Just ordered a new camera.

Started Jun 28, 2012 | Discussions thread
yvind Strm
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,127
In reply to Mostly Lurking, Jul 14, 2012

Mostly Lurking wrote:

yvind Strm wrote:

Ahem, as I recall it, you have never provided proof of your theories, but rejected all proofs from the "other" side. (The right side. :-))

You and others have rejected all of my proofs. Face it, you're bigots. (No that's not an insult. Look it up if you don't know the applicable meaning of the word.)

No, I am not interested in looking up Bigots. But if you could point me to someone that shares your view, I might understand better what on earth you are talking about, and how you have come to misunderstand this.

You are correct that the only thing that changes is FOV. And just therefore you need a shorter lens on a crop camera, to replicate that FOV. Because perspective does not change as long as the distance remains the same.

Blantaly false . In actuality the true FOV does not change; only the apparent , or captured FOV changes.

True FOV? Apparent FOV? OK, so we can agree on that what you call Apparent FOV changes?

Anytime you change the Focal Length, you also change the magnification and therefore, the perspective. I'm well aware that you and others refuse to accept this simple truth, but that refusal does not change the fact of its truth.

Where do you have this from? Magnification DOES NOT change perspective. It ONLY changes FOV (and that would be both True and apparent FOV). Unless you have a very special definition of perspective.

SO, saying that to get the same FOV AND perspective as a 85mm FF, you need to use a 50mm on a SD14 (1.7x smaller sensor). So, what is the problem is with saying that this 50mm equals a 85mm on a FF?

The FOV is apparently the same, the perspective is not the same . That's the problem with it.

Again, do you have a special definition of perspective?

Every pro that has worked with MF cameras knows what FL that is the best portrait lens. Here the crop factor goes the other way, of course. On my old Hassy 6x6, a 150 was pretty close to what a 85mm was on the 35mm camera. (Factor 0,6)

Oh, and by the way. SD9/10/14/15 are NOT 35mm cameras, as you suggested somewhere else.

If they are not, then why is a 50mm focal length considered to be a 'normal' lens for them, just as it is with a 'full-frame' sensor? Are they 4/3 cameras? Are they Medium Format cameras?

Is a 50mm considered to be a normal on a SD9/10/14/15? By whom? First time I hear this.

No, the fact that none of the Sigma dSLRs have a full-frame sensor doe not mean they aren't 35mm cameras. (I'm well aware of the 'official definition' regarding the diagonal of the sensor.)

Ok, so you do not accept this definition, then? How would you define a normal, if not?

The fact is that the Sigma dSLRs have the same 'lens mount-to sensor-distance' as every 35mm camera, and therefore they are 35mms.

No, that has nothing to do with it.

A 35 mm camera is a 35mm camera because it use 35mm wide film, with the format of 24x36 mm. A digital camera with the same format (24x35mm) is called Full Frame, and is the same as 35mm.

Without measuring the sensor cavity, I'm confident that they are capable of housing a full 35mm sensor.

Absurd. And completely irrelevant. The SD9/10 could possibly, as they were built on SA-7 (I think) and had sports finder. But the 14/15 was specifically built for the smaller sensor. But again, completely irrelevant.

-- hide signature --

William Wilgus

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow