It helps me to think of 6x17 as roughly a 3:2 shot with the top half cropped out. So using the vertical crop factors, if 150mm is equivalent to 60mm in 35mm (vertical), I imagine shooting with a 30mm lens and then cropping from 3:2 to 3:1. Of course it's imperfect but it helps me to visualise what's going on.
'How wide it FEELS' is surely the same concept as the horizontal equivalent for 35mm as 6:17 is a horizontal format. The angle of view which is relevant to horizontal panoramas is the horizontal angle of view :)
I just want to say thanks to the time you spend creating your art but also these videos. This is a perfect amalgamation of information, technique, humor, and entertainment. I value this greatly.
Just great! Having shot 69 with an Arca Swiss for long time (graduated from Pentax 67), I was pretty familiar with conversion factors for view camera lenses. But this was a superbly clear explanation. Such a wonderful format !!! I was very tempted but finally went the Fuji GFX route for their 25/64 aspect ratio. Not as long as 617 but close. I have followed you for a long time and have to say that your work has gotten better and better. Some of your images have truly tremendous presence. You have really earned !!!! Far be from me to offer advice. And yet having had a lot of these lenses I really recommend the Schneider Super Symmar XL 110mm x f5.6 (no longer made). When I sold this it was selling my first born. It is one of those magical lenses. Sadly it is now about $2000 used. But your work is do good, I bet you’d be glad to have it. Sorry this is long. Great work. Great video. !!
I dm'd you a few weeks back about that linhof 617 i saw on facebook marketplace and was hoping to get serviced. I ended up buying it for 600 dollars Canadian. It came with the center spot filter, the viewfinder and the original carrying case. The bad news is anything below 1/30th of a second is unreliable, and there is fungus in the viewfinder. luckily there is this old leica/sinar tech here in vancouver who will service them for me and get all the haze fungus and fix the shutter on it. If it weren't for your videos I would have never bought it and left it for someone else or maybe bought the shenhao back instead. Regardless, your videos are AWESOME. Thanks again!
If you trancent this, this focal length, sensorsize, imagecircle comes from Trigonometry, Ruler, distance to ruler, gives angles of view. Quite powerfully knowledge.
You are so talented and can explain so clearly what you are trying to tell. I have loads of experience but everytime I learn something new from video's like yours because you teach in a way no one does!
As always, this is so useful, and I mean for anyone! I appreciate the discussion of crop factors for odd size negatives. I used to struggle with that when using 6x6. It appears that popular online calculators get around the horizontal versus vertical conundrum for various negative sizes by using only the diagonal to calculate their crop factor. Thanks for years of motivation (the beautiful photographs you make and show us in these videos) and education! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, Nick!
Thanks for going back to basic optics and not just repeating other channels that are part the echo chamber of crop factors etc. Depth of field and angle of view are basic physics and you have done a great job describing that. Excellent and brilliant photos BTW which is the most important part of your channel.
Thanks for another great video. The link to the lens table is great! Of course, your explanation on how to read it was great! Great! No, seriously, I'm enjoying and learning from the entire series on 6x17. I'm using a 6x17 adapter on a Wista 45D and have had some good results. The table explains why my Nikkor W 105mm doesn't work with its small image circle (155mm) on that setup. That nugget alone will save me tons of bad film.
I shoot 35mm and 120 (nothing larger) which I have been doing for more than 5 decades yet I still learned many things I didn’t already know. Thanks Nick. We’ll done.
one observation nick, 6x17 cropped horizontal and vertical looks similar to the 4x5" film equivalents, at 135 format x 3 ( aka 75/90/150/210 is the 24/35/50/90 equivalent in 35mm format), as this is virtually the closest available format to 4x5" as the cm conversion of this is 9x12 cm (6x12 is the panoramic format in 120 film{8 shots/roll}), but as you are using LF lenses, this is probably the closest conversion you can get. PS: you also don't make the connection between the format size, and the lens coverage equating to movement capacity (of tilt\swing\shift ise), as the smaller the film, the more movement you have, for stitching {digital}, or for creative focus, without getting into vignetting from the fringe of the coverage area.
