rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Undoubtedly some died of cancer that night you photographed a lunar eclipse ... should you have not posted?

tturner Loc: Savannah Ga

now that's just mean

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

this is how I know it's time to halt watching this topic

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

What's with this "reverse ageism" I know plenty of younger folks who grew up in the digital age- my kids, my grandchildren, and many of my students of photography and trainees, all who are very good at thinking for themselves and many of them are outstanding students, accomplished and savvy photographers. They do very well at mathematics, geometry, calculus, differential equation, physics and dozens of optical formulas.
In portraiture, which this thread is about, I encourage them to be kind and respectful to folks of all ages and to relate well to PEOPLE people without pomposity and airs of superiority- it makes for lousy expressions in a portrait and very poor sales for your business.

I am "old school" and probably older than you. Most of the advanced amateurs and professional I know don't walk around with a calculator, a slide rule (see how old I am) or even a pencil and pad to figure out focal length/format combinations. We learned the theory in a nuts and bolts manner and instinctively know which lenses to reach for or the zoom settings for the field angle and results we want to arrive at for the camera bodies we use.

Nowadays there are perhaps 3 popular sensor sizes. In the olden days, we had to consider everything from subminiature to large format view cameras and we managed.

Attached is a handy chart that we used for reference. Yes, it is old and for film formats but one can easily see the relationships.

Just about every very thread has to end in a disrespectful commentary- that ain't helpful!

tturner Loc: Savannah Ga

Sorry if my work and or comments offend you, well no not really

tturner Loc: Savannah Ga

I agree, I don't carry a chart with me either, I just put a lens on and use it, I don't get caught up in crop factors as a rule, it's just a fun thing to play with.

tturner Loc: Savannah Ga

I am immediately drawn to the quality and clarity of your subjects, I really didn't notice the background, very nicely done.

tturner Loc: Savannah Ga

I didn't notice the background due to the quality and clarity of your subjects, very nicely done

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

A Nikkor 135 f/2 vs a Canon EF 85 f/1.2L. Ok, let's use the lenses for night sky photography, you really think the Nikkor will best the Canon at astronomy? Not a chance. Let's look at some silly categories where the Canon out shines the Nikkor. Which lens costs more? The Canon! Which lens is heavier? Actually, I don't know. I own the Canon lens and believe me, it is a heavy beast. Which lens is sharper? Personally, I'd call it a tie but factor in many other variables and the Canon wins by a very little tiny margin. Which lens would do more damage if you were smacked in the face with it. I'm going to have to give this one to the grapefruit sized hunk of glass and metal, the Canon. Which is a more specialized lens? No doubt about it, the Canon. Which lens is more bokehlicious? That's a tough one. The Nikkor has a longer focal length so it should be a wee bit better so for this I will substitute the Canon EF 200 f/2. It's big, bad, expensive and has amazing bokeh.
But siriusly, woof, woof, the Nikkor is a high performance portrait lens and the Canon is a super high performance specialty lens that's really good at portraiture if you know how to use it. Putting one lens against the other quite frankly, is pointless because they are two entirely different animals.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

You can certainly shoot portraits with your 18-200 but I wouldn't call it the ideal portrait lens.

tturner Loc: Savannah Ga

Any lens used to make a portrait is a portrait lens

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I use the EF-EOS M2 adapter which has a 0.71X magnification factor which effectively turns the APS-C M50 into a simulated full frame. To be honest, the M50 with the EF 85 f/1.2L looks a little silly. The lens is like three times the size of the M50 body and it's not like a camera with a zoom lens, it's this enormous heavy prime. As for performance, it's quite good, especially in low light. That lens is a photon sponge. Set the camera to a moderately high ISO, say 3200, and with very little ambient light, the big lens will give you some pretty clean images. I will say it's a little clumsy, the small body on the big lens, but it does work well, just a little hard to hold on to. But, the M50 does have a decent grip and since you need to use an adapter, there's just enough finger room to hold on. The EF 85 f/1.2 is by no stretch of the imagination a general purpose lens so mating that body with that lens isn't something one would do all the time. But occasionally it's a fun combination.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Who said it wasn't? And no, you are incorrect. Just because something is used to do something doesn't mean it's main purpose is the something it was used to do. You can use a screw driver to chisel wood but it's not a wood chisel, it's a screw driver.

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

Yes

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

Ok I’m going to guess your camera is a Canon with the APS-C sensor and that you rounded up. But Nikons DX sensor is a larger APS-C and if you rounded up using the pythagorean theorem it’s different, so there’s different cropped APSC sensor.

I got the impression the 0.6 factor applied too all APS-C size sensors. And I’m glad how you explained how you used the formula. Thank you Sir.