Originally posted by Jan67 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!