I think it's more useful to think of crop factors as directional. The 0.22... factor is the one you would use to replicate the 6x17 image on a 35mm camera by cropping your image. Turn the other one around to 2.25 and use as the crop (or rather un-crop) factor for replicating an image taken on a 35mm camera on a 6x17 (or more sensibly, a 6x9) camera.
Great video! One thing that works for me when converting lenses from medium and large formats to 35mm equivalents is also keeping in mind the aspect ratios (2:3 or 4:5 etc.) - this, of course, does not include extreme panoramic formats like 16:9 or 16:10. Crop factors make a lot more sense when used together with aspect ratios, I find.
Thank you again Nick!! Very interesting and VERY informative!! I gotta get the big girl out and shoot this weekend....after being around family and friends in close confines during the holidays, will be nice to get out with the camera(s).....
Great video like the rest of this Series. Love your explanation on crop factors. One question though. When you talk about aperture you dont mention the limitation to small apertures, diffraction, which I believe would affect your images quite a lot if you stop those lenses all the way down to say f64. Isn’t that valid also for large format and thus also 6x17?
Since large format lenses can be used on any view camera from medium to ultra-large, I always wondered why manufacturers never included the image circle size on the lense along with focal length and aperture. Would make it so much easier when swapping between formats and lenses. I think I'll start adding an image circle label to my lenses for use on my Horseman VHR and FA since they use the same lens boards. Thanks for the spreadsheet!
when it comes to 6x17, i like to compared the feel of the lens equivalent to 5x7 cameras. After all 5x7 inches in cm is 13x18, the 18cm in horizontal is the closest thing to 6x17cm. I dont know if you would agree, but it works for me
Talking normal lens is referring to the compression of what we see with the human eye.. on 35mm film/sensor. A 50mm lens is near compression we see with our eyes. When holding a finger 12 inches from your eye. The background that’s out of focus is near what a nifty 50mm sees. At least what they taught us at Brooks.
OMG. Worth watching for the fact that the Nikkor 150 W I've been using on 4x5 will cover 6x17 and therefore 5x7. I didn't think it went that big but have never run out of coverage so should have known.
I only have a Canon DSLR so i just crop my photos into 617 ratio. Really want to try the mid frame and large frame system, but they are toooo expensive for me now.
Hi Nick, Happy holidays 🎄. Great video ... educational as always. I just want to share my observations and different spin on normal lenses. besides the formal definition of a normal lens. I do feel that a normal lens (at least for 1:1, 5:4, 4:3, and 3:2 aspect ratios) is similar to what the eye sees, but not in the sense of angle of view because the angle of "sharpness" is narrower than a normal lens and the angle of awareness is much much wider, but rather how it renders depth/compression/perspective in typical conditions. And yes, compression and perspective are not a function of focal length or angle of view but of the relative distances of the fore- and background to the film plane. But since if you want to show your subject in a similar size on a wide-angle and telephoto lens you need to be closer or farther away respectively thereby rendering depth differently. That is why at least to me your 90mm images (liquor store & room with chair) seem normal by my definition and the 115mm and 150mm feel already more "compressed". And 90mm would already be slightly narrower than normal on 6x6 as is 50mm on 35mm i.e. showing slight compression. But maybe that is just me and my odd way of thinking. Merry Christmas, Frank
Thinking about focal length equivalent to 35mm on 6x17, i always think a 5x7 that has been cropped later… The first mistake i made when i got my 4x5 and my 6x17 cameras i bought a Schneider 72XL length. I think i should have bought the 90mm instead because the 72mm feels too wide for me and i use it very seldom.
