I guess that depends on whether those print sizes were common and/or
standard when the 35mm camera was introduced. It does make sense
though, and I think that many are too shy to get close enough ("if your
pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough" -- Capa,) so maybe
that was a motivation for the 50 as a standard.
Earl
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
==============================================
|