Actual FOV 23 f2 not 35mm equivalent?

Frodro100 wrote:

amd wrote:

Frodro100 wrote:

Hypoxic wrote:

Thank you for a bit of common sense inserted into this thread.

I am sitting here, a little worried, that so many people don't seem to understand that the majority of people still use the 35mm camera as the reference for understanding other formats. Whether you like it or not, this is what most people do. Get over yourselves.

Ok, we get that there are variations of what '35mm' means.

Ok, we get that 'equivalence' has some arbitrary assumptions.

But I think it is ok for us to use a commonly understood format to give us a common reference point for us to understand and talk about lenses. It seems like a lot of people just want to point out technicalities and argue. This has the effect of one appearing obtuse when their intention was to appear intelligent.

Just Shoot Me wrote:

I'm sorry but for me your statement above makes no sense.

I grew up using a 35MM camera. I know, I got use to seeing with my minds eye, what a 21, 24, 28, 35, 50, 75, 90, 135 and 200mm lens FOV looks like.

So when I'm choosing a lens for a particular shot I think it 35mm FF terms. So If I want slightly wider than a standard 50mm lens I go to the 35. Which for Fuji is the 23. If I want a 50mm FOV I grab the Fuji 35.

If I grew up using a camera that used a smaller film size and the whole camera and film industry was based around that smaller film size then I wouldn't need to convert to FF equivalent.

Even when I used larger format camera I converted back down to 35mm FF terms as that is the way I see the shot.

This is just an appeal to sensor relativism. It might surprise you, but there are people alive right now -- adults, even -- who grew up with APS-C sensor cameras. Who is more "right"? Are you more correct than somebody else if you grew up with a Canon EOS Rebel G a few years before somebody else who grew up with a Canon EOS 10D? What about 120 film, which people were using for about 30 years before 135 film was even introduced?

Furthermore, there are almost certainly more crop sensor cameras owned by the general public than full frame sensor cameras. Data I've seen indicates 5:1 or greater ownership ratio in favor of APS-C. Should the majority of photographers have to parenthetically insert equivalencies into their conversations so as to make their language more comprehensible to a minority of older film camera users because it's assumed that older photographers, even those who have bought crop sensor cameras and are regular posters on an online board where only crop sensor cameras are discussed (as is the case of this board), still can't convert between the two systems in their heads? Personally, I would rather assume and expect competency than patronize someone like that, always treating them like they can't learn.

It strikes me as being similar to the difference between metric and US Customary measurements. Both are read out in numbers, but the numbers have different meanings with each system. IMO, it's worth memorizing a few conversions, at the very least, especially if you're going to actually own a crop sensor camera.

The 24x35 format is a standard that is used as "calibrating base" to understand the differences between different formats. This is not a generation conflict question. Pretty much every vendor in this space provides the crop factor. It allows you compare the FOV over different formats, as well as the possible DOF. This is not democracy of how many people are using which format, or whatever.
This discussion is becoming a bit absurd, and much ado about nothing

I've given this post quite a bit of thought and come to the conclusion that I don't agree with what you're saying. It is a generation conflict. In today's camera market, there is absolutely nothing axiomatic about the size of 135 film being a point of reference for digital cameras. The only reason it's used today is the generational carry-over. You say that it's "not a democracy," but that is exactly what you are appealing to, since photographers who still remember using film likely do outnumber those who have never used film at all. All you did was flip my own argument in the other direction; you didn't actually refute it.

Correcting my post: It's 24x36mm, and it's the standard every photography class, every brand and every book is using as a reference. Suggest you take a look into this before you keep fighting against reality. Trying to imagine now how old you might be to feel so intimidated by the "generation still to remember film". What's next? Newton or the definition of the meter? Seriously, you lost me on this!