Here's some context on the "Normal Lens" issue matching the human eye. You're correct that they don't "match" the human eye because our vision is very wide and round. However normal lenses DO match our eyes in one way, that is scale/proportion. For example, an image from a 50mm will be cropped compared to our vision but the scale of the subject in the viewfinder compared to your vision will be almost unchanged. This gets lost in the oversimplification of the subject of lens thought and makes the concept of normal lenses sound like absolute crazy talk. Not that anything in this video was an oversimplification 😂very detailed and helpful.
Nick is there a aperture when you should actually remove a centre filter for a lens that typically requires one? Does a reference or formula exist to determine this for each lens? For example the 45mm and 30mm XPAN requires a centre filter but I would expect that the vignette would not be present at a particular aperture and could in fact create a “reverse vignette”? Yes I could test at each aperture for each format for each lens but is there a better way. Exceptional video!
The vignette is more a result of the wide angle of view, not the aperture setting. Although the aperture will affect the vignette on all lenses, on a large format lens the image circle is so big and the vignette caused by the angle of view is so severe that the aperture you choose doesn’t have a big enough effect on it to warrant using the filter in some situations but not others.
With the vertical factor crop being about 4/9, and the horizontal crop factor being 2/9, that kinda averages to 3/9 or 1/3. That puts a 115 lens to about a 38mm equivalent, which seems like it fits with the vibes-based equivalents. I just ordered a Fujinon 125mm W, not sure if I’m going to start up a 612 or 617 system with it. Something about the double-square of 612 is appealing to me, but it’s good to know that the image circle could handle either.
Nick, why do larger format lenses start at 4~5.6 and not 1.8/2.8? Is the 4.5 relative to say 2.8 on a smaller frame? You usually only see a 'standard' lens at 2.8 for medium format and everything else is 4+. Cheers.
Nie zgodzę się, to czy obiektyw jest telefoto czy nie, jest bardzo wazne. Bo od tego zależy też kąt widzenia, i czy obiektyw nadaje się tylko do aparatu 4 x 5 czy też można go użyć w 8 x10. Tak więc telefoto 300 mm nadaje się tylko do 4 x 5, a obiektyw 300 mm który nie jest obiektywem telefoto będzie miał większy krąg obrazowy można użyć w 8 x10 camerze.
I'm confused on the crop factor to 35 mm equivalent and maybe my brain is just in a fog. I thought it was the other way around, you times the 1.5 by the full frame lens size to get the equivalent crop factor lens. So in my mind a 50mm full frame lens would be 75 mm on a crop sensor. What am I doing wrong?
Hi Chad, it works both ways, depending upon what you are wanting to say. You're right, if you put a 50mm full frame lens onto a (1.5) crop sensor camera, it would "feel like a 75mm lens on a full frame camera" (50mm x 1.5 = 75mm). But to get the "feel of a 50mm lens on a full frame camera" using a crop sensor, you would need a 33mm lens (33mm x 1.5 = 50mm). The 1.5 is on the opposite side of the equals sign from the 35mm equivalent (35mm equivalent = what it feels like on a full frame camera)
You cannot calculate an equivalent focal-length, the focal-length is a physical distance, you can calculate an equivalent field of view according to a focal length. The field of view IS NOT THE ONLY THING changing with the focal length. yes a 50mm on an APS-C has the FOV LIKE an 75mm on an FF BUT THTS IT, the other things are different like e.g. DOF.
Instead of calculating vertical and horizontal separately, just use the diagonal. It will give you both the image circle and a single number crop factor. I have never seen someone separate the vertical and horizontal. You even mention after how various lengths "feel" and how they relate to "normal" with the diagonal. You were halfway there.
Dear Mr Carver I am writing to inform you that I will be taking you up on the offer you put forward at approximately 14:19 in your most recent RUclips video. I will be filing suit in the Court of California suing you for indicating that a 180mm is a "Normal" lens on a 6x17 camera. I will be seeking an injunction to take down this video and it's outrageous claim until such time as it is edited to state that the 180mm lens not "Normal" but is in fact "Slightly Abnormal" or in fact "Just an Eency-Weency Bit Tight". I will also be seeking damages for the mental anguish the statement has caused me. See you in court.
