Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,901   Posts: 1,584,506   Online: 1039
      
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 48 of 48

Thread: Rule Of Thumb

  1. #41

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    95
    just some back of the envelop calculations. Since angle of view is a trig function and not a linear one, we should expect some variation of the rule with different focal lengths. From about 22mm focal length on a 35mm camera, you will need to add a correction factor to the denominator greater than 1. I assume that the original rule was for a 46.8 degree angle of view.
    Taking these corrections into account, a more precise rule of thumb should be about 1/250 for a 200mm lens and 1/20 for a 25mm lens. Given that most cameras back then, and many now, don't have 1/200 as a shutter option, nor a 1/20, Using the standard rule of thumb for focal lengths greater than 22mm on a 35mm camera should be fine. Smaller than 22mm, you would have to get near fisheye territory to need adjustments.

    If you find the rule works for you, no need to tweak it for different focal lengths.

  2. #42
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,835
    Images
    1
    arpinum

    It's not worth the effort. Do the math, the relationship is almost linear.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  3. #43
    wiltw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    804
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    After thinking about it a bit more, I'm not so sure that it really is a 35mm rule. I remember my Dad teaching me this rule at a time when we used nothing but medium-format cameras. Could it be that the rule is an older medium-format rule of thumb and was carelessly carried over to 35mm?.
    It is my understanding as well, that 1/FL was originally the rule applied to medium format. And when 135 became popularized, the world neglected to factor in the smaller format via a multiplier. So any safety margin that existed for medium format rule got eaten up in the 135 format rule. Only when the world adopted the smaller format of the original APS-C did they properly add in a multiplier again.
    Last edited by wiltw; 07-29-2010 at 07:06 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #44
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,915
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    arpinum

    It's not worth the effort. Do the math, the relationship is almost linear.
    Thank you for saving me the effort of posting the same. Trigonometry is based on ratios and the scaling in the Rule of Thumb is based on ratios. Both are linear.

    Steve
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    Thank you for saving me the effort of posting the same. Trigonometry is based on ratios and the scaling in the Rule of Thumb is based on ratios. Both are linear.

    Steve
    I did the math, that's why I found and reported that its not worth varying the rule based on focal length. Yes they are both ratios. But tangent is not linear. The rule works well because tangent is close to linear over most regular fields of view. Fisheyes however are on a non-linear section of the tangent curve compared to other lenses. Here the rule can break down by a stop.

  6. #46
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,915
    Quote Originally Posted by arpinum View Post
    I did the math, that's why I found and reported that its not worth varying the rule based on focal length. Yes they are both ratios. But tangent is not linear. The rule works well because tangent is close to linear over most regular fields of view. Fisheyes however are on a non-linear section of the tangent curve compared to other lenses. Here the rule can break down by a stop.
    Especially if your feet are in the photograph! This is not rocket science. It is a linearization for back of the envelop calculations.
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  7. #47
    Rick A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    north central Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,245
    Images
    34
    Rules are meant to be broken, so watch out for your thumb, it too can be broken.
    Rick A
    Argentum aevum

  8. #48
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,756
    Quote Originally Posted by ralnphot View Post
    Rules are meant to be broken, so watch out for your thumb, it too can be broken.
    Rules of thumb are important. I consider the rule of finger even more important.
    \/ See below.\/
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin