Technical T Question

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

All of this is because the majority of people have experience with 35mm cameras and can only think in terms of the lenses they used on 'FF' 35mm cameras. 

 

Those of us who use medium or large format understand the differences. Smaller formats were less of a consideration (Pentax made the 110 SLR camera but most others were simple snapshot cameras with fixed lenses). 

 

The various digital formats have apparently just confused people, but it's easy to understand if you read up on the technicalities of it all. 

[dkCambridgeshire]

Actually the correct designation for the FF miniature format is '135 format' as introduced by Kodak in the 1930s. 

 

dunk

[mjh]

The various digital formats have apparently just confused people, but it's easy to understand if you read up on the technicalities of it all.

Back in the day I have experienced people being confused by the real (film) APS format when they were comparing focal lengths of APS and 35 mm compact cameras. This hasn’t started with digital photography.

 

The thing is that when you take some image format for granted and forget to take into account the influence the actual image format has on the field of view and the depth of field – well, then you are bound to arrive at all kinds of erroneous conclusions. So don’t do that.

[LexS]

There is no such thing a the depth of field of a 23mm lens either. You cannot reduce all the parameters determining depth of field to just the focal length. (Having said that one could argue that comparing the depths of field you get with the same focal length and different sensor sizes is neither here nor there anyway – it would be difficult to imagine a situation where a photographer wonders whether to use a certain focal length with either a larger or smaller sensor.)

 

I don't think that you have the correct explanation.