, that is correct. I was using a 1ds so it was undistorted. : 50mm WAS the standard focal length for film.... and maybe is still now for : Full-frame cameras...but..with most modern DSLRs having a "crop factor" of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : So, I'd guess if we really wanted to duplicate the older standard, we'd have : to use a 37 mm lens. What say you? Rich Thus say I: I'm quite fond of my Sigma 30mm f/1.4. I don't use it very much; but when I'm in a low-light situation and bounce flash isn't feasible, I'm very glad I have it. Bob > : 50mm WAS the standard focal length for film.... and maybe is still now for > : Full-frame cameras...but..with most modern DSLRs having a "crop factor" of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Bob Bounce flash needs to be used with care, I was using it in what at first appeared to be a white ceiling, unfortunately it had a green tint in it. Much time was spent fixing that. > > : 50mm WAS the standard focal length for film.... and maybe is still now for > > : Full-frame cameras...but..with most modern DSLRs having a "crop factor" of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > appeared to be a white ceiling, unfortunately it had a green tint in it. > Much time was spent fixing that. I don't have the original message so if you won't mind me using yours as a bridge to cross the river. With the brain of ours there is no such thing as high or low ceiling as you can even bring the sky down to whatever high you wish. The problem that we have seen lot of thing in our life but we just won't spend time to learn what in front os us. Example, I believe most of us have seen how STUDIO setup, work, or most of us seen how photographer uses Umbrella with the strobe pointing backward, then bounce the light source back to the front. Of cource the photographer can point the umbrella straight up (usually some degree) and it doesn't care how high/low the ceiling may be. or it doesn't care if there is any wall or ceiling available. So same with your refular flash, you can bounce off anything you wish, or if there isn't any ceiling or wall, then nothing stop you from using any device to bring the ceiling/wall closer to the flash. >>> : 50mm WAS the standard focal length for film.... and maybe is still now >>> for [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > if there isn't any ceiling or wall, then nothing stop you from using any > device to bring the ceiling/wall closer to the flash. Hmmm, I was talking about colour balance. > >>> : 50mm WAS the standard focal length for film.... and maybe is still now > >>> for [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Hmmm, I was talking about colour balance. Hmmmm and I was asking you to be a BRIDGE for me to shoot acrosss the river ... or I didn't say nothing about whatever you said, but asking if you won't mind me quoting your message to send the message to the OP. > Hmmmm and I was asking you to be a BRIDGE for me to shoot acrosss the > river ... or I didn't say nothing about whatever you said, but asking if you > won't mind me quoting your message to send the message to the OP. What? > > Hmmmm and I was asking you to be a BRIDGE for me to shoot acrosss the > > river ... or I didn't say nothing about whatever you said, but asking if you > > won't mind me quoting your message to send the message to the OP. > > What? Well, I was asking you "if yu won't mind" me "quoting your message" *without* responding to "whatever you were saying" *but* directly to the OP "though* whatever message I quoted. And as you have read my original message which you quoted few times _________________________________________________________ "> > I don't have the original message so if you won't mind me using yours as a bridge to cross the river." which says --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. "I don't have the original message". I am telling you why I didn't response directly to the OP by quoting the OP's original message Just incase you ask me WHY? it's possible that part of the OP's name triggers my kill-file so my reader delete it. 2. "if you won't mind". I am asking you for permission, or telling you that I quoted yours *but* not response to anything you say, *but* to the OP. Just incase you ask what is "OP" which stands for Original Poster 3. "as a BRIDGE", same with our normal life and technology, if you don't have a boat to cross the river then we use a BRIDGE to get to the other side. In this case, I don't have the boat (the original message) and I want to response (cross the river) to the OP's question, so I quoted YOURS (a bridge) because it contains the Message of the OP . Just incase you "WHAT?" again, then I guess we may have to live with the "WHAT" for now and hope you understand so won't what to other in the future. > Well, I was asking you "if yu won't mind" me "quoting your message" > *without* responding to "whatever you were saying" *but* directly to the OP > "though* whatever message I quoted. Nice of you to ask, I don't mind at all. > > Well, I was asking you "if yu won't mind" me "quoting your message" > > *without* responding to "whatever you were saying" *but* directly to the OP > > "though* whatever message I quoted. > > Nice of you to ask, I don't mind at all. That's what I am, and I have been the same me for decades. Something like 1. If I don't have the experience of my very own, then I usually add a note saying I read, seen, or heard etc. somewhere. 2. In general, like it or not I usually share my very own experience *not* from any book. I used to be a bookworm until around 2 decades ago when my eyes no longer good for reading (I still can see but words start dancing before my eyes), but it doesn't mean I believe what the book says 3. If you pay closer attention then you may not see me correct anyone, yes, I may disagree with someone who tries to correct me with incorrect information or misunderstanding, but I usually don't correct anyone. Yes, I do add some info or opinon (similar to I justed added some info about Slow Shutter Speed & Flash on to someone, and I wasn't trying to correct because it's just one of many styles *not* a normal use). 4. And I often try to be very clear of what I may say in public. Similar to ask your permission to quote your message (even I have all the rights to quote any message I wish, but I don't have the right to say the wrong thing). And I am glad no misunderstanding this time. >>> Well, I was asking you "if yu won't mind" me "quoting your message" >>> *without* responding to "whatever you were saying" *but* directly to the OP [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > And I am glad no misunderstanding this time. Thanks for clarifying. Just a quick note, as far as I know the only minimum shutter speed for flash is when the ambient light reaches the point where the illumination is equal to the flash power. E.g. Ambient exposure = 20 seconds @ 5.6, flash exposure = 5.6. On my particular camera there is a maximum synchronisation speed of 1/250th sec which can be switched to high speed mode when wider apertures are required in bright ambient surroundings. This decreases the range of the flash. In practice when using the flash I always use high speed mode as it adjusts automatically at lower shutter speeds. > I recently needed to give myself some pressure because I am getting a bit > bored so I went on a job with 1 lens, a 50mm 1.4. It was great, the quality [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > other times I was too far away, so I moved forward a bit. Try it, it's > exciting. On 35mm film or full frame I assume? The 'standard' lens for a 1.5x cropped sensor would be about 34mm, not 50. There is no such thing, actually, as a "standard" lens for any format. It is some approximation of the human field of view. This in turn is a nonsense proposal as the eye is only in sharp focus where it is pointed and the image has no distinct (directly perceived) frame or border. Our mind gets in the way of the view. The 50mm became the "standard" by collective fiat for 35mm as the 80mm became the same for the 6x6 camera. In large part because it is also one of the least expensive lenses and fast even in the consumer models. The 'standard' is approximately = sqrt(2 * longest-edge^2). Some will have it as the diagonal of the frame (43mm for 35mm film and 28mm for a 1.5x crop [ sqrt(longedge^2+shortedge^2) ]). But there is no "Standard Lens". Still, I agree that using the 'standard lens' is a delight: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6168907&size=lg 50mm f/1.7 http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6046198&size=lg 80MM f/2.8 (6x6) Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.