Focal length of the eye?
Jun 1, 2020 15:49:02 #
n3eg wrote:
I go by this: Both eyes = 35mm FF FOV, one eye = 50mm FF FOV.
My field of concentration, though, is more telephoto.
My field of concentration, though, is more telephoto.
That is very much the deal. The field of human vision includes “digital zoom”.
My own version of a solo “normal lens” prime is the 40 or 45mm. Got 1/2 dozen of them, spread out across the three common formats. I even had a 40 on my Miranda over 50 years ago.
Always loved the film era RF compacts that tended to have a 38 or 42 to keep their overall size down.
Jun 1, 2020 21:00:46 #
ejones0310 wrote:
It depends on the sensor size. “Normal” for the hu... (show quote)
One clarification may be in order: A 50mm lens on a full frame camera roughly
replicates the perspective of the human eye, but not the eye's much wider field of view.
Jun 5, 2020 20:45:34 #
Jun 5, 2020 20:46:49 #
Jun 5, 2020 21:04:43 #
srg wrote:
Very very true
OMG, I can't believe my post didn't start an argument. This could be a first! Seriously, thanks for your support. >Alan
Jun 5, 2020 21:32:58 #
aellman wrote:
One clarification may be in order: A 50mm lens on a full frame camera roughly
replicates the perspective of the human eye, but not the eye's much wider field of view.
replicates the perspective of the human eye, but not the eye's much wider field of view.
Can’t buy into that. Only the position of the observer controls perspective. Does NOT matter at all what FL and format is involved in that observation.
IOW, there is actually no such thing as “the perspective of the human eye”.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
50 mm isn’t really normal anywho. It’s a 1.2X “semi-tele”. Prolly chosen to pack larger details into the barely adequate little film chip that was the new 24x36 mm miniature camera format.
When the Pen-F SLR intro’d, it’s little 18x24 mm film chip presented an even worse challenge so it was supplied with a 38 mm as standard, which is 1.35X short tele. True normal would be only 28 mm.
Jun 5, 2020 21:58:08 #
User ID wrote:
Can’t buy into that. Only the position of the obse... (show quote)
AHA! I knew it was too good to be true. I now fully understand that there is no post, no matter how simple or innocuous, that will not generate some kind of argument. Best wishes. AL
Jun 6, 2020 18:45:54 #
aellman wrote:
AHA! I knew it was too good to be true. I now fully understand that there is no post, no matter how simple or innocuous, that will not generate some kind of argument. Best wishes. AL
I think perhaps you two are using different interpretations for the word perspective.
Jun 7, 2020 16:20:23 #
JD750 wrote:
I think perhaps you two are using different interpretations for the word perspective.
Probably so. I am guided by a definition from Merriam-Webster:
"the appearance to the eye of objects in respect to their relative distance and positions"
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.