Is 35mm All You Really Need?

[erl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

....

 

What are you trying to do with your camera? Why are you even taking photos in the first place? You really ought to be able to answer these questions before you consider what focal length best serves your purpose.

I know I said I would not buy further into this topic, forgive me , I cannot resist.

I have (nearly) always maintained that the image should be dictated by the subject. ie. the shape of the image should conform to visual preferences of the photographer, not the available format of the camera. ie. square or rectangular, vertical or horizintal. Too often images suffer because they were cropped to conform to standard paper sizes for example. Likewise, the image portrayal can be optimized by compression or expansion via focal length selection.

 

Ideally, all these options should be determined by each subject, not limitations imposed by the photographer not having the optimal equipment. I will be the first to say, "I can't carry everything that might be necessary". I am stating what I believe to be ideal. I strive to get close to it, but my back and shoulder tend to complain more these days. That does not alter my thinking, just my behaviour.

 

Put simply, I have been trying to say the subject (as conceived by the photographer) should dictate the gear (including focal length), not the photographer. That is my philosophy, you are free to disagree. I am sure many will.

[mikemgb]

I know I said I would not buy further into this topic, forgive me , I cannot resist.

I have (nearly) always maintained that the image should be dictated by the subject. ie. the shape of the image should conform to visual preferences of the photographer, not the available format of the camera. ie. square or rectangular, vertical or horizintal. Too often images suffer because they were cropped to conform to standard paper sizes for example. Likewise, the image portrayal can be optimized by compression or expansion via focal length selection.

 

Ideally, all these options should be determined by each subject, not limitations imposed by the photographer not having the optimal equipment. I will be the first to say, "I can't carry everything that might be necessary". I am stating what I believe to be ideal. I strive to get close to it, but my back and shoulder tend to complain more these days. That does not alter my thinking, just my behaviour.

 

Put simply, I have been trying to say the subject (as conceived by the photographer) should dictate the gear (including focal length), not the photographer. That is my philosophy, you are free to disagree. I am sure many will.

 

One thing I love about my D-Lux 109 is that you can switch formats between 16:9, 4:3, 3:2 and 1:1, I use all of them depending on the subject.

[michaelwj]

Absolutely. But I wonder just how many people on this forum own an interchangeable lens camera and, through their own absolute choice (and not financial constraints which are understandable given Leica prices), have decided to stick with one, single focal length lens, and who actually own no other lens. I'd hazard a guess and say, very, very, very few. Simple question (in bold). Simple answers - yes or no .

Me.

 

Every time I think I need/want another lens I borrow or buy it, use it for a while, and inevitably sell it. I had a 50mm for 6 months, a 21mm for 6 months, etc... I've really had only one lens for quite a while throughout all the noise.

[Exodies]

One thing I love about my D-Lux 109 is that you can switch formats between 16:9, 4:3, 3:2 and 1:1, I use all of them depending on the subject.

The only real solution to being forced into the wrong shaped box is a circular sensor.

[erl]

The only real solution to being forced into the wrong shaped box is a circular sensor.

I get what you say, but how often do you see/visualize a circular motif?

Cropping of some sort is essential in normal pursuit of photography. The moment you put a camera to your eye, you are cropping.

I sense a circular argument arising.

[pop]

The only real solution to being forced into the wrong shaped box is a circular sensor.

Considering the meaning of the word "real" -  which really existing camera do you refer to?

[Exodies]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My scenes are never framed by simple shapes. The contour of a horizon, the side of a tree, a crowd of people - these form the edges of what I want to depict. A circular sensor would allow me to keep more pixels.

[Exodies]

Considering the meaning of the word "real" -  which really existing camera do you refer to?

I've seen circular images made with old wooden cameras. Compared to making an intel processor making a circular sensor would be a doddle.

[pop]

Yes, I can follow, so far, given that none of my cameras has a cat shaped sensor.

[pop]

I've seen circular images made with old wooden cameras. Compared to making an intel processor making a circular sensor would be a doddle.

You havent's seen any plates with circular coatings, I'd think. You have merely observed that the lens projects a circular image. I'd settle for a square sensor.

[Exodies]

Square would be an improvement but circular would be perfect.

 

ETA imagine if we had always had circular sensors and someone tried to sell rectangular ones. What arguments would they use?

Edited June 7, 2017 by Exodies

[indergaard]

It's all that I need from a rangefinder.

[pgk]

My scenes are never framed by simple shapes.  A circular sensor would allow me to keep more pixels.

 

If your scenes were circular then prints wouldn't be framed by most framers  .

 

In the past paintings and drawings  have been produced in oval and circular 'formats'. Since neither are bound by the technology which captures them it makes sense that if perceptually acceptable then there woud be far more paintings and drawings which were/are circular. I suspect that circular images are simply not as acceptable to our eyes .....

 

[Caveat: I do have the Canon 8-15 - useful but limited  ].

[Exodies]

I totally agree, a circular print eventually becomes hard to look at with any affection. The point is to allow cropping freedom after you take the picture rather than before you buy the camera.

 

As for frames, three-d printers will turn out whatever frame you need.

Edited June 7, 2017 by Exodies

[wattsy]

Put simply, I have been trying to say the subject (as conceived by the photographer) should dictate the gear (including focal length), not the photographer. That is my philosophy,

 

 

I'm not sure I get the distinction. Presumably in choosing a focal length to photograph a subject (as "conceived by the photographer"), the photographer is dictating the gear? I can't make up my mind whether your philosophy is riven by some deep paradox or subject to a wild tautology.

[Peter H]

I know I said I would not buy further into this topic, forgive me , I cannot resist.

I have (nearly) always maintained that the image should be dictated by the subject. ie. the shape of the image should conform to visual preferences of the photographer, not the available format of the camera. ie. square or rectangular, vertical or horizintal. Too often images suffer because they were cropped to conform to standard paper sizes for example. Likewise, the image portrayal can be optimized by compression or expansion via focal length selection.

 

Ideally, all these options should be determined by each subject, not limitations imposed by the photographer not having the optimal equipment. I will be the first to say, "I can't carry everything that might be necessary". I am stating what I believe to be ideal. I strive to get close to it, but my back and shoulder tend to complain more these days. That does not alter my thinking, just my behaviour.

 

Put simply, I have been trying to say the subject (as conceived by the photographer) should dictate the gear (including focal length), not the photographer. That is my philosophy, you are free to disagree. I am sure many will.

 

 

 

But you choose the subject. 

 

If you're clear about your intention, you may decide that the subject will dictate the gear. But only if that fits the intention, which is always primary.

 

A distant bird will require a long lens, but I have to first have decided that I want to photograph distant birds. And I should, ideally, know why.

[pgk]

I'm not sure I get the distinction. Presumably in choosing a focal length to photograph a subject (as "conceived by the photographer"), the photographer is dictating the gear? I can't make up my mind whether your philosophy is riven by some deep paradox or subject to a wild tautology.

 

Surely the focal length is dictated by subject, viewpoint and composition (square, rectangular, or circular)? This determines the focal length to be used and whilst the photographer could be said to be dictating the focal length indirectly, its the other choices that dictate it rather than the photographer changing the other choices because of a decision over focal length. Interdependence does not remove choice when several variables are involved unless on variable is fixed (focal length). In any case, in my view this is less a philosophy and more a practicality.

[erl]

I'm not sure I get the distinction. Presumably in choosing a focal length to photograph a subject (as "conceived by the photographer"), the photographer is dictating the gear? I can't make up my mind whether your philosophy is riven by some deep paradox or subject to a wild tautology.

Indulge me to attempt a simplification for you.

Next time you observe something you decide to photograph, what is your first, or early impulse?

I will suggest, based on my own experience, that it is to choose a lens best suited to your vision of the subject. In other words, that is choosing a focal length, which, whilst you 'choose' it, it is really dictated by the subject because of its scale, distance from you, etc. I don't find that concept difficult. Maybe you work differently, which is fine.

[Rus]

But sometimes the same subject may be photographed in various different ways with a variety of different lenses. Say in a model shoot one may choose to use a 35mm and then switch to a 85mm or a 135mm. The subject remains the same, and surely it is the vision of the photographer that changes over (however brief a period of) time? 

 

I can photograph my cat with a 35mm while I stand and shoot downward, which captures the entire cat in the frame; or for a more comical look I can use a 14mm and take a shot really close to its nose so that it is very much exaggerated. 

 

So I'm not sure it is always solely the subject that determines the focal length used. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wattsy]

Surely the focal length is dictated by subject, viewpoint and composition (square, rectangular, or circular)? This determines the focal length to be used and whilst the photographer could be said to be dictating the focal length indirectly, its the other choices that dictate it rather than the photographer changing the other choices because of a decision over focal length. Interdependence does not remove choice when several variables are involved unless on variable is fixed (focal length). In any case, in my view this is less a philosophy and more a practicality.

 

I can't even get my head around that stream of consciousness but Erl has 'thanked' it so I guess you are saying much the same thing as he is.

 

I will suggest, based on my own experience, that it is to choose a lens best suited to your vision of the subject. In other words, that is choosing a focal length, which, whilst you 'choose' it, it is really dictated by the subject because of its scale, distance from you, etc. I don't find that concept difficult. Maybe you work differently, which is fine.

 

 

As I stated above, I think you are probably saying something tautologous. If you choose a lens that is "best suited to your vision" then, in choosing that focal length, you are doing so because you want to photograph a subject in a certain way. The choice of focal length is not "dictated by the subject" any more than is the choice of film (colour or black and white) or medium of expression (film or digital or indeed pencils). If you believe such things are dictated by the subject then I think you (and Paul) are betraying an innate conservatism that you are finding difficult to see beyond.

Edited June 7, 2017 by wattsy