Which focal length Canon lens used w full sensor dslr is equivalent to Polaroid's SX-70 ?

<p>A paying client insists I shoot her with a modern digital camera in the "Warhol Polaroid style".<br>

I don't turn down paying gigs so... The SX-70 only shoots at f8 I believe but what lens should I use with my Canon 5d mark iii ( full sensor dslr ) ? 50mm ? 85mm ? Wide angle ? Any help would be much appreciated ! </p>

 

Probably a 28mm as the SX-70 and Big Shot cameras were square format cameras and you'll need to crop.

<p>The 116mm lens on the SX-70 with 7.9x7.9cm format has an <a href="http://www.radical.org/aov/">angle of view</a> of 38 degrees at 3m and is roughly comparable to a 52mm normal lens on a full frame or 35mm film camera. It's difficult to compare because of the differences in aspect ratio. But it's comparable to an 80mm lens on a 6x6cm square medium format camera such as a typical TLR or many 6x6 SLRs.</p>

<p>@Lex so in other words I'll get close with my 50mm prime on the 5dmk3 ? I'm only concerned with the facial features looking the same as Warhol's subjects. Long lenses tend to make faces appear wider and something like a 28mm makes them skinnier... Just by looking at his work I would have guessed a 40mm or a 50mm so you're probably correct. </p>

<p>Lex nailed it and Johnny put it in perspective. Pun intended. </p>

<p>Yup, a normal lens for any given format should get a similar look, assuming similar framing. Little or no flattening or exaggeration of nose size. It's a familiar look from snapshots years ago because most fixed-lens cameras used whatever focal length was "normal" for that format.</p>

<p>Regarding the overall look of Warhol's best known Polaroids, those are distinctive because he mostly used a Big Shot. Cheap camera but with a unique feature - a plastic Fresnel in front of the flash cubes, close to and directly over the lens. The effect produced rather even lighting across the face in the center, with rapid falloff toward the edges. You can mimic this look with a small flash directly over the camera lens (a built in pop up flash is perfect), by adding a Fresnel in front of the flash. A cheap credit card sized magnifier will come pretty close to mimicking that flash distribution. I carry one in my wallet and occasionally use it, holding it with my left hand in front of the flash on my P&S cameras.</p>

<p>Yes Lex I have one of those I put a frosted piece of plastic behind it for a more even fall off. I got bot at a $ store.</p>

That explains why Juergen Teller uses a built in flash. I'll have to experiment with

this. My 5dmk3 doesn't have a built in one but I'll try it with my speedlite and maybe

even my strobe.

<p>The look of Juergen Teller and Terry Richardson is pretty similar to Warhol's. They built their distinctive looks on P&S type cameras with built-in flashes, although usually the flash was slightly off-center so the shadows fell a bit differently - more to the side rather than straight down. Compare the modeling shadows around the noses, jaws, etc.</p>

<p>I'm not sure about Teller's work with dSLRs, but I've seen photos of Richardson at work using a dSLR with a flash mounted on a small side bracket, the type sold by Nikon for it's own flashes, and other makers, often used by paparazzi. When the camera is held vertically the flash is nearly centered over the lens.</p>

<p>Another way to mimic that close to center, near the lens flash look would be to use a sync cord or wireless unit and handhold the flash close to and over the lens. Not too difficult with a small, lightweight camera, but tricky with a full sized dSLR and large flash.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that the closer the flash to the lens, the greater the risk of red-eye. Depends on the subject's eyes. Some blue eyed folks are more prone to red eye, but I've seen odd reflections with all eye colors, and older folks will show evidence of cataracts if the flash is too close to the lens. But with digital you can review each photo and make minor adjustments in flash proximity and angle.</p>

<p>All those can be fixed in Post Lex. But yes getting the flash almost directly over the lens is a must.<br>

Here is a link to the camera he used.<br>

http://vintagecameralab.com/wp-content/uploads/polaroid-big-shot_021.jpg<br>

<img src="http://vintagecameralab.com/wp-content/uploads/polaroid-big-shot_021.jpg" alt="" width="980" height="600" /></p>

<p>What a futuristic piece of equipment. I've never been a fan of Terry's work when it comes to technique but it's hard to argue with success. Teller's work is beautiful in my opinion... The red eye issue makes sense. I remember having to deal with it when working with a ring flash. I'll have to watch out for that. Thanks Lex and Larry, appreciate the help. </p>

<p> Lex and I are Brothers so it is thank you from me at least.</p>

<p>calculated in my head I came to 35mm as the "little longer than normal lenght" for 24x24 mm, what your sensor will be after crop, compared to the "little longer than normal lenght" of 116 mm on the 79x79 mm film, where the "normal" is 112 mm.^^</p>

<p>For digital cameras with built in flash one can get a little articulated arm that attaches to the hot shoe and places a diffusing screen in front of the flash. I have one of these to mute the harshness on macros, which it does not do very well, but you could probably make your own fresnel diffuser or whatever pretty easily.</p><div></div>

<p><strong>Johnny - Please do NOT post the same question on different forums.</strong><br>

<br /> Duplicate Post here: http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00dRfZ</p>

<p>WW</p>