Projecting a smaller image to fill a smaller sensor, doesn’t 100% compensate for the fact that 23 has more native field curvature than 35 or that 50 has more “subject compression” (for want of a more accurate term) than 35
-
Cameraderie, a friendly photography forum, join now for free!
Projecting a smaller image to fill a smaller sensor, doesn’t 100% compensate for the fact that 23 has more native field curvature than 35 or that 50 has more “subject compression” (for want of a more accurate term) than 35
- Location
- The Netherlands
I'd be interested in the science behind this, especially the subject compression topic. Maybe it explains why I've never been happy with APS-C cameras and immediately felt at home with the Sony A7.
Well lens science is a topic far too expansive for my little brain!
But as I understand it the characteristics of (say) a 23mm lens don’t completely go away just because it’s projecting a smaller image circle
All focal lengths outside of the native FL of the human eye (which most reckon to be about FF 40mm) offer some degree of perspective distortion, because they show us a view of the world that we wouldn’t normally see
I love how my 200mm looks like FF 300mm on my APSC camera is a fairly popular comment, but the reality is that 200mm on APSC looks like 200mm on FF with the edges cropped off.
Another thing that gets overlooked, is that humanity tends to settle on standards for things.... specifically within photography this means that nigh on 100 years of 35mm photography with standard FLs (35/50/90 etc) means we expect photographs to adhere to that look. It’s basically a standard. When cameras have non 35mm sensors FLs become a little different in order to accomodate this standard.
Had APSC (or even MF) format become de riguer all those years ago, we might find that our ‘standard’ FLs bear little relation to those we know today.
It’s very slight, but equalising FOV and DOF between sensor/film sizes using different FLs and apertures makes for a very close image, but not entirely identical
Or in a single sentence (finally
) 35mm being bigger and utilising longer FLs (compared to APSC) will generally offer a little more of a “3D” look to the picture
- Location
- The Netherlands
Thanks, I think I follow you. Differences would be subtle indeed, but existent nevertheless.
This is absolutely my experience.
But it's also my experience that the differences are minuscule when using an excellent lens; it doesn't really matter. Supports the theory that its all about the lenses.
Dave Jenkins
Regular
- Name
- Dave Jenkins
I just don’t think it makes enough difference to make a difference to anyone but optical scientists and pixel-peepers. This is not what photography is about. We debate endlessly about trivia and hardly anyone makes great pictures anymore. Most of the great photographs in the history of the art were made with cameras we would consider inadequate for our use these days.
The trouble with all talking and writing about photography is that we can go on endlessly about equipment and techniques, and I’m as guilty as anyone, but there isn’t much we can say about photographs. They are just “there,” and they move something within us or they don’t.
The trouble with all talking and writing about photography is that we can go on endlessly about equipment and techniques, and I’m as guilty as anyone, but there isn’t much we can say about photographs. They are just “there,” and they move something within us or they don’t.
Last edited:
Disagree. Sorry. It's noticeable at normal viewing distances, and at the end of the day a lot of "great" photographs were made with 35mm, so that look is important. IMO / YMMV
How blades of grass look from 300 meters away, and pixel peeping about foliage, tracking AF (to a degree) & FW updates, that's trivial and there's too much of that on the internet especially RE Fuji
There's numerous contemporary photographers making great photographs
Alan Schaller
Rui Palha
TAVEPONG PRATOOMWONG
(There's more, many more - but I had Flickr open anyway and I follow these people so they were easy to find)
Do the photographers above move me as much as (say) HCB, Martine Franck or Fan Ho?
No, because those (and all the masters) have transcended their generation, defined an art form and become part of our cultural heritage. But the Flickr accounts I linked above have many images that show masterful photography is alive and well. IMO / YMMV
The equipment angle I 110% agree with you and I find it lamentable that brands have clans and tribes that follow them around like football fans.
(And before anyone makes any comment remember that my site is exclusively about the X-Pro range, and photographs, not about Fujifilm and every product they make, I've never written a review of the XT1 or X100 for example. I also own and shoot with non-Fuji cameras)
Technique however I do consider important, it was important in the darkroom and it's just as important now, the way the camera handles tones, and WB and colours is of paramount importance to any photograph taken with artistic intent (and many commercial ones as well, ever tried to sell a shot to a client that's well exposed and composed, but their skin is a funny colour?).
All considered art is effectively the result of being able to imagine, create and deliver a concept. Painters need to know about brushes and paints (and have a great idea for a picture). Sculptors about chisels and hammers (and have a great idea for a sculpture), and in this modern age photographers still need to know about the techniques that deliver the images they want.
It's easy to pine for a by-gone era.
Previously if you (for example) had a head full of killer guitar riffs, but no ability to play a guitar then in your head is where they stayed. Now you can get a guitar app on your tablet, no need to learn chords and off you go, show the world your songs
Same with photography, every camera now is also a darkroom (even SOOC Jpeg only ones)
The modern world has opened the door to all to pursue their artistic endeavours, this means that we're subjected to a lot (an awful lot) of work that would, how we say, not have made it past natural selection back in the old world
but don't despair, the talent's still out there - you just need to seek it out.Cheers
Edited to remove sweeping reference to 35mm photography
Last edited:
Dave Jenkins
Regular
- Name
- Dave Jenkins
I don't agree that it was "the vast majority," nor that "the 35mm look" is all that important. However, I really don't want to get into a debate with you, because I respect both your knowledge and your work very much.
My larger point is this: photography is not about photography; it is about life. The photos we call "great" are pretty much universally about life, while much of what we read and see in today's photography is about photography. When photography ceases to be about life, it loses its real purpose, IMO.
