Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
There were PLENTY of references to "equivalents" during the film era; all one had to do was to look at reference manuals, such as the ones that Popular Photography produced for a few decades. Almost everybody who was a serious photographer knew that 35mm's "normal" lens was a 50mm, while 6x6 cm square (120 rollfilm) used a 75mm or 80mm as its "normal" lens. During the film era, hundreds of thousands of serious photographers knew and understood that a "normal lens" was one that was roughly the diagonal of the film size being captured to. And they knew too that that was only a rough guide, and not "set in stone".
There existed _MANY DOZENS_ of 35mm,120 rollfilm, and 4x5 inch sheet film equivalence charts. To name just three common sources of equivalence charts: Popular Photography,Modern Photography, and Kodak had multiple publications that codified what film format and what lens gave wide-angle,normal,telephoto,and long telephoto effects. Multiple books contained this information as well, as well as catalogs from common, large vendors, like Calumet Photographic, as well as lens makers for large format lenses.
The idea that there never existed "equivalence" charts or articles or tables in terms of multiple film formats is utter revisionist history; I own multiple copies of photography information periodicals from the 1980's that list out MULTIPLE format sizes, and their equivalent angles of view...half-frame,35mm 24x36,6x6,6x7,6x9,6x17cm, 2.25x3.25 inch, 4x5 inch, etc.
If one tries to say that the idea of film equivalent angles of view and focal lengths was never codified, one is full of fixer...because it was _common knowledge_ for decades. Here on TPF I've seen the idea put forth that equivalent angles of view charts and information "never existed", and have held my tongue on this subject for a few years now; I finally had to say something, which is that the claim this idea never existed is utter B.S.. I'm tired of reading nonsense about this, and am finally taking the time to type out a reply. Hundred of thousands of film-era photographers knew and understood the idea of film format affecting lens focal length and angles of view.
Err ... I have never used 35mm film and I understand full frame equivalence just fine.At the cost of confusion for the many who have never used 35mm film.
I don't recall ever seeing anything like that, probably for the simple reason that we seldom swapped lenses between different format cameras.But did any of those books/charts/etc have the equivelant of 'crop factor' numbers? i.e., "To convert 6x7 to 35mm, multiply/divide by x"?
The 4x5 I had back in the day used a 150mm as a normal lensI don't recall ever seeing anything like that, probably for the simple reason that we seldom swapped lenses between different format cameras.But did any of those books/charts/etc have the equivelant of 'crop factor' numbers? i.e., "To convert 6x7 to 35mm, multiply/divide by x"?
I do remember that 50mm was considered "normal", and that my 4x5 camera needed a longer lens for a "normal" angle of view.
Err ... I have never used 35mm film and I understand full frame equivalence just fine.At the cost of confusion for the many who have never used 35mm film.
Well technically I might have used 35mm film but back then I was completely clueless about photography. Wasnt interested in in before they introduced digital.
Also I dont get your point. You're saying it requires effort to communicate. Why ... yes ?
The 4x5 I had back in the day used a 150mm as a normal lens