No love for fixed 50mm fans with APS cameras

Now why hasn't there been a fixed 50mm APS camera?  Seems most are around 28 and 35mm. Considering the focal length 50mm has some aged roots in photography, wouldn't it make sense to have fixed 50mm APS camera?   

Those roots are with full frame cameras.  Field of view is too narrow on a crop body for general use.

Kelly

Sigma DP2 

Agree with KCook. On APSC cams, a 50mm is equivalent to a 75-80mm lens, which is nice for portraits.

Most manufacturers make a a 35mm (or near 35mm) lens for APSC, which gives a 50mm equivalent on full frame.

I used to have Nikon's 35mm/1.8 DX lens on a D200. It was a really great lens. 

KCook wrote: Those roots are with full frame cameras.  Field of view is too narrow on a crop body for general use.

Kelly

+1 for that, 50mm used to be as close to normal for 35mm film to be the film version of a kit lens.

Although the current Canon 50mm 1.8 II is so cheap that it is hard to not recommend it to beginners who have kit lenses that are 10 times slower. $99 for 1.8 to 22 is very tempting.

Well a FF 35mm on a dx/1.5 sensor is 52mm, so it is close enough. Nikon does make their 40mm Micro which for all intents is also close enough as it is a normal view lens as well. 

Normal for APSC (dx) is 29mm. Normal for 35mm FF is 43mm.

50mm is still 50mm on a crop or full frame cam.  Reach changes though.  

 

<math and geometry nazi>
What he said. Crop factor and sensor size have no affect on focal length, which is fixed.  There's no "equivalence".
</math and geometry nazi>

garyrhook wrote:  

<math and geometry nazi>
What he said. Crop factor and sensor size have no affect on focal length, which is fixed.  There's no "equivalence".
</math and geometry nazi>

Technically correct, but people need a way of relating what they will get between different formats so call it what you want but  there is an equivalent.

Since there'a trend of late for taking threads in new directions,

Shadowfixer1 wrote: but people need a way of relating what they will get between different formats

Why?

And how often do people really need to compare behavior in formats?

Since focal length can not change, ever, and it was the marketing departments of the manufacturers that instigated this nonsense, why do we continue to propagate something that is technically incorrect? Especially when, mathematically, it is impossible to produce identical results with 2 differently sized sensors?

Boy, I hope I don't have to pull out my "Stand back, I'm going to use math" t-shirt.

Shadowfixer1 wrote:

garyrhook wrote:  

<math and geometry nazi>
What he said. Crop factor and sensor size have no affect on focal length, which is fixed.  There's no "equivalence".
</math and geometry nazi>

Technically correct, but people need a way of relating what they will get between different formats so call it what you want but  there is an equivalent.

Agreed.  Everybody knows what you mean when you say it's this many mm's on crop. I'm just putting out information for education purposes.

I actually believe, (correct me if i'm wrong anybody), mm is measured by the distance between the rear element and the sensor?

Scotty wrote:

Shadowfixer1 wrote:

garyrhook wrote:  

<math and geometry nazi>
What he said. Crop factor and sensor size have no affect on focal length, which is fixed.  There's no "equivalence".
</math and geometry nazi>

Technically correct, but people need a way of relating what they will get between different formats so call it what you want but  there is an equivalent.

Agreed.  Everybody knows what you mean when you say it's this many mm's on crop. I'm just putting out information for education purposes.

I actually believe, (correct me if i'm wrong anybody), mm is measured by the distance between the rear element and the sensor?

According to Nikon, it's not a measured distance but a calculated one.  Didn't know that.

"Focal length, usually represented in millimeters (mm), is the basic description of a photographic lens. It is not a measurement of the actual length of a lens, but a calculation of an optical distance from the point where light rays converge to form a sharp image of an object to the digital sensor or 35mm film at the focal plane in the camera. The focal length of a lens is determined when the lens is focused at infinity.
The focal length tells us the angle of view—how much of the scene will be captured—and the magnification—how large individual elements will be. The longer the focal length, the narrower the angle of view and the higher the magnification. The shorter the focal length, the wider the angle of view and the lower the magnification."

www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-And-Explore/Ar...ng-focal-length.html

hghlndr6 wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Shadowfixer1 wrote:

garyrhook wrote:  

<math and geometry nazi>
What he said. Crop factor and sensor size have no affect on focal length, which is fixed.  There's no "equivalence".
</math and geometry nazi>

Technically correct, but people need a way of relating what they will get between different formats so call it what you want but  there is an equivalent.

Agreed.  Everybody knows what you mean when you say it's this many mm's on crop. I'm just putting out information for education purposes.

I actually believe, (correct me if i'm wrong anybody), mm is measured by the distance between the rear element and the sensor?

According to Nikon, it's not a measured distance but a calculated one.  Didn't know that.

"Focal length, usually represented in millimeters (mm), is the basic description of a photographic lens. It is not a measurement of the actual length of a lens, but a calculation of an optical distance from the point where light rays converge to form a sharp image of an object to the digital sensor or 35mm film at the focal plane in the camera. The focal length of a lens is determined when the lens is focused at infinity.
The focal length tells us the angle of view—how much of the scene will be captured—and the magnification—how large individual elements will be. The longer the focal length, the narrower the angle of view and the higher the magnification. The shorter the focal length, the wider the angle of view and the lower the magnification."

www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-And-Explore/Ar...ng-focal-length.html

This is why I could never be an engineer.  Interesting stuff.

garyrhook wrote: Since there'a trend of late for taking threads in new directions,

Shadowfixer1 wrote: but people need a way of relating what they will get between different formats

Why?

And how often do people really need to compare behavior in formats?

Since focal length can not change, ever, and it was the marketing departments of the manufacturers that instigated this nonsense, why do we continue to propagate something that is technically incorrect? Especially when, mathematically, it is impossible to produce identical results with 2 differently sized sensors?

Boy, I hope I don't have to pull out my "Stand back, I'm going to use math" t-shirt.

Why? Here's why. I just purchased a mirrorless camera. I wanted a Fuji because I like Fuji images. I've been using Nikons for years and for 95% of what I do, I use the 18-200 VR lens. The reason I didn't buy the Fuji was they didn't one lens to cover what my 18-200 does. Olympus did so that is the system I bought into. People always want to compare behavior in the different formats. In fact that's always the first question to come up when discussing different formats. Sorry you don't understand this but it is true. If you don't want to know the equivalency, fine, but I don't see the need to try and correct someone when they talk about equivalent focal lengths because in the groups I speak to, that's one of the very first questions asked. When digital first came out, it was always the first question asked. I'm not trying to start an argument, I just don't understand the soapbox on this issue. Why does it matter if someone wants to know.