BigAl007 wrote in post #14365767
I think the big problem we have now that we did not have back in the film days is that back then you would not have a common lens mount between the different formats, well certainly not 35mm, MF and LF. I guess some of the MF systems could allow different format backs to be fitted, but usually the system was designed for one of the formats available on roll film, not all of them.
The desire to produce a digital SLR camera that could leverage the existing lens line-up's used by the 35mm cameras is responsible for all of this really unnecessary confusion. If the camera manufacturers had gone with a completely new mount with the advent of the DSLR when a 24×36mm sensor was not really practicable, as did Olympus with 4/3rds then we would not have this issue as we would all have bought new glass for our new cameras, and in the case of APS-C format would all just now consider a 30mm lens to be "NORMAL".
Another problem is that kit zooms have extinguished the concept of "nornal lens," but there is quite a bit to understand about the effects of interchangeable lenses that depends on an understanding of "normal focal length."
Back in the film days I did not worry about "crop factor" all I really wanted to know was what was the normal FL and then could see that on a 6×6 MF (80mm giving normal AoV) camera then a 40mm would be a very wide angle, well at least by the standards of the day.
Very true. The thinking pattern was to match the "difference from normal" when moving from one format to another. So if the subject would have called for a 100mm lens in 35mm (2x normal), when I moved to 6x7cm I put on the 180mm, also approxmately 2x normal.