[rob1234]

Here is my first shot taken with Asahi Pentax 67 with 105mm 2.4... Film is FOMAPAN 400 developed in Fomadon P...

Great job on hitting the focus.

i could be wrong, but is that Burghley house? the trees look familiar to me as well as the house...

Nope - it's Kingston Lacy - Kingston Lacy - Visitor information - National Trust

[therion]

Here is my first shot taken with Asahi Pentax 67 with 105mm 2.4... Film is FOMAPAN 400 developed in Fomadon P...

krasne foto, Vjacesslav, gratulujem k 6x7!

[vjacesslav]

krasne foto, Vjacesslav, gratulujem k 6x7!

Thank You, we will write something about it on Pentaxfriends forum too For now I will only shoot black and white to get more skills, but the 3D effect and definition of space on photos, i cannot find anything similar these days That is one of the reason to get one. Find similarities and compare it with Film FF, and Digital APS-C

[unixrevolution]

Pentax 67ii
45/4
1/250th @ f/16
Portra 400NC
Med-res lab scan

---------- Post added 2014-04-02 at 21:26 ----------



35mm f/0.8 apparently - this site is your friend!

Depth of Field, Angle and Field of View, and Equivalent Lens Calculator - Points in Focus Photography

Ignoring of course that the "equivalent" depth of field between two lenses on different format changes at every single working distance. The idea of "Focal length equivalence" or "Depth of field equivalence" is a fallacy. Different focal lengths hit infinity at different points, and a 300mm f/5.6 on an 8x10 will keep giving you shallow depth of field after a 35mm on APS-C has long since been at infinity. However, for a given working distance, they can be compared, but it's still not equivalence.

Field-of-view equivalence is okay, except that with e.g. 8x10 and 35mm, or 6x7 and 35mm, it gets nebulous. Are we comparing diagonal view angle? Horizontal? Vertical? All three give a different "crop factor" (Don't get me started on why "Crop factor" is wrong, and why hearing "crop-sensor camera" makes me see red.) It will depend on what you mean, since the aspect ratios are different.

But, now that my nerd rant is over...as an 8x10, 4x5 and 6x7 fan, I can tell you that even the So-called "Slow" lenses of larger formats give shallow depth of field like crazy when you run them wide open. I took a head-and-shoulders portrait on my 8x10 and had to use F/22 AND front swing just to get the subject sharp. The background was still creamy.

[mikeSF]

Pentax 67 + Takumar 105/2.4 at f2.4, , Fomapan 100 film, at Ilfotec LC-29, scanner Nikon 8000ED:



bokeh and atmosphere of this picture is outstanding, what keeps me using 6x7 film

what would be eq. lens on APS-C?

something about 50/ 1.0 ?

that is pretty!

[vjacesslav]

Pentax 67 + Takumar 105/2.4 at f2.4, , Fomapan 100 film, at Ilfotec LC-29, scanner Nikon 8000ED:

bokeh and atmosphere of this picture is outstanding, what keeps me using 6x7 film

what would be eq. lens on APS-C?

something about 50/ 1.0 ?

Another Amazing shot from You... I cas say only "WAUUUU"

[Swift1]

Valley View Road par Daiku San, on ipernity
Zenza Bronica EC
Zenzanon MC 80/2.4
Kodak Ektar 100

[mikeSF]

nice one, Colton. great leading of the eye into the scene.

[rob1234]

Another from the same roll:


Pentax 67ii
45/4
1/60th @ f/8
Portra 400NC
Med-res lab scan

[Swift1]

nice one, Colton. great leading of the eye into the scene.

Thanks Mike.

[gary2881]

Pentax 67, Fp-4, WD2D+





Bronica SQAM, 6x4.5, Hp-5, WD2D+

[Jan67]

Ignoring of course that the "equivalent" depth of field between two lenses on different format changes at every single working distance. The idea of "Focal length equivalence" or "Depth of field equivalence" is a fallacy. Different focal lengths hit infinity at different points, and a 300mm f/5.6 on an 8x10 will keep giving you shallow depth of field after a 35mm on APS-C has long since been at infinity. However, for a given working distance, they can be compared, but it's still not equivalence.
Field-of-view equivalence is okay, except that with e.g. 8x10 and 35mm, or 6x7 and 35mm, it gets nebulous. Are we comparing diagonal view angle? Horizontal? Vertical? All three give a different "crop factor" (Don't get me started on why "Crop factor" is wrong, and why hearing "crop-sensor camera" makes me see red.) It will depend on what you mean, since the aspect ratios are different.

Although I have to agree, that comparing formats with different ratios, like 6x7 and 35mm, is not exact (I use diagonals in this case), it's still interesting to have rough comparison of equivalence. Working distance must be identical because of the same perspective. And then is equivalence, if correctly applied on focal lenght, aperture and ISO, valid.

But back to pictures, here are two from Venedig carnival.
Pentax 6x7, Tri-X 400/ID11, 105/2.4, scanned by K3+M50/4makro+32mm ring, stitched together in PS

[unixrevolution]

Although I have to agree, that comparing formats with different ratios, like 6x7 and 35mm, is not exact (I use diagonals in this case), it's still interesting to have rough comparison of equivalence. Working distance must be identical because of the same perspective. And then is equivalence, if correctly applied on focal lenght, aperture and ISO, valid.

But back to pictures, here are two from Venedig carnival.
Pentax 6x7, Tri-X 400/ID11, 105/2.4, scanned by K3+M50/4makro+32mm ring, stitched together in PS

Beautiful captures! I'd liketo know about your scanning rig.

And thank you for replying to my post. The problem itself doesn't lie with the comparison made between two formats at the same working distance. Iv'e tried, myself, to come up with clearer wording or a better way to explain what the equivalence or effect is between two lenses like this, and the focal length and aperture equivalence is just the best shorthand. However, the problem as I see it is that to many new photographers look ata the short-hand and misinterpret it. For instance, thinking the focal length of a lens actually changes depending on format, or (as I thought initially) that the lens would behave as its stated equivalent at all distances. This is of course, not the case. (I had a friend, a very knowledgeable photographer, who thought when I stuck 35mm in my Yashica 635 with an 80/3.5 that it wouldn't act like an 80/3.5, because he was confused on the ideas of crop factor and 35mm equivalence.)

I try in everything I do to prevent from spreading misinformation or misconceptions, and I find many of the misconceptions around "focal length equivalence" to be widespread. I'm trying to find a clearer way to state the information that we want to know without contributing to the spread of this confusion. Unfortnately, photographers don't think intuitively in angle-of-view and depth-of-field because those numbers rarely enter our heads directly when using cameras. So, to that end, I feel justified in saying, "FIeld-of-view equivalence' instead of "focal length equivalence", and putting the footnote anytime I mention an equivalent depht of field that it's only at that one workign distance. I think these clarifications help, rather than hinder, the hobby....wether my nerd rants do the same, that remains to be seen.

Thanks again for replying, and posting pictures!

[montman]

Pentax 67 | Pentax 75 2.8 AL | Portra 400 pushed to 1600 in development

[gofour3]

Pentax 67 | Pentax 75 2.8 AL | Portra 400 pushed to 1600 in development

Very nice!

Phil.