Dear Sir, very nice video and nice equipment. However you are incorrect about lens comparison to 35mm camera. On the 6x17 the standard lens is a 240 lens. You are measuring the wrong diagonal. The diagonal to measure is the square of the long side. So the 180 lens is not the standard for the 6x17, its a 38mm on a 35mm camera. The actual diagonal for 6x17 is 238mm..so the 240 lens would be the standard. The 35mm camera has a standard lens of 50mm..if you square the long side and measure the diagonal it will be 50mm. Yes you can actually compare lens to all other camera accurately. here is my own formula for you comparing a 35mm camera to a 6x17 camera. 50/238x180=38mm...if you want to see what a Nikkor M 450 a 6x17 compares to on a 35mm camera...50/238x450=95mm lens ..so..I do use a Grandagon 75mm on my 6x17 and my landscape needs it at times. so..50/238x75=16mm lens. my nikkor sw 90 = a 19mm lens.......my sironar s 135 = a 28mm lens....my sironar s 180 = a 38mm lens...fujinon A 240 = STANDARD....AND a Nikkor T 360 = 75MM LENS....A NIKKOR T 600 = 125MM LENS.. I had particular views on my hasselblad ..lens I wanted to match to large format..so I really like the view of the 60mm lens on the hasselblad..so lets compare this to 35mm...50/80x60= 37.5mm..call it a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera..done...if I want to find this same view on a 5x7 camera well 238/80x60=178,5mm...call it a 180mm lens on a 5x7 camera is equal to a 60mm lens on a hasselblad and 35mm lens on a 35mm camera. Its super accurate. With this formula . I call it my formula , but its really only maths comparing numbers . Its good to compare making life easier. Another thing, its really not wise to shoot past f/22 because of diffraction, it really degrades your image resolution/quality.. on some lens shooting past f/16 is not even good. So really making it a consideration when buying your lens how far it can stop down especially on 6x17 its not wise information to your followers. On the very large format camera 8x10 and upwards can suffer f/32 and f/64 much easier. I hope you dont mind me correcting your information for your large following. (35mm camera diagonal) divide by (6x17 diagonal) and multiply by lens length. your welcome. regards..David
Ayo Nick think 72mm is perfectly average, some would even say it is enough, it could even love you...why you gotta body shame like that it's the motion of the ocean afterall
It helps me to think of 6x17 as roughly a 3:2 shot with the top half cropped out. So using the vertical crop factors, if 150mm is equivalent to 60mm in 35mm (vertical), I imagine shooting with a 30mm lens and then cropping from 3:2 to 3:1. Of course it's imperfect but it helps me to visualise what's going on.
'How wide it FEELS' is surely the same concept as the horizontal equivalent for 35mm as 6:17 is a horizontal format. The angle of view which is relevant to horizontal panoramas is the horizontal angle of view :)
"That lens feels like" is perfect! It comes down to using your equipment = knowing your equipment.
I just want to say thanks to the time you spend creating your art but also these videos. This is a perfect amalgamation of information, technique, humor, and entertainment. I value this greatly.
Thank you very much! Glad you’ve enjoyed the videos.
This one is the most useful video on the internet! I'm into photography for decades, but still got something new! Tanks Nick!
Great to hear!
Just great! Having shot 69 with an Arca Swiss for long time (graduated from Pentax 67), I was pretty familiar with conversion factors for view camera lenses. But this was a superbly clear explanation.
Such a wonderful format !!!
I was very tempted but finally went the Fuji GFX route for their 25/64 aspect ratio. Not as long as 617 but close.
I have followed you for a long time and have to say that your work has gotten better and better. Some of your images have truly tremendous presence. You have really earned !!!!
Far be from me to offer advice. And yet having had a lot of these lenses I really recommend the Schneider Super Symmar XL 110mm x f5.6 (no longer made). When I sold this it was selling my first born.
