Ok. So I spend more time than I probably should reading articles and forums about photography. And the weird thing is that ever since digital cameras have come along, it seems like every photographer _everywhere_ has forgotten the basic optical principles that they learned back in Photo1. Namely – people are buying into marketing hype that tells them focal length somehow determines the fundamental look and feel of a photograph. Well, I’m here to prove ’em all wrong.
Please, read on, and be amazed by how much time I can waste when I want to prove a point.
Here’s what I did – I stuck my camera on a tripod, pointed the camera at my backyard, and took 11 frames at a variety of focal lengths. Then I looked at the most telephoto of the shots, and cropped all the others to match it. Now, I cropped them unscientifically and the naysayers will point out that the frames are not _exactly_ alike. To them, I say – if you want to do it scientifically go ahead, it’s a real PITA. Eyeballing the crops should still prove the point – the massive change in “perspective” that people claim they see switching from a 35mm “normal” lens on a DX-sized sensor to a 50mm “normal” lens on a 35mm-sized sensor is simply not there, it’s a myth. (And most of the differences can be explained just by realizing that I botched the crop on a few frames, notably 20mm and 24mm)
Oh – the overall crappiness of the WA shots is because they are enlarged from truly tiny bits of a 4mp frame.
Brace yourself for a big pile of images proving my point… Here goes!
This is the full scene @ 12mm with the crop marked in red