I will say of you, Adam, that although you write, and very helpfully, about methods and techniques, your photographs are very much about life. They are especially refreshing in the genre of street photography because they are full of life. What we today call "street photography" was the special domain of so many of the masters, yet much of what we see in contemporary work is just meaningless. Just an exercise in shutter-clicking. A chimpanzee might do better.
If there's anyone I haven't offended, let me know and I'll write something just for you!
@Dave Jenkins I want to like, agree, and funny your post. Oh, and I don't think you've offended me. Anxiously awaiting.
I don't agree that it was "the vast majority," nor that "the 35mm look" is all that important. However, I really don't want to get into a debate with you, because I respect both your knowledge and your work very much.
My larger point is this: photography is not about photography; it is about life. The photos we call "great" are pretty much universally about life, while much of what we read and see in today's photography is about photography. When photography ceases to be about life, it loses its real purpose, IMO.
I will say of you, Adam, that although you write, and very helpfully, about methods and techniques, your photographs are very much about life. They are especially refreshing in the genre of street photography because they are full of life. What we today call "street photography" was the special domain of so many of the masters, yet much of what we see in contemporary work is just meaningless. Just an exercise in shutter-clicking. A chimpanzee might do better.
If there's anyone I haven't offended, let me know and I'll write something just for you!
I’m not offended in the slightest Dave,
I welcome the kind of intelligent debate that your post offers
We could, yet will not
debate the 35mm lookBut the colossal bulk of my lengthy post to was to try and highlight that, well let’s not say ‘great’ but worthwhile photography is indeed alive and well (and no I don’t mean at my hands), that there’s still people out there celebrating life in their pictures, and they’re doing it whilst knowing the difference between a leading line and a sinister diagonal
I agree totally that we live in a golden age of mediocrity
But there are people out there achieving what’s important, using the skills that have always mattered in artistic endeavour and personally I take a small degree of solace in knowing that, it gives me something to look up too, to admire and something to busy myself with as I continuously fail to emulate it
Cheers
Dave Jenkins
Regular
- Name
- Dave Jenkins
I suppose, Adam, that I should ask you what you mean by the "35mm look." Many, many of the greatest photographs were not made with 35mm cameras at all. Many were made with other formats, especially with 2-1/4x2-1/4 format twin-lens reflexes. In fact, many of those who are mostly remembered as 35mm photographers made some of their best-known photographs with TLRs. And even today, a fellow who calls himself New York Dan is making incredible street photographs with his Rolleiflex.
Another case in point: I was just reading today on The Online Photographer" about Weegee, who used 4x5, as did such as Walker Evans and Dorothea Lange for much of their work. When Lange wasn't using 4x5, she was using a TLR.
I also said that most of the great photographs in the history of the art were made with cameras we would consider inadequate for our use these days. Just yesterday, I read of the demise, at age 102, of David Douglas Duncan, who is indeed remembered as a 35mm photographer. He made his photographs of the Korean War with a pair of Leica IIICs, cameras that only a dedicated hobbiest would consider worth fooling with today. Yet, those photographs will stand the test of time as the epitome of combat photography.
None of this is offered in the spirit of argumentation, but only in hope that the work of great photographers will not be forgotten, or worse, not even learned about by those who came into photography on the wave of digital imaging.
While I'm busy offending some people, I would also add that I have little use for so-called "fine art" photography. Most of the photographs that are today considered great art began life as documentary photography or photojournalism.
Another case in point: I was just reading today on The Online Photographer" about Weegee, who used 4x5, as did such as Walker Evans and Dorothea Lange for much of their work. When Lange wasn't using 4x5, she was using a TLR.
I also said that most of the great photographs in the history of the art were made with cameras we would consider inadequate for our use these days. Just yesterday, I read of the demise, at age 102, of David Douglas Duncan, who is indeed remembered as a 35mm photographer. He made his photographs of the Korean War with a pair of Leica IIICs, cameras that only a dedicated hobbiest would consider worth fooling with today. Yet, those photographs will stand the test of time as the epitome of combat photography.
None of this is offered in the spirit of argumentation, but only in hope that the work of great photographers will not be forgotten, or worse, not even learned about by those who came into photography on the wave of digital imaging.
While I'm busy offending some people, I would also add that I have little use for so-called "fine art" photography. Most of the photographs that are today considered great art began life as documentary photography or photojournalism.
Last edited:
Well I’m with you on documentary/photo journalism @Dave Jenkins but I’ve still no wish to have a discussion about 35mm v other formats
Except to say that formats that don’t adhere to the 1.5 armature offer different compositional opportunities
I reiterate my belief that contemporary photography has practitioners of note, you (as in anyone, not you Dave) just have to seek them out
Except to say that formats that don’t adhere to the 1.5 armature offer different compositional opportunities
I reiterate my belief that contemporary photography has practitioners of note, you (as in anyone, not you Dave) just have to seek them out
This week's article is up and we're continuing the comparison the two X-Pro cameras
Closer Looking Images: SOOC JPEGS with the X-Pro1 and X-Pro2
Are there any SOOC JPEG settings that make the X-Pro2 JPEGs look a little closer to the X-Pro1 ones?
Closer Looking Images: SOOC JPEGS with the X-Pro1 and X-Pro2
Closer Looking Images: SOOC JPEGS with the X-Pro1 and X-Pro2
Are there any SOOC JPEG settings that make the X-Pro2 JPEGs look a little closer to the X-Pro1 ones?
Closer Looking Images: SOOC JPEGS with the X-Pro1 and X-Pro2
I've actually been shooting the X-Pro2 a lot these past two weeks!
The Hurry Home by Adam Bonn, on Flickr
Amusingly I’ve been playing with the native xp2 rafs a bit this week, and I think I found something that pleases me
It can wait to be blogged about, I need a break from that topic...