It is one of those magical lenses. Sadly it is now about $2000 used. But your work is do good, I bet you’d be glad to have it.
Sorry this is long. Great work. Great video. !!
I don't have one of those cameras, I just enjoy your videos. One of these days, when I am not poor, I will contribute. Happy Holidays, Nick!
So much useful information, not just for 6x17 shooters.
I dm'd you a few weeks back about that linhof 617 i saw on facebook marketplace and was hoping to get serviced. I ended up buying it for 600 dollars Canadian. It came with the center spot filter, the viewfinder and the original carrying case. The bad news is anything below 1/30th of a second is unreliable, and there is fungus in the viewfinder. luckily there is this old leica/sinar tech here in vancouver who will service them for me and get all the haze fungus and fix the shutter on it.
If it weren't for your videos I would have never bought it and left it for someone else or maybe bought the shenhao back instead. Regardless, your videos are AWESOME. Thanks again!
If you trancent this, this focal length, sensorsize, imagecircle comes from Trigonometry, Ruler, distance to ruler, gives angles of view. Quite powerfully knowledge.
One of your best Nick, very enjoyable and I shared it with my followers. Lens masterclass! Many thanks
Good job. That was perfect. It was the best video I saw about large format lenses, especially for 6x17.
You are so talented and can explain so clearly what you are trying to tell. I have loads of experience but everytime I learn something new from video's like yours because you teach in a way no one does!
Thank you, good sir
As always, this is so useful, and I mean for anyone! I appreciate the discussion of crop factors for odd size negatives. I used to struggle with that when using 6x6. It appears that popular online calculators get around the horizontal versus vertical conundrum for various negative sizes by using only the diagonal to calculate their crop factor. Thanks for years of motivation (the beautiful photographs you make and show us in these videos) and education! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, Nick!
Look at all those Nick-kor lenses 😅 Happy holidays, Nick!
Thanks for going back to basic optics and not just repeating other channels that are part the echo chamber of crop factors etc. Depth of field and angle of view are basic physics and you have done a great job describing that. Excellent and brilliant photos BTW which is the most important part of your channel.
Thanks for another great video. The link to the lens table is great! Of course, your explanation on how to read it was great! Great! No, seriously, I'm enjoying and learning from the entire series on 6x17. I'm using a 6x17 adapter on a Wista 45D and have had some good results. The table explains why my Nikkor W 105mm doesn't work with its small image circle (155mm) on that setup. That nugget alone will save me tons of bad film.
Wonderful video, thank you very much. The image circle size lesson overview and spreadsheet is great!
I shoot 35mm and 120 (nothing larger) which I have been doing for more than 5 decades yet I still learned many things I didn’t already know. Thanks Nick. We’ll done.
Great series!!! Great editing and tons of great info!!! Thank you
Beautifully articulated.
I do large format, but not 6x17… very glad I watched this video though, I learned about telephoto lenses! Thanks for that!
Enlightening us all, as I just got into 6x17 these videos are essentially my handbook as proper information can be scarce, thank you.
Glad to help!
Brilliant as always. our videos are superb. Merry Christmas
Phenomenal video and explanation!!
Thanks so much
Let’s gooo 100k 🎉
one observation nick, 6x17 cropped horizontal and vertical looks similar to the 4x5" film equivalents, at 135 format x 3 ( aka 75/90/150/210 is the 24/35/50/90 equivalent in 35mm format), as this is virtually the closest available format to 4x5" as the cm conversion of this is 9x12 cm (6x12 is the panoramic format in 120 film{8 shots/roll}), but as you are using LF lenses, this is probably the closest conversion you can get.
PS: you also don't make the connection between the format size, and the lens coverage equating to movement capacity (of tilt\swing\shift
ise), as the smaller the film, the more movement you have, for stitching {digital}, or for creative focus, without getting into vignetting from the fringe of the coverage area.
Wowieeeeee!!! Such great info. And charming presentation! Thanks.
