I think your figures sort of prove the argument that paper sizes
matched large format negative sizes going back to the days of contact
prints. It is tradition. I don't know what looks "normal" either.
That is subjective any way. That is why it was fixed by a definition.
Then it is ignored precisely because it does not really look that
different a few millimeters either way. I think you are right about
the choice of a longer lens. I am sure that Oskar Barnack considered
the detail that could be captured on his double frame of movie film
and decided a 50mm normal lens would allow the smaller Leica prints
to better compete in the impactl department with the larger prints
from the prevalent roll film cameras and their wider angle lenses.
Smaller prints, but just as detailed in the area covered. It had the
added advantage of sharpness from a more solid lens mount than the
rickety folders of the day.
One of the main esthetic exhortations of 35mm was to use the whole
frame even though it was probably based on not having much film to
work with. Not talking about what most people did using available
sizes of paper and frames, but 35mm photographers who were serious
about that tight framing esthetic formatted their prints in the same
2 x 3 proportion as their negative even if they had to pop for the
next larger sheet of paper and cut it down. So I think that probably
someone at Pentax, who respected the 35mm esthetic and aware of the
traditional definition of a normal lens, decided it would be nice to
make a lens for that. Very Japanese and very charming, actually.
But I could be wrong.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Jun 2, 2005, at 7:40 PM, Moose wrote:
> 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
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|