Are you stupid?

[zapp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Leica Vlux1 has a zoom scale engraved with 35 mm equivalent focal lengths. One of the latest Leica commercials advertises for a 2.0 + 360 mm.

We all (should) know that focal length of the VLux1 does not start at 35 mm, but around 7 mm and that equivalent focal length is a very bad term - it only applies to angle of view, but not to depth of field AND not at all to focal length itself. OK, it is an el cheapo Leica, this is forgiveable.

Now we get the 2.0 + 360 mm advertisement showing the new D Leica with the 180 mm Summicron, somehow (subliminal) telling us that Leica has a 2/360 in the program. Well 180 is 180 and will always be 180 mm focal length. This is no more el cheapo, but calling us el stupido.

[wmyowell]

Well, Zapp, you are right that a given focal length is always the same, but personally, I prefer the use of equivalent focal lengths. The need for thinking, "now let's see, I need to multiply this focal length by 2 or 1.4" is silly. Depth of field isn't the primary consideration in choosing a zoom setting, it's field of view. If I'm photographing a scene or group, I set the zoom at 35.

 

It's a matter of what works for one, not stupidity, and Leica or any manufacturer that selects equivalents isn't stupid.

 

Just my opinion; I've only been taking photographs since 1946.

 

Bill Yowell

[Iron Flatline]

It's not stupid, nor an attempt to trick anyone. It's just how focal lengths get calculated these days.The crop does not mean a magnification of the lens speed.

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Bill Im with you on that - its much easier to use a general "reference" for the field of view rather than mixing the terms.

 

BTW having photographed that long, you might appriicte that my grandfathers cameras -3 robots - is still working... and photographing as always... there were a day when a camera could last most of a lifetime... personally I am waiting for the next digital camera to come out. Ha ha. (naturally I get free film and he paid for the film instead)

 

Sincerely Bo Lorentzen

 

My Leica scratch page - random thoughts , pictures and such.

[zapp]

Well, Zapp, you are right that a given focal length is always the same, but personally, I prefer the use of equivalent focal lengths. The need for thinking, "now let's see, I need to multiply this focal length by 2 or 1.4" is silly. Depth of field isn't the primary consideration in choosing a zoom setting, it's field of view. If I'm photographing a scene or group, I set the zoom at 35.

 

It's a matter of what works for one, not stupidity, and Leica or any manufacturer that selects equivalents isn't stupid.

 

Just my opinion; I've only been taking photographs since 1946.

 

Bill Yowell

 

Sure enough there are some good reasons for doing this, but did you ever see a medium format lens inprinted with 35 mm equivalents? Also, newbies tend to work with what they read off the lens and are often surprised that their DOF calculation is dead wrong. Also, their scale calculation for Macro work, etc. Simplicity should not be the prime goal for a company like Leica. Simplicity is not appropriate when it easily results in wrong information. Only 2 factors are necessary to fix and understand everything here: field of view AND sensor size. Field of view is also not optimum since you can easily change it by enlarging part of the sensor or wasting part of it.

Leica is not stupid, but we are stupid if we accept this behavior. Btw. Kodak started all this some time ago without using the word equivalent on the lens.

 

This is like the story why a NASA booster rocket is approximately two horse butts wide.

[stunsworth]

I'm with the stupid guys I suppose as I favour the 35mm equivalent being used.

 

With MF you knew how big the film was because you had to take it out of the wrapper before loading the film in a camera. You had some visual feedback about how the size differed from a roll of 35mm. The difference in lenses wasn't that big. A 'standard' lens on 35mm was 50mm, on 120 the same 'standard' lens was 80mm. With a p&s digital it could be 7mm, not as easy to relate to IMHO.

 

How big is the sensor in my LX2? I don't know, other than the fact it's small I couldn't tell you anything about its size. Is 7mm (or whatever) wide or not? Again I don't know without refernce to the 35mm equivalent. Is 28mm wide on a 35mm system? Yes it is. So for this stupid person it's much easier to work in terms of reference that I can relate to.

 

Sorry.

[frc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Only two horse butts wide,

 

and all that much horse power!

 

I really don't understand how they do it.

 

Probably me just very stupid;-)

 

BTW, Vlux1, isn't it a consumer orientated P&S.

 

An often heard reaction on selective dof: "Can't you get it all sharp with your expensive Leica M?"

 

Yes some people do care about the tech and art aspects of lenses on small cams,

 

but do realise many are only confused by it.

 

Here it is were the equivalents come in, 35, ahhhhhhh....... wide.

 

There's a difference between knowlidge and insight, skills and stupidity!

 

 

Regards,

 

 

Fr.

[lct]

...newbies tend to work with what they read off the lens and are often surprised that their DOF calculation is dead wrong. Also, their scale calculation for Macro work, etc. Simplicity should not be the prime goal for a company like Leica. Simplicity is not appropriate when it easily results in wrong information...

Agree in theory but in practice there are too many photo formats nowadays: 2/3, 4/3, APS-C, APS-H, so-called 'full frame' or 'miniature' 24x36 and so on. Then a 7mm lens does not mean anything to your newbies anymore. Also people buying small sensor digicams don't expect to get blurred backgrounds or foregrounds otherwise than in macro or with very long lenses. Then why bothering them with DoF?

[Black Dot]

Also, newbies tend to work with what they read off the lens and are often surprised that their DOF calculation is dead wrong.

 

I don't think newbies do DOF calculations.

[sdai]

That's apparently why some Nikon cameras don't have the DoF preview buttons at all. LOL

[zapp]

Just a simple note, before we keep talking in circles here:

There are standards and by ISO standard you can not sell a 7 mm for a 35 mm lens - no discussion on this. So everybody feeling happy with equivalents has to live with a clear text marker on the lens telling you that the printed focal length on the lens is dead wrong.

 

For all of you talking FOV we must clarify that field of view again depends on sensor size AND focal length. If you really like FOV we should print angular units on the camera - ISO would recommend GON/GRAD and again most people will be lost.

 

Beginners may have trouble - although if you are a real beginner you should not be screwed by old habbits. Trouble starts with experienced users that do not understand the basics - like most photo journalists. Image scale for macro work is often though to change with sensor size: LFI published this in articles, and Olympus posted the same nonsense on their homepage.

[mjh]

That's apparently why some Nikon cameras don't have the DoF preview buttons at all. LOL

No, that’s because the DoF preview button is of rather limited use. For one thing, if the viewfinder isn’t too bright to begin with (which is the case with the models you referred to), it is hard to judge sharpness after stopping down. And then the apparent DoF you see on the focusing screen isn’t the same as the DoF in the actual digital image – the actual DoF will usually be smaller, due to different properties of the sensor vs. the focusing screen.

[mjh]

Just a simple note, before we keep talking in circles here:

There are standards and by ISO standard you can not sell a 7 mm for a 35 mm lens - no discussion on this. So everybody feeling happy with equivalents has to live with a clear text marker on the lens telling you that the printed focal length on the lens is dead wrong.

I don’t think anyone here suggested that the equivalent focal length should replace the specification of the real focal length. With few exceptions (notably Kodak), it is the real focal length that gets printed on the lens. But the equivalent focal length is such a useful concept that it continues to be used, even if you cannot accept that.

 

For all of you talking FOV we must clarify that field of view again depends on sensor size AND focal length. If you really like FOV we should print angular units on the camera - ISO would recommend GON/GRAD and again most people will be lost.

Exactly. It would be a perfect solution if it were not for the fact that most people wouldn’t understand it. That’s why the equivalent focal length is used instead. Note that FOV follows from the equivalent focal length and nothing else, as the corresponding image size is fixed – as “equivalent” is short for “equivalent to a 35 mm camera”, it will always be 36 x 24 mm. In fact you just stated the reason why working with the real focal length creates so many difficulties – without knowing the sensor size (and as far as compact digicams are concerned, most photographers do not) is is of little use.

[george +]

35mm terms make sense to me - because that is what I have been using since before Bill started to take pictures.

 

I guess I could be made to learn FOV values but this is more convenient for me right now.

 

It is just one of those things where we, or our predecessors, did not think it out in the beginning and now we are stuck with it. Like paper and shoe sizes to name just two.

[wparsonsgisnet]

I like the 35-mill equivalents as well ... just an old dog. However, it is nice to think at the same time that there's going to be a l-o-t more dof than I was used to.

 

Everytime I put the magic 24mm lens on the M8 I look at the orange 24 and think 32. Amazing the tricks one can teach old dogs. Even to take a nice pic now and then.