Winsor Crosby wrote:
>I think more likely the 43mm lens is odd is that it is exactly the
>diagonal of a 35mm frame making it true normal, at least according to
>the convention.
>
I've never been entirely convinced by that argument. The 35mm still
format is roughly derived from an early film format. If you look at the
print sizes that have persisted for decades outside of those
specifically designed for auto prints form 35mm:
5/4 = 1.25
10/8 = 1.25
7/5 = 1.4
14/11 = 1.27
and the 4/3 standard = 1.33
the 35mm (and 6x9) ratio of 1.5 isn't what we use for most of those pics
good enought to enlarge.
Applying a 1.3 ratio to 24mm gives a length of 31mm and a diagonal of
39.4mm.
I tend to have a "long" eye and 50mm seems "normal", whatever that is,
to me, but I can see how 40mm would be more in the ballpark of normal
for others. I wonder if the choice in the early days of 35mm had
something to do with the relatively large grain of the film. A slightly
longer fl encourages tighter framing, resulting in less grain in the prints?
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|