FOVfull form

You need wide and fast lenses if you want to separate visual information using dof creatively - particularly when outdoors.  The bigger the scene, the bigger the frame that's required.

FOVto focal length calculator

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

And anyone that thinks DPs in the 40s, 50s, 60s, etc wouldn't have used full frame 35mm film if it was cost effective and practical is also smoking something pretty good.  Some choices were made for practical reasons.  That doesn't mean we should be stuck with them forever.

Fov photographycamera

was this videoish too? a bit of respect :D come on!!!! I  own the bloody 5D, I wish I never did now, after all this, I like cinematic look.

"Full frame" equivalent has become the standard way to do that.  I get peoples point when they reject the term full frame:  Using a system such as micro four thirds with a lens designed specifically for it is full frame in that context,  but this is just an issue of nomenclature.  Full frame or 35mm should really be called 135 format.Why not use super 35mm as a standard?  well what is super 35mm really?  super 35 is 24.89mm wide and was only invented in 1984.  Until then academy 35 format was used which is 22mm wide.  I would argue that if any of these should be a standard if should be academy 35 as more classic films were shot in this format, although whether anamorphic was used adds a layer of complexity.  But why should we use these film standards when most cameras are APS-C which is 23.6mm wide?  But then we cant forget that canon APS-C is smaller than all the others at 22.2mm wide.   Even though their cinema line supposedly has a full super 35mm sensor.  Then there’s the cameras that say they have a super 35mm sensor but don’t.  Like the black magic production camera and the Ursa.  Which are actually 21.12mm wide: Not even academy 35 never mind super 35.  Micro four thirds is certainly no standard.  You get a different sized sensor depending on whether you have a multi aspect ratio sensor like on the gh2 or are using a crop in 4k mode on the GH4.All this is just way too confusing.

In relation to the original question:  I think if a person uses one system exclusively they will get used to what field of view a certain lens or focal length gives them.  That person has no need for knowing full frame equivalents or crop factors.   But for people that use different sensor sizes you have to have some way of knowing what you are going to get. "Full frame" equivalent has become the standard way to do that.  I get peoples point when they reject the term full frame:  Using a system such as micro four thirds with a lens designed specifically for it is full frame in that context,  but this is just an issue of nomenclature.  Full frame or 35mm should really be called 135 format. Why not use super 35mm as a standard?  well what is super 35mm really?  super 35 is 24.89mm wide and was only invented in 1984.  Until then academy 35 format was used which is 22mm wide.  I would argue that if any of these should be a standard if should be academy 35 as more classic films were shot in this format, although whether anamorphic was used adds a layer of complexity.  But why should we use these film standards when most cameras are APS-C which is 23.6mm wide?  But then we cant forget that canon APS-C is smaller than all the others at 22.2mm wide.   Even though their cinema line supposedly has a full super 35mm sensor.  Then there’s the cameras that say they have a super 35mm sensor but don’t.  Like the black magic production camera and the Ursa.  Which are actually 21.12mm wide: Not even academy 35 never mind super 35.  Micro four thirds is certainly no standard.  You get a different sized sensor depending on whether you have a multi aspect ratio sensor like on the gh2 or are using a crop in 4k mode on the GH4. All this is just way too confusing. 135 format is the only one that stays the same with no variations and has multiple existing examples from different companies.  It’s always 36mm wide. For that reason all crop factors relating to it have a fixed meaning.  So I think it is the sensible option as a standard for describing field of view. There is nothing to stop people trying another way like using degrees, but you would have an uphill battle trying to get it established as a standard, and after all who really knows what 10 degrees field of view looks like. So for you personally there isn't much of a problem, you have already associated a visual field of view with its 135 format focal length.   So you can think in that focal length, you then just work out the precise crop factor for the camera you are using and write down or remember which setting gives you which focal length. I try to think in 135 equivalents even though I have never owned a 135 camera.

You can reference the WebElements periodic table as follows:"WebElements, https://www.webelements.com, accessed November 2024."

The data on these compounds pages are assembled and adapted from the primary literature and several other sources including the following.

Fov photographyexamples

Only Hollywood types seem to have this issue with using 35mm as the reference point and working from there.  I have everything in my photography bag APS-C, "full frame" 35mm and medium forumat.  And now I have the ludicriously small super 16 in the form of the BMPCC.  And of course I immediately got a speedbooster to bring it into line with what I usually work with and moved on with my life.  Super 16 definitely has an advantage when you want depth of field.  No one can argue about that.  But it also has an issue when you want to go wide... which is why I spent more than the cost fo the camera to get a Speedbooster.  Anyone that thinks that is insignificant or irrelevant is smoking crack.

FOVmeaning

Please let's leave real photographers out of this.  As someone who has been an amateur photographer for years I've never seen anyone in the photo community have any problems with sensor/film size.  Photography forums are not full of people arguing about FOV.  We all reference "full frame" 35mm and get on with our lives.  No photographer in their right mind would say, naw let's look at it from the perspective of APS-C or god forbbid micro 4/3.

I think it's a good thing you're hanging out in the right places - the equivalence crowd and 35mm champions are freaking annoying.

Fov photographykit

But it has not that much to do with Canon 5D, it has to do with the shooter: with full frame you have to stop down the lens a little more then with APS-C.  Of course great filmmaker do that and Joshua Caldwell did that, so his movie has a great photography.  But a lot of people just don't do that: they know that 5D is a great low light camera, it has the possibility to give a shallow DOF and I think they became lazy about putting a light on the set and stopping down a little... maybe with A7s someone will start to make movies in absolute night without a single light, but it does not depend from the camera, it depends from a lazy choice of the shooter. Of course there is not a perfect camera that fit all situations and 5D is nonetheless a great camera: 5D with Magic Lantern is probably one of the best image quality for a budget filmmaker, but a good movie come from a lot of things, not just from a low light monster or from an exaggerate DOF.  Ciao :)

Yes, of course it is me! I love that movie, exactly because for me it is a great example of cinematography.  Joshua Caldwell made a great movie because he wrote a great story, he choose good actors, he made great compositions, great editing, great colors... and the DOF in his movie is always appropriate, it is never too shallow. I'm sorry If I gave an answer a little bit too strong to hmcindie, but  I did not like the way he wrote me: I wrote something about the way MOST of the people (not all, obviously) use the full frame and I think that this way it is not very cinematic, it is simple too shallow for my taste and I can easily spot a 5D video when I see an extreme DOF, just that!  It is the same when I see an exaggerate fisheye and I think: "it has to be a GoPro", because it is something very stylized. Maybe it is good for something, but when I watch an Hollywood movie I can see the eyes of an actor, and probably also the ears. In a lot of music video made with the 5D I can just see one eye and not the second, because it's out of focus, like the ears.

If the Alexa were available as a full frame version I can almost guarantee most who swear by s35mm would soon switch to the bigger sensor.

FOVcalculator

It's not that full frame is shallower than s35mm.  It's that for the same focal length you get a wider fov.  if it's too shallow, close the aperture down and you get better optical performance and deeper dof.  Nowadays with clean 1600-6400iso on full frame sensors closing down to f5.6 isnt a problem.

Please let's leave real photographers out of this.  As someone who has been an amateur photographer for years I've never seen anyone in the photo community have any problems with sensor/film size.  Photography forums are not full of people arguing about FOV.  We all reference "full frame" 35mm and get on with our lives.  No photographer in their right mind would say, naw let's look at it from the perspective of APS-C or god forbbid micro 4/3.

WebElements: THE periodic table on the WWW [www.webelements.com] Copyright 1993-2024 Mark Winter [ The University of Sheffield and WebElements Ltd, UK]. All rights reserved.

you need to spend £600-1000 on a lens for s35mm to match the look of a basic £50-100 35mm f2.8 on full frame.  Going cheaper and at the required 25mm f2 needs to be used wide open and it's gonna be soft from edge to edge.