Yet another 28mm vs 35mm question (M10, newbie)

[hansvons]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

12 minutes ago, aamwgm said:

That is very interesting; thank you. However, my research seems to have yielded articles like these.

The article you mention is from a blog of a young and eager colleague from LA (there live thousands of hopeful DPs in Los Angeles in fierce competiton). I'm not too convinced that he's an expert of the history of cinematography. However, I'm not Spielberg or Scorsese either. I shot TV-commercials as a DP/director and did that in good old Europe mainly. I can assure you that 28mm FF translating to 18mm in S-35mm is not the most-used lens in cinematography. This article is probably a better source. But as I didn't research it, I can't vouch for it's validity. But it reflects my own experiences.

As a side note, in filmmaking, primes come in a set, traditionally from 18mm to 85mm in the Zeiss nomenclature. 18mm (28mm in FF) is meant for longshots. 25mm (35mm in FF) for medium close-ups and medium long-shots. Those make up 75% of a film. 35mm (50mm in FF) for medium close-ups and close-ups. 50mm (75mm in FF) for close-ups, and 85mm (130mm in FF) for tight close-ups and detail shots. 

--

41 minutes ago, aamwgm said:

and Drive.

You are absolutely right, this film was shot on expressive wide angle lenses. The reason isn't a "cinematic" feeling (the subjects' expressions, the contrasty lighting with deep shadows and lush colours are more paying into this) but the need of an expressive cinematography that supports action-filled shots. Wide-angle lense accelerate action while longer lenses tend to slow things down–as long as the action happens towards the camera. Lateral action is a different matter.

Also, it's a matter of taste and style what focal length you prefer and at what time you look back in film history. In the nineties, NYPD Blue created a new trend, staging action with telephoto lenses. For that, they used lots of blurry forground and a nervously panning camera. Drive was shot on spherical glass but cropped for the wide-screen, which tradiionally is anamorphic territory. I can absolutely see why its cinematography appeals to you. 

--

If you are after cinematic images, it's essential to understand what an image makes "cinematic". Filmmaking is always about people trying to survive a drama and not about lenses. If you capture drama in your photography, you'll get cinematic images. 

[RexGig0]

Well, because I wear eyeglasses, when shooting, I cannot see the 35mm frame lines, yet I still enjoy using 35mm lenses. I am neither a professional, nor an expert, but can certainly enjoy using a 35mm lens, without being able to see frame lines. It is enough for me to know that the frame lines are there, just outside the visible frame.

Alan Schaller, who does know a thing or two about photography, famously uses a 24mm lens, without any actual frame lines to guide him. He explains it quite well, in this interview.

My point is that it is not necessary to see 28mm frame lines.

Edited February 19 by RexGig0

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Jewl]

vor 58 Minuten schrieb RexGig0:

Well, because I wear eyeglasses, when shooting, I cannot see the 35mm frame lines, yet I still enjoy using 35mm lenses. I am neither a professional, nor an expert, but can certainly enjoy using a 35mm lens, without being able to see frame lines. It is enough for me to know that the frame lines are there, just outside the visible frame.

Alan Schaller, who does know a thing or two about photography, famously uses a 24mm lens, without any actual frame lines to guide him. He explains it quite well, in this interview.

My point is that it is not necessary to see 28mm frame lines.

I agree. Also struggle with seeing 35mm framelines (need to move my head/eyes left, right up and down) and still consider to buy a 28mm lens. In the end, with a digital camera (e.g. M11) I can easily crop or remove elements that are too much. Even though when seeing the lines you might need to crop certain things out...

[aamwgm]

2 hours ago, hansvons said:

 

The article you mention is from a blog of a young and eager colleague from LA (there live thousands of hopeful DPs in Los Angeles in fierce competiton). I'm not too convinced that he's an expert of the history of cinematography. However, I'm not Spielberg or Scorsese either. I shot TV-commercials as a DP/director and did that in good old Europe mainly. I can assure you that 28mm FF translating to 18mm in S-35mm is not the most-used lens in cinematography. This article is probably a better source. But as I didn't research it, I can't vouch for it's validity. But it reflects my own experiences.

As a side note, in filmmaking, primes come in a set, traditionally from 18mm to 85mm in the Zeiss nomenclature. 18mm (28mm in FF) is meant for longshots. 25mm (35mm in FF) for medium close-ups and medium long-shots. Those make up 75% of a film. 35mm (50mm in FF) for medium close-ups and close-ups. 50mm (75mm in FF) for close-ups, and 85mm (130mm in FF) for tight close-ups and detail shots. 

--

You are absolutely right, this film was shot on expressive wide angle lenses. The reason isn't a "cinematic" feeling (the subjects' expressions, the contrasty lighting with deep shadows and lush colours are more paying into this) but the need of an expressive cinematography that supports action-filled shots. Wide-angle lense accelerate action while longer lenses tend to slow things down–as long as the action happens towards the camera. Lateral action is a different matter.

Also, it's a matter of taste and style what focal length you prefer and at what time you look back in film history. In the nineties, NYPD Blue created a new trend, staging action with telephoto lenses. For that, they used lots of blurry forground and a nervously panning camera. Drive was shot on spherical glass but cropped for the wide-screen, which tradiionally is anamorphic territory. I can absolutely see why its cinematography appeals to you. 

--

If you are after cinematic images, it's essential to understand what an image makes "cinematic". Filmmaking is always about people trying to survive a drama and not about lenses. If you capture drama in your photography, you'll get cinematic images. 

Wow, that is very interesting. If you have more resources on cinematographic techniques (cameras, lenses, especially), I'd be very interested in learning more about them.

I didn't even know the focal length equivalents for film, for example, so I have a lot to learn.

As for Drive, yeah, I could tell that the movie was shot wide, and I also agree about the actors and the overall colour palette of the movie. I'm a huge fan of Nicolas Winding Refn's style, although some of his productions can be heavier on the style and lacking on the substance. What's interesting is that he is partly colour blind, and he credits his style to that fact. Drive, Too Old to Die Young, Only God Forgives & The Neon Demon floored me with their cinematography. So did Better Call Saul, which I also suspect has been shot pretty wide for the most part.

I agree about taste. I tend to belong to the "wide" camp in that regard. When I was shooting with the X-T4, I slowly found myself reaching for as wide as 24mm. On my newly acquired Leica, I've settled at around 28mm. I've also liked 35mm in the past, its wide enough, but if I could pick, I'd probably choose slightly wider.

1 hour ago, RexGig0 said:

Well, because I wear eyeglasses, when shooting, I cannot see the 35mm frame lines, yet I still enjoy using 35mm lenses. I am neither a professional, nor an expert, but can certainly enjoy using a 35mm lens, without being able to see frame lines. It is enough for me to know that the frame lines are there, just outside the visible frame.

Alan Schaller, who does know a thing or two about photography, famously uses a 24mm lens, without any actual frame lines to guide him. He explains it quite well, in this interview.

My point is that it is not necessary to see 28mm frame lines.

Very interesting. Alan Schaller takes breathtaking photos. And I am beginning to understand why seeing the framelines is not as important as I thought. And I should learn shooting with both eyes open, I'm guessing that's one of the design goals of a rangefinder to begin with. It does require some training, though, as your brain starts playing all kinds of tricks as it tries to consolidate what each eye is seeing. I've been practising harder since this morning, and its been slim pickings.

[RexGig0]

When human subjects are “slim pickings,” try using fire plugs, or fire hydrants, or whatever they are called, where you live. I may have first gotten the idea from Thorsten Overgaard’s web site. 

[aamwgm]

18 minutes ago, RexGig0 said:

When human subjects are “slim pickings,” try using fire plugs, or fire hydrants, or whatever they are called, where you live. I may have first gotten the idea from Thorsten Overgaard’s web site. 

To achieve anchoring the composition? Or for focusing practice?

[RexGig0]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

29 minutes ago, aamwgm said:

To achieve anchoring the composition? Or for focusing practice?

Why not both? The height may be the major limitation of using them for composition. The fire hydrants in my neighborhood do require that I kneel, to compose, but in more-urban areas, the fire hose connections are somewhat higher. Depending upon their design, some petrol/fuel pumps may serve the purpose.

Edited February 19 by RexGig0

[rpsawin]

Unless I'm not understanding your post I read this as a "framing" issue rather than a "focusing" issue. IMHO the quick fix is to use an external 28mm viewfinder for composition. 

 

 

[aamwgm]

7 minutes ago, rpsawin said:

Unless I'm not understanding your post I read this as a "framing" issue rather than a "focusing" issue. IMHO the quick fix is to use an external 28mm viewfinder for composition. 

 

 

That I'd like to avoid. One of the very reasons to have gone for an M10 was its small size and simplicity.