«

Rich <> writes:

> Alfred Molon <> wrote in
> news: :
>
>> In article <c78ea956-44cd-4f57-80b8-85ef06d59896
>> @u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, RichA says...
>>> On Sep 9, 1:43Â*pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>> > "Trevor" <tre...@home.net> writes:
>>> > > Which is all rather amusing when you consider the more serious
>>> > > photog
>> raphers
>>> > > used an 85mm lens and a 35mm lens combination far more often than
>>> > > any
>> thing
>>> > > in the 40-70mm range. If anything a 58 mm lens was a little
>>> > > better fo
>> r
>>> > > portraits than a 50mm one at least, even if not by much. A fast
>>> > > 50mm
>> is a
>>> > > much better lens now on a non FF sensor DSLR however IMO.
>>> >
>>> > A 58mm is great on a 1.5X DSLR for portraits
>>>
>>> But does it behave the same way as say an 85mm on a FF for the same
>>> subject matter?
>>
>> Why shouldn't it? The only issue might be the different DOF.
>
> How about the flattening effect (compression) of the focal length? m4/3
> and 50mm versus FF and 100mm, for instance. Same effective area coverage
> but would it look different, even if DOF was compensated for by using
> different apertures?

Thre is no flattening effect or compression caused by focal length.

Perspective (which technically means the relationships between objects
in the rendered image) is controlled by camera location. If you take a
photo from the same place with the center of the frame pointing exactly
the same direction with a 24mm lens and 600mm lens, and crop the 600mm
angle of view out of the center of the 24mm image, the perspective will
be the same. (With that big a crop, there will probably be visible
noise/sharpness issues, but the perspective will be the same.)

(In the real world, one either picks a lens for a position you want to
shoot from to get the framing you want, or else picks a position that
gives the framing you want for the lens you have; the decisions are
often made intertwined, not independently.)
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On Sep 11, 3:19*pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> Rich <n...@nowhere.com> writes:
> > Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> >news: m:
>
> >> In article <c78ea956-44cd-4f57-80b8-85ef06d59896
> >> @u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, RichA says...
> >>> On Sep 9, 1:43*pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >>> > "Trevor" <tre...@home.net> writes:
> >>> > > Which is all rather amusing when you consider the more serious
> >>> > > photog
> >> raphers
> >>> > > used an 85mm lens and a 35mm lens combination far more often than
> >>> > > any
> >> thing
> >>> > > in the 40-70mm range. If anything a 58 mm lens was a little
> >>> > > better fo
> >> r
> >>> > > portraits than a 50mm one at least, even if not by much. A fast
> >>> > > 50mm
> >> is a
> >>> > > much better lens now on a non FF sensor DSLR however IMO.
>
> >>> > A 58mm is great on a 1.5X DSLR for portraits
>
> >>> But does it behave the same way as say an 85mm on a FF for the same
> >>> subject matter?
>
> >> Why shouldn't it? The only issue might be the different DOF.
>
> > How about the flattening effect (compression) of the focal length? *m4/3
> > and 50mm versus FF and 100mm, for instance. *Same effective area coverage
> > but would it look different, even if DOF was compensated for by using
> > different apertures?
>
> Thre is no flattening effect or compression caused by focal length.
>
> Perspective (which technically means the relationships between objects
> in the rendered image) is controlled by camera location. *If you take a
> photo from the same place with the center of the frame pointing exactly
> the same direction with a 24mm lens and 600mm lens, and crop the 600mm
> angle of view out of the center of the 24mm image, the perspective will
> be the same.

So, if we have two objects in a frame, at different distances from
the camera and we just frame them in a 500mm lens and then a crop from
a 50mm lens shot, the appearance between the two subjects in the
images will appear identical in both shots? No "telephoto
compression" will be visible making the two objects in the 500mm crop
seem closer to each other?

RichA <> wrote:

>On Sep 11, 3:19*pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> Rich <n...@nowhere.com> writes:
>> > Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> >news: m:
>>
>> >> In article <c78ea956-44cd-4f57-80b8-85ef06d59896
>> >> @u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, RichA says...
>> >>> On Sep 9, 1:43*pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> >>> > "Trevor" <tre...@home.net> writes:
>> >>> > > Which is all rather amusing when you consider the more serious
>> >>> > > photog
>> >> raphers
>> >>> > > used an 85mm lens and a 35mm lens combination far more often than
>> >>> > > any
>> >> thing
>> >>> > > in the 40-70mm range. If anything a 58 mm lens was a little
>> >>> > > better fo
>> >> r
>> >>> > > portraits than a 50mm one at least, even if not by much. A fast
>> >>> > > 50mm
>> >> is a
>> >>> > > much better lens now on a non FF sensor DSLR however IMO.
>>
>> >>> > A 58mm is great on a 1.5X DSLR for portraits
>>
>> >>> But does it behave the same way as say an 85mm on a FF for the same
>> >>> subject matter?
>>
>> >> Why shouldn't it? The only issue might be the different DOF.
>>
>> > How about the flattening effect (compression) of the focal length? *m4/3
>> > and 50mm versus FF and 100mm, for instance. *Same effective area coverage
>> > but would it look different, even if DOF was compensated for by using
>> > different apertures?
>>
>> Thre is no flattening effect or compression caused by focal length.
>>
>> Perspective (which technically means the relationships between objects
>> in the rendered image) is controlled by camera location. *If you take a
>> photo from the same place with the center of the frame pointing exactly
>> the same direction with a 24mm lens and 600mm lens, and crop the 600mm
>> angle of view out of the center of the 24mm image, the perspective will
>> be the same.
>
> So, if we have two objects in a frame, at different distances from
>the camera and we just frame them in a 500mm lens and then a crop from
>a 50mm lens shot, the appearance between the two subjects in the
>images will appear identical in both shots?


Yes, absolutely.


>No "telephoto
>compression" will be visible making the two objects in the 500mm crop
>seem closer to each other?


No, absolutely.

RichA <> writes:

> On Sep 11, 3:19Â*pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> Rich <n...@nowhere.com> writes:
>> > Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> >news: m:
>>
>> >> In article <c78ea956-44cd-4f57-80b8-85ef06d59896
>> >> @u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, RichA says...
>> >>> On Sep 9, 1:43Â*pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> >>> > "Trevor" <tre...@home.net> writes:
>> >>> > > Which is all rather amusing when you consider the more serious
>> >>> > > photog
>> >> raphers
>> >>> > > used an 85mm lens and a 35mm lens combination far more often than
>> >>> > > any
>> >> thing
>> >>> > > in the 40-70mm range. If anything a 58 mm lens was a little
>> >>> > > better fo
>> >> r
>> >>> > > portraits than a 50mm one at least, even if not by much. A fast
>> >>> > > 50mm
>> >> is a
>> >>> > > much better lens now on a non FF sensor DSLR however IMO.
>>
>> >>> > A 58mm is great on a 1.5X DSLR for portraits
>>
>> >>> But does it behave the same way as say an 85mm on a FF for the same
>> >>> subject matter?
>>
>> >> Why shouldn't it? The only issue might be the different DOF.
>>
>> > How about the flattening effect (compression) of the focal length? Â*m4/3
>> > and 50mm versus FF and 100mm, for instance. Â*Same effective area coverage
>> > but would it look different, even if DOF was compensated for by using
>> > different apertures?
>>
>> Thre is no flattening effect or compression caused by focal length.
>>
>> Perspective (which technically means the relationships between objects
>> in the rendered image) is controlled by camera location. Â*If you take a
>> photo from the same place with the center of the frame pointing exactly
>> the same direction with a 24mm lens and 600mm lens, and crop the 600mm
>> angle of view out of the center of the 24mm image, the perspective will
>> be the same.
>
> So, if we have two objects in a frame, at different distances from
> the camera and we just frame them in a 500mm lens and then a crop from
> a 50mm lens shot, the appearance between the two subjects in the
> images will appear identical in both shots? No "telephoto
> compression" will be visible making the two objects in the 500mm crop
> seem closer to each other?

Exactly; if the 500mm and 50mm shots are taken from the same location.

A "place mat" showing this (pictures taken with every lens a particular
manufacturer made, all from the same location) used to be standard
furniture at every camera store, too (usually one from each major lens
manufacturer, in fact).

With a modern wide-range zoom it's very easy to take your own test
photos to compare yourself.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

(Floyd L. Davidson) writes:

> RichA <> wrote:
>>On Sep 11, 3:19Â*pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>> Thre is no flattening effect or compression caused by focal length.
>>>
>>> Perspective (which technically means the relationships between objects
>>> in the rendered image) is controlled by camera location. Â*If you take a
>>> photo from the same place with the center of the frame pointing exactly
>>> the same direction with a 24mm lens and 600mm lens, and crop the 600mm
>>> angle of view out of the center of the 24mm image, the perspective will
>>> be the same.
>>
>> So, if we have two objects in a frame, at different distances from
>>the camera and we just frame them in a 500mm lens and then a crop from
>>a 50mm lens shot, the appearance between the two subjects in the
>>images will appear identical in both shots? No "telephoto
>>compression" will be visible making the two objects in the 500mm crop
>>seem closer to each other?
>
> Yes.
>
> The composition will be the same. That is, the size of the two object
> will have the same relationship. If the nearer object appears to be twice
> as tall as the far one, that will be true for both images.

That's called "perspective", though, not "composition". Composition
relates to how the objects, masses, colors, and such interact visually
to make a more or less pleasing picture. Perspective is the size and
position relationships of the objects in the picture.

--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

<> wrote in message
news:...
> A similar thing can be seen if you take an extreme wide angle lens, and
> take a
> picture of a city, for example. All of the buildings will appear to be
> curved
> and lean together, but if you crop out a very small part, you will be
> surprised
> to see perfectly rectangular windows.

Not "perfectly rectangular windows" at all, but if their size is small
enough the distortion becomes difficult to see. It is impossible for the
building to be "tilted" and it's windows not to be.
(Well before manipulation in PS anyway!

Trevor.