I think it's more useful to think of crop factors as directional. The 0.22... factor is the one you would use to replicate the 6x17 image on a 35mm camera by cropping your image. Turn the other one around to 2.25 and use as the crop (or rather un-crop) factor for replicating an image taken on a 35mm camera on a 6x17 (or more sensibly, a 6x9) camera.
Great video! One thing that works for me when converting lenses from medium and large formats to 35mm equivalents is also keeping in mind the aspect ratios (2:3 or 4:5 etc.) - this, of course, does not include extreme panoramic formats like 16:9 or 16:10. Crop factors make a lot more sense when used together with aspect ratios, I find.
Love your channel Nick... Merry Christmas... cheers.
My day just got a whole lot better seeing a new video from you. Now can a few more people click the subscribe button.
Wonderful series, even for those of us who may never shoot 6x17!
Thank you again Nick!!
Very interesting and VERY informative!! I gotta get the big girl out and shoot this weekend....after being around family and friends in close confines during the holidays, will be nice to get out with the camera(s).....
Solid content.
I would love to have the Rodenstock APO-Grandagon 55mm Lens for 4x5 or 6x12 !
Info that cures the soul. 🤘😎
Great video like the rest of this Series. Love your explanation on crop factors. One question though. When you talk about aperture you dont mention the limitation to small apertures, diffraction, which I believe would affect your images quite a lot if you stop those lenses all the way down to say f64. Isn’t that valid also for large format and thus also 6x17?
This really made a lot of things clear. Cheers!
Since large format lenses can be used on any view camera from medium to ultra-large, I always wondered why manufacturers never included the image circle size on the lense along with focal length and aperture. Would make it so much easier when swapping between formats and lenses.
I think I'll start adding an image circle label to my lenses for use on my Horseman VHR and FA since they use the same lens boards. Thanks for the spreadsheet!
when it comes to 6x17, i like to compared the feel of the lens equivalent to 5x7 cameras. After all 5x7 inches in cm is 13x18, the 18cm in horizontal is the closest thing to 6x17cm. I dont know if you would agree, but it works for me
Great video, thanks!
Talking normal lens is referring to the compression of what we see with the human eye.. on 35mm film/sensor. A 50mm lens is near compression we see with our eyes. When holding a finger 12 inches from your eye. The background that’s out of focus is near what a nifty 50mm sees. At least what they taught us at Brooks.
Excellent very useful video, 90mm and 180mm are my most used ones on Linhof, but I also enjoy using 250mm for landscapes, 72mm way too wide.
OMG. Worth watching for the fact that the Nikkor 150 W I've been using on 4x5 will cover 6x17 and therefore 5x7. I didn't think it went that big but have never run out of coverage so should have known.
PS. Happy Christmas Nick :)
A great lesson
I only have a Canon DSLR so i just crop my photos into 617 ratio. Really want to try the mid frame and large frame system, but they are toooo expensive for me now.
I love my 115mm "GRAND" on my 5x7 Intrepid
Good info! Thanks.
Hi Nick,
Happy holidays 🎄. Great video ... educational as always. I just want to share my observations and different spin on normal lenses.
besides the formal definition of a normal lens. I do feel that a normal lens (at least for 1:1, 5:4, 4:3, and 3:2 aspect ratios) is similar to what the eye sees, but not in the sense of angle of view because the angle of "sharpness" is narrower than a normal lens and the angle of awareness is much much wider, but rather how it renders depth/compression/perspective in typical conditions.
And yes, compression and perspective are not a function of focal length or angle of view but of the relative distances of the fore- and background to the film plane. But since if you want to show your subject in a similar size on a wide-angle and telephoto lens you need to be closer or farther away respectively thereby rendering depth differently.
That is why at least to me your 90mm images (liquor store & room with chair) seem normal by my definition and the 115mm and 150mm feel already more "compressed".
And 90mm would already be slightly narrower than normal on 6x6 as is 50mm on 35mm i.e. showing slight compression.
But maybe that is just me and my odd way of thinking.
Merry Christmas,
Frank
Thinking about focal length equivalent to 35mm on 6x17, i always think a 5x7 that has been cropped later…
The first mistake i made when i got my 4x5 and my 6x17 cameras i bought a Schneider 72XL length. I think i should have bought the 90mm instead because the 72mm feels too wide for me and i use it very seldom.
Here's some context on the "Normal Lens" issue matching the human eye. You're correct that they don't "match" the human eye because our vision is very wide and round. However normal lenses DO match our eyes in one way, that is scale/proportion. For example, an image from a 50mm will be cropped compared to our vision but the scale of the subject in the viewfinder compared to your vision will be almost unchanged. This gets lost in the oversimplification of the subject of lens thought and makes the concept of normal lenses sound like absolute crazy talk. Not that anything in this video was an oversimplification 😂very detailed and helpful.
Great info. Will anamorphic adapters be beneficial for lenses with smaller than 180mm image circles for 6x17? Thanks.
What about the diffraction at f/128
Nick is there a aperture when you should actually remove a centre filter for a lens that typically requires one? Does a reference or formula exist to determine this for each lens? For example the 45mm and 30mm XPAN requires a centre filter but I would expect that the vignette would not be present at a particular aperture and could in fact create a “reverse vignette”? Yes I could test at each aperture for each format for each lens but is there a better way. Exceptional video!
The vignette is more a result of the wide angle of view, not the aperture setting. Although the aperture will affect the vignette on all lenses, on a large format lens the image circle is so big and the vignette caused by the angle of view is so severe that the aperture you choose doesn’t have a big enough effect on it to warrant using the filter in some situations but not others.
With the vertical factor crop being about 4/9, and the horizontal crop factor being 2/9, that kinda averages to 3/9 or 1/3. That puts a 115 lens to about a 38mm equivalent, which seems like it fits with the vibes-based equivalents.
I just ordered a Fujinon 125mm W, not sure if I’m going to start up a 612 or 617 system with it. Something about the double-square of 612 is appealing to me, but it’s good to know that the image circle could handle either.
Nick, why do larger format lenses start at 4~5.6 and not 1.8/2.8? Is the 4.5 relative to say 2.8 on a smaller frame? You usually only see a 'standard' lens at 2.8 for medium format and everything else is 4+. Cheers.
Nie zgodzę się, to czy obiektyw jest telefoto czy nie, jest bardzo wazne. Bo od tego zależy też kąt widzenia, i czy obiektyw nadaje się tylko do aparatu 4 x 5 czy też można go użyć w 8 x10. Tak więc telefoto 300 mm nadaje się tylko do 4 x 5, a obiektyw 300 mm który nie jest obiektywem telefoto będzie miał większy krąg obrazowy można użyć w 8 x10 camerze.
Very interesting. But my calculator says the diagonal of a 6x17 rectangle is closer to 18 than to 17.1. That will make a 180mm lens even more normal!
Nick..... Are you talking 4x5 0r 8x10 lenses? Cracking vid by the way... As always 🙂
Why the captions? It blanked out some of the picture and personally find it irritating.
I'm confused on the crop factor to 35 mm equivalent and maybe my brain is just in a fog. I thought it was the other way around, you times the 1.5 by the full frame lens size to get the equivalent crop factor lens. So in my mind a 50mm full frame lens would be 75 mm on a crop sensor. What am I doing wrong?
Hi Chad, it works both ways, depending upon what you are wanting to say. You're right, if you put a 50mm full frame lens onto a (1.5) crop sensor camera, it would "feel like a 75mm lens on a full frame camera" (50mm x 1.5 = 75mm). But to get the "feel of a 50mm lens on a full frame camera" using a crop sensor, you would need a 33mm lens (33mm x 1.5 = 50mm). The 1.5 is on the opposite side of the equals sign from the 35mm equivalent (35mm equivalent = what it feels like on a full frame camera)
You cannot calculate an equivalent focal-length, the focal-length is a physical distance, you can calculate an equivalent field of view according to a focal length. The field of view IS NOT THE ONLY THING changing with the focal length. yes a 50mm on an APS-C has the FOV LIKE an 75mm on an FF BUT THTS IT, the other things are different like e.g. DOF.
