View Full Version : Why does fixed lens == wide?
Looking at the past offerings of fixed lens cameras, and the more current ones as well, it seems that we're trapped in a 28-35mm range. Why aren't we offered 50mm or even 'narrower' focal lengths? If 50mm is the 'natural' field of view, why do point and shoot type cameras insist on being much wider?
Why can't we have a fixed lens digital P&S with a 50mm equiv? Lots of the older 'point and shoots' (fixed lens rangefinders) were in the 40-50mm range.
edit: should've said fixed focal length, most P&S cams are zooms these days.
One reason being that the wider the lens the more depth of feild you have. Its alot harder for mommy to get an out of focus shot of little johhny with grandma. Remember, consumer goods are no longer made with the thought that the general public might actually be able to do something for themselves.
Because they don't make money as most folks don't want them. 28 - 35 are more versatile.
nikonhswebmaster
11-17-2007, 18:23
My point-n-shoot fixed lens is a zoom.. wide to tele, I thought most are.
OK, I'll clarify it as 'fixed focal length lens' since it was apparently unclear to some.
kipkeston
11-17-2007, 18:33
I'm still confused I thought they were all zoom these days. like 35-105 or something.
nikonhswebmaster
11-17-2007, 18:56
OK, I'll clarify it as 'fixed focal length lens' since it was apparently unclear to some.
Actually I don't believe there are ANY point-n-shoot film cameras being made currently, outside of throw-a-ways.
All the new digital ones are zooms.
But if you buy older fixed lens cameras there are many with 45-50 lenses, although 45 is much more common.
48~50~54
Kowa -- Kallo 35-F2, 35 E, 281
Konica -- S, IIIM, III, III-XML to name a few
Mamiya -- Auto Metra, 35-S, Ruby
Olympus -- 35-S
Yashica -- YL
There are of course more, I just got tired.
All the new digital ones are zooms.
Well, there's the Ricoh GR-D, which is getting an update in the form of the GR-D II at the moment.
And, if it ever comes to the market, the Sigma DP-1.
they are wide because large DOF and because tourists usually wants to take their pictures in front of some famous buildings so they need wide lens for that.
Well, there's the Ricoh GR-D, which is getting an update in the form of the GR-D II at the moment.
And, if it ever comes to the market, the Sigma DP-1.
And I'd be very happy if I could get either of those wth a 50mm (equiv) lens. Are people really so enamoured with 'wide', or is the idea that you just crop out whatever you don't like?
nikonhswebmaster
11-19-2007, 04:57
Yep, but the GRD is a 28 equivalent.
They have found their way into a few dealers in the US, Adorama in NYC has them, but they are not officially imported, so warranty is a bit problematic since Ricoh USA only deals with copiers.
The sad news it the camera produces noisy soft images, my buddy has one. My DMC-LX-2 is sharper, with less noise.
With the 21, it will set you back a grand.
Early P&S fixed focal-length lenses were usually around 50mm, but have been creeping down towards 35mm, even 28mm (or equiv). The "natural" focal length on 35mm (if the length of the diagonal is what you want ... the usual rule of thumb) is 43mm. For street photography, landscapes, and family snaps in smaller rooms, at tables in crowded restaurants, etc, the wider lens is often a better choice. That's probably the main reason for the trend.
The GRDII will have a tele-converter lens giving equivalent of 40mm, which can also be used with the GRDI.
Are people really so enamoured with 'wide', or is the idea that you just crop out whatever you don't like?
I don't think it's even that complicated - I think most people who use a P&S just point the camera in the direction they want (giving little or no thought to angle of view or composition or any of that) and if they end up reasonably happy with the results then it's a "good camera". (And in case anyone thinks that is in any way insulting, I'm just thinking about the way my mother shoots - she has absolutely no idea what "focal length" means).
ChrisPlatt
11-19-2007, 07:45
I read somewhere that '70's rangefinders went to ~40mm lenses because Japan is small.
This seemed ludicrous to me, until I asked my my trainer at Olympus, Mr. Okabe,
what he thought of America and his first response was "So much room!"...
Chris
I can remember in the seventies having a conspiracy theory that SLR manufacturers included a 50mm lens as standard precisely because it wasn't the best all-round focal length, and if they made something like 35-40mm the standard then they'd sell fewer additional lenses. (But since then I've come round to really liking the 50, so it was probably the nonsense that it sounds :D)
shadowfox
11-19-2007, 09:10
I agree with those who mentioned expectation. "Good enough" is what ails photography (I think) more than any other visual art form.
Most people uses P&S for family gatherings, so wider means less "Move closer!!" yelling ==> less hassle to use. But wider than 35mm means more complex lens construction and more distortion at the edges.
Because "normal" is not normal. 50 = tele.
Lot's of P&S have 40s: Olympus, Rollei, Contax T.
Roland.
antiquark
11-19-2007, 11:32
If you like taking group pictures indoors, 50mm is just a little too narow. You usually find yourself with your back to the wall.
As someone once said, 35mm is the second-best focal length for everything.
A wider focal length also gives you a little more shutter-speed leeway before camera shake sets in.
"Good enough" is what ails photography (I think) more than any other visual art form.
But then, for most people photography isn't an art form - it's just a way of getting a record of things
Actually I don't believe there are ANY point-n-shoot film cameras being made currently, outside of throw-a-ways.
Depends where you look. Fujifilm Klasse W with a fixed 28mm f/2.8 lens only released in Japan. A great little camera
shadowfox
11-20-2007, 07:26
But then, for most people photography isn't an art form - it's just a way of getting a record of things
So is video, so by correlation movies are not an art form then?
To most people, charcoal is also a means to cook barbeque. Is charcoal painting not an art form then?
:D
So is video, so by correlation movies are not an art form then?
To most people, charcoal is also a means to cook barbeque. Is charcoal painting not an art form then?
The art is not in the medium, it is in the artist.
shadowfox
11-21-2007, 09:13
The art is not in the medium, it is in the artist.
But where does the art being recorded for someone (including the artist) to enjoy?
Unrecorded art is... nothing...?
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.