Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,879   Posts: 1,520,422   Online: 931
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ukraine
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    20

    Recalculating MF focal length to 35mm equivalent?

    How to match MF lens focal length to 35mm equivalent (in terms of the same FOV)?
    For example, 80mm in 6x6 approximately equals to 45mm in 35, so divide factor is 1,76-1,77 ( 80 / 1,76 ~ 46 ).
    What about other MF formats ?

  2. #2
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,186
    Images
    148
    35mm 120
    28mm 45mm
    50mm 80mm
    135mm 200mm

    Equivalents are always approximate as the Formats are quite different

    Ian

  3. #3
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,125
    There are a number of ways to normalize the view. Since I use varying format aspect ratios, I normalize on the diagonal. Though some use the horizontal measurement.

    To get the correct numbers for you system, just measure the diagonal of the film image on a negative. Or use the same frame you use to figure out the actual view from the viewfinder (if you want to match the 'viewfinder angle of view'). Once you have the measurement for two formats, just make a ratio of the two and use that for the calculation.

    As an example, my system has the following values:
    35mm = 43mm diag
    "6x6" = 80mm diag
    "6x9" = 100mm diag
    "4x5" = 153mm diag.
    "8x10" = 310mm diag.

    So my 35mm camera with a 50mm lens matches:

    6x6 camera with a 93mm lens
    6x9 camera with a 115mm lens
    4x5 camera with a 178mm lens
    8x10 camera with a 360mm lens

  4. #4
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,186
    Images
    148
    This is where using a calculation breaks down slightly. It's not that it's wrong but using 35mm as the starting point is false.

    The typical standard lenses for Large Format are:

    4x5 camera with a 150mm lens
    8x10 camera with a 300mm lens
    6x6 camera with a 75-80mm lens
    6x9 camera with a 90-110mm lens

    A 35mm camera standard lens should be nearer to 45mm as the OP surmises but for technical reasons it was more practical to design and make high quality 50mm lenses particularly as lenses needed to be fast to allow the cameras to be hand held with the slower film speeds of the 30's.

    It's better to think more loosely as there are a few ways you could mathematically calculate the equivalents.

    Ian

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684
    Quote Originally Posted by awaken77 View Post
    How to match MF lens focal length to 35mm equivalent ...
    What about other MF formats?
    Multiply any 35mm focal length by 1.57. That is the
    ratio of the long edges of each format, 6x6 and 6x4.5,
    relative to that of 35mm; 55mm over 35mm. The long
    edge is the most wide angle. IMO the long edge best
    describes the angle of view.

    My RZ67 has a long edge length of 69mm. So 69
    over 35mm then multiply. Dan

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    76
    One can never, or indeed, never need to be too exact. I have had many 6x9 cameras and the 9 sometimes turned out to be 8.4, 8.7, 9 or the longest one I have seen at 9.2 (a Bessa II folder). The 6 is also rarely exactly 6!

  7. #7
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,186
    Images
    148
    Welcome to APUG. That's what I've been saying but in a different way. Likewise a lens marked 150mm might actually be a 153mm, a 50mm standard on a 35mm camera could be a 48mm, others 52mm etc. So it's pointless being exact.

    Ian

  8. #8
    Christopher Walrath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Milton, DE, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,980
    Blog Entries
    29
    Images
    19
    One easy way I've found to convert 645 to 35mm in my head. It's roughly the same as km to miles. 8.0 - 5.0. 80mm to 50mm or so.
    Thank you.
    CWalrath
    APUG BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE
    DE Darkroom

    "Wubba, wubba, wubba. Bing, bang, bong. Yuck, yuck, yuck and a fiddle-dee-dee." - The Yeti

  9. #9
    wiltw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    729
    I found that the best recommendation came from Sinar, about converting FL from one format to another is to NOT express it as a diagonal, with a conversion factor. Instead, look at FL with respect a multiple of the narrow dimension of the frame!
    For example 24mm WA (135) is (1*side) which is same as 15mm (APS-C) same as 42mm (645) same as 90mm (5x4 sheet film)
    Or, 90mm portraiture short tele (135) is (3.75* side) is same 55mm (APS-C) same as 160mm (645) same as 340mm (5x4)

  10. #10
    wclavey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    253
    Images
    31
    I often use the 5:8 method for a quick comparison, but I also refer to this chart for guidance, as well:

    http://www.viewcamera.com/images/focalchart.gif

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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