Instead of calculating vertical and horizontal separately, just use the diagonal. It will give you both the image circle and a single number crop factor. I have never seen someone separate the vertical and horizontal.
You even mention after how various lengths "feel" and how they relate to "normal" with the diagonal. You were halfway there.
What's the price of this collection?
New pick up line: "Dang girl, are my glasses at 90mm cause that Rear end is ......"
Yes I get all the ladies.......
love the vid. your hair is huge.
I really wish all manufacturers would use the diagonal FOV instead of FL.
That would be much better.
Let's talk about your beautiful hair, Nick!
2:02 Nick is packing
🥳🥳🥳🥳👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️📷📷📷📷📷
You need to have a degree on anamorphic lenses to know the equivalence of a lens on a 6x17 even tho it's a spherical lens
Dear Mr Carver
I am writing to inform you that I will be taking you up on the offer you put forward at approximately 14:19 in your most recent RUclips video. I will be filing suit in the Court of California suing you for indicating that a 180mm is a "Normal" lens on a 6x17 camera. I will be seeking an injunction to take down this video and it's outrageous claim until such time as it is edited to state that the 180mm lens not "Normal" but is in fact "Slightly Abnormal" or in fact "Just an Eency-Weency Bit Tight". I will also be seeking damages for the mental anguish the statement has caused me.
See you in court.
Dear Sir, very nice video and nice equipment. However you are incorrect about lens comparison to 35mm camera. On the 6x17 the standard lens is a 240 lens. You are measuring the wrong diagonal. The diagonal to measure is the square of the long side. So the 180 lens is not the standard for the 6x17, its a 38mm on a 35mm camera. The actual diagonal for 6x17 is 238mm..so the 240 lens would be the standard. The 35mm camera has a standard lens of 50mm..if you square the long side and measure the diagonal it will be 50mm. Yes you can actually compare lens to all other camera accurately. here is my own formula for you comparing a 35mm camera to a 6x17 camera. 50/238x180=38mm...if you want to see what a Nikkor M 450 a 6x17 compares to on a 35mm camera...50/238x450=95mm lens ..so..I do use a Grandagon 75mm on my 6x17 and my landscape needs it at times. so..50/238x75=16mm lens. my nikkor sw 90 = a 19mm lens.......my sironar s 135 = a 28mm lens....my sironar s 180 = a 38mm lens...fujinon A 240 = STANDARD....AND a Nikkor T 360 = 75MM LENS....A NIKKOR T 600 = 125MM LENS.. I had particular views on my hasselblad ..lens I wanted to match to large format..so I really like the view of the 60mm lens on the hasselblad..so lets compare this to 35mm...50/80x60= 37.5mm..call it a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera..done...if I want to find this same view on a 5x7 camera well 238/80x60=178,5mm...call it a 180mm lens on a 5x7 camera is equal to a 60mm lens on a hasselblad and 35mm lens on a 35mm camera. Its super accurate. With this formula . I call it my formula , but its really only maths comparing numbers . Its good to compare making life easier. Another thing, its really not wise to shoot past f/22 because of diffraction, it really degrades your image resolution/quality.. on some lens shooting past f/16 is not even good. So really making it a consideration when buying your lens how far it can stop down especially on 6x17 its not wise information to your followers. On the very large format camera 8x10 and upwards can suffer f/32 and f/64 much easier. I hope you dont mind me correcting your information for your large following. (35mm camera diagonal) divide by (6x17 diagonal) and multiply by lens length. your welcome. regards..David
Ayo Nick think 72mm is perfectly average, some would even say it is enough, it could even love you...why you gotta body shame like that it's the motion of the ocean afterall
У тебя гениальные снимки