|
Forum: General Photography
02-03-2019, 10:05 AM
|
| |
Of all the people I know shooting multiple formats, including myself, absolutely nobody use equivalence all the time. When shooting, no half decent photographer thinks "If I had a FF, I would use a FL of x and aperture y, but since I'm with another format I must use a equivalent settings of a and b". It never happens! They just take what they have on hand, frame the picture with the perspective they want, adjust DOF with the aperture and press the shutter. They couldn't care less about equivalence and what would be the settings with another camera and lens combination...
Exactly as BigMackCam describes in another post:
Even for people using multiple formats, equivalence has very little practical use...
|
|
Forum: General Photography
02-01-2019, 11:18 AM
|
| |
If a complete beginner ask me which camera he should buy to take decent portraits, I would definitely not answer by a lecture on equivalence between m43, APS-C and FF. I would just tell him to go to the local store, buy a Rebel kit with a 50mm 1.8 and warn him that the clerk will probably try to push him toward some more expansive but no better Sony and Fuji gear. While there, he could also give a try to comparably priced Nikon or Pentax gear (which they probably won't have) and buy the one he likes best. With any of these, he would be good enough to begin shooting decent portraits and landscapes. As a beginner, it's probably the answer he's looking for and not a technical dissertation about numbers having no meaning for him in the first place.
In fact, I never saw a complete beginner ask this kind of question. More often than not, it's rather "Which is better between Canon or Nikon ?" or "I'm looking to buy this camera, is it good ?" or, more often "I bought this camera, is it good ?". Again, no need to talk about equivalence to answer any of these questions.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
02-01-2019, 09:13 AM
|
| |
But people having both APS-C and FF sytems with a decent choice of lens usually aren't beginners... Beginners usually have only one camera, often APS-C, with maybe 2-3 lenses inclunding the kit lens. Most people using multiple formats and owning a FF camera are at least enthusiasts that have some general photography knowledge (or at least they should!). And yes, for them using the formula might be helpful, but only because they know why they use a specific lens in their reference system and because they use a FF camera. They don't just put up numbers in a formula without knowning why the lens was used in the first place like a beginner would do.
Obviously, nobody exactly think like this. But if a beginner ask how to shoot a portrait, it's much more useful to tell that it's usually done by using a short telephoto lens and ask what camera and lenses are used and do suggestions from there, than telling them "pro use a 85mm 1.4, so you should go out and buy a 57mm 1.2 lens as directed by equivalence but good luck finding that, you should just buy a FF camera". From then, if they tell you they have a APS-C camera with only a kit lens, you can tell them than anything above 50mm, which correspond to what is called short telephoto, would do fine. So, they can give a try by using their kit lens at its longest FL. But the nice background blur they see on portraits taken by pro is controlled by aperture, the other number they see on their lens. The lower is this number, the more blured the background will be. And that they should'nt expect to get a lot of background blur with a 5.6 lens, but it's still fine to try. If they ask what would be better, because now they understand why their lens might nor be the best, you can then point them toward a 50mm 1.8 and they will know why this is better choice that will give them much better results than their kit lens. There's absolutely no need to use equivalence to explain anything.
If they ask you why some pro use a 85mm 1.4 and not a 50mm 1.8, you only have to explain them that with their camera, 85mm is a short telephoto. And they want a 1.4 aperture because it gives them an extra bit of control blur and better low light ability, which can give them a slight edge over competitors using 1.8 lens. As an ameteur, since they're not competing with anyone, there's absolutely no need to buy such a pricey lens, although there's nothing wrong with it if you have the money. IMHO, amuch more useful answer than telling the beginner "equivalence says that no equivalent lens exist for you camera, you have to buy a FF and a 85mm 1.4 if you want to get similar results", even if mathematically true.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
02-01-2019, 07:23 AM
|
| |
Usually, people suggest a 50mm lens to beginners not because it's a "normal lens" on FF (they already have this FL covered with their kit lens anyway), but because it's the cheapest large aperture lens someone can buy while also providing an excellent IQ. This is the 1.8 aperture of the many 100$ 50mm f1.8 on the market that makes them desirable, not their FL... In Pentaxland, it also means the 35 f2.4 is also a good choice over the f4-5.6 of the kit lens, again due to the 2.4 aperture and not the 35mm FL.This really has nothing to do with equivalence, the idea being "just get a large aperture lens and it just happens there's plenty of cheap 50mm around"...
---------- Post added 02-01-19 at 09:53 AM ----------
And this is a mistake to do this based on equivalence. And exactly why it can even be harmful to talk equivalence to beginners. Instead of trying to understand why a lens is used and then relate this understanding to their work, they then just think all they have is to plug numbers in a formula.
Talking equivalence to beginners is like teaching arithmetics to kids by just giving them a calculator and tell them they only have to type in the numbers. They obviously will get right answer everytime but still will have no clue at what they're exactly doing and will have a hard time to solve any real world problem. And if they try, they will bring you a nonsense but arithmetically right answer because they haven't done the right operations on the right numbers in the right orders. It's much better to teach them the fundamentals of arithmetics and give them a calculator only when they clearly understand these than giving them first a calculator to replicate some calculus done by other and hoping them to figure out why they get the right answer and calculate anything else than this specific problem...
|
|
Forum: General Photography
01-31-2019, 09:01 AM
|
| |
But then, you don't need equivalence to get to this starting place... Just understand that the guy used a wide angle lens and an aperture giving a moderate depth of field and apply this knowledge to whatever gear you're using... Way better than blindly calculating equivalence... In your example, why would you stick on 22mm when using your 16-50 instead of 16mm ? Because some guy used a 15mm lens on m43 ??? :eek: For all we know, this guy may have used its 15mm lens only because it was the widest lens he had on hand at this time but would have gladly used a wider lens if available. And he may have chosen f5.6 because he knew that with this specific lens, sharpness start to suffer if closed more, or because he was handheld and wanted to keep a decent shutter speed without cranking up the ISO. If the guy had a K-3 and a 16-50, he might just have taken the shot at 16mm, f11, simply because what he thought was "widest angle available with the largest DoF with minimal sharpness loss due to diffraction" and not "took a shoot at 15mm, f5.6 with a m43 camera".
It makes way more sense and much more useful to try to understand why the other person chose the specific settings they used and apply the same reasoning to your own shooting than just calculate some numbers out of a formula without understanding why these specific settings were used in the first place.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
01-30-2019, 09:46 AM
|
| |
Totally true. It's always puzzling to see people going to hell and back trying to calculate "equivalence" when all they really need is learning some basic century old photography knowledge. IMHO, equivalence is just a poor subsitute to ignorance...
As you said in previous posts, all one really need to know is what is the normal FL for the system they use (diagonal of the light sensitive surface). Sure, people have to know what is the size of the sensore they use. But if they're willing to calculate all kind of equivalence, I guess they should be able to learn something as basic as the size of the sensor in their camera.
From there, WA is anything shorter than the long end (and UWA anything shorter than the short length) and telephoto is anything longer than twice the long end. It works with any sensor (or film) size, no matter is 4:3, 3:2 or any funky size factor you may think of. It's just geometry, really... No need for a supposed "standard" format or calculation.
For DoF, the basic rules stays the same no matter the format. In you want more, close the diaphragm (small f number). If you want less to blur the background, open it (large f number). If it's not enough, use another lens with a larger aperture or longer FL, try to get closer to your subject, or find an angle to increase the distance between it and background. Much more useful and universal knowledge for a beginner than to tell you should buy an 35mm 1.4 equivalent lens for your system, which doesn't exist or force you to take a mortgage to buy.
And for people wanting to analyze the work to gain some knowledge to apply to their own, it's way more useful to make the relation to these basic universal concepts than blindly calculte equivalence. For example, you look at a portrait taken with a FF and a 85m lens and want to get some similar results. It's much more useful to understand that the guy used a short telephoto (because 85mm is not much longer than 35mm x 2 = 70mm definition of what is telephoto lens) and relate this to your own gear instead of thinking "I can't do that because there isn't any 56.67mm lens for my APS-C system". And to determine the aperture, just look at the picture. If the background is quite blurry and the guy used 1.8 aperture with it's 85mm 1.8, you shouldn't think "I should use 1.4 with my system" as the equivalence, you should rather think " the guy used the widest aperture to get thinnest DoF available with what he had on hand" based on principles. No need to learn or calculate equivalence. Just applying the priciples will get you the nearest you can with the gear you have. Meaning the end result could be quite similar if you use a FF, close enough with an APS-C, better if you use medium or large format, and somewhat good but as a blurry with a smaller format. But in this last case, you will at least know that you will have achieve the best you can do with the gear you have...
It's not really more difficult to take the time to learn these few universal principles than to learn equivalence which is only really applicable to some specific situations.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
01-25-2019, 03:04 PM
|
| |
Exactly. And it’s probably the biggest issue with equivalence. It makes people, particularly beginners, think about some kind of mathematical rule (and get confused by it!) instead of thinking and learning the photography principles making it works. The funny thing being these principles are easier to apply and more useful than calculating equivalence!
For example, it’s easier and more useful to remember that another photographer used a wide angle lens and close the aperture as much as he could instead of remembering what lense he used, at which aperture on which camera and calculate equivalence from there. If you know and understand the principles, you don’t have to care at all about equivalence.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
01-25-2019, 11:11 AM
|
| |
Sure, but outside of doing it as some practical exercice on the concept of equivalence, why would one do that in a real world situation ? You have years of experience and knowledge in photography, but when was the last time you tried to replicate a picture taken by someone else, with or without using equivalence ? I don't know, but in something like 25 years doing photography I've never met someone, physically or virtually, having the goal of replicating the pictures of others as close as possible... In fact, it's rather the other way around, people going to long end trying to get something original and not just a "me too"...
Simply put, although true in theory it's a solution answering no problem outside of some edge cases that don't happen unless really looking to put both feet in it.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
01-25-2019, 08:25 AM
|
| |
As explained in the original post, equivalence was first designed as a quick and easy rule of thumb when people switched from 35mm film camera to APS-C digital ones. It allowed them to adapt to the new format. And for that it works fine. It still useful today for people switching format or studying pictures trying to understand how they were shot.
The problems arise when people begin to overthink it and try to perfectly apply recipes from one format to another, which doesn't make much sense to start with. It's like wanting to make a lasagna recipe when you have spaghetti on hand... Said otherwise, nobody is forced to try to shoot the exact same picture they would have get with a FF camera while using another format. And it becomes total craziness when people start using equivalence to prove a supposed superiority of a format over another... Because in the end what only matters is finding some combination working for what you're trying to achieve. Meaing to you're totally free to use a shorter or longer FL than what equivalence would dictate and use a different framing. You're also free to stand closer or farther from your subject, or use a different aperture...
All of this because, in the end, you simply have to make do with what you have on hand. And just choose settings that work with what you're trying to achieve, no matter what would be use in a different format that you don't use and may never have shot to start with. Why would I care that people using FF use a 85mm 1.8 for portraits when I'm perfectly fine using my non equivalent 70mm 2.4 lens on APS-C ? Why would I care I have to take 2 steps back to have an equivalent FOV ? And why would I want the same FOV in the first place ? When I look I the final results, why would I care what it would have look like I had use some other cameras and lenses ? When using my Q7, why would I care that some settings I use would be total nonsense when converted to their FF equivalent settings ?
|
