Another little, highly un-scientific tid bit from me.
I took a 24mm lens today and walked around using it as my sole means of seeing (through a camera). Every once and again I'd stop in front of something and look wihtout the aid of the camera, and reaction was without exception "WHOA!!! That thing is SO close!!!"
Did the same with a 80-200 zoom and a 50mm. To make the long story short, for some reason, the 50 seemed to give me fewest surprises when I lowered the camera to have a "human perspective" look for comparison. Things seemed most "the way I expected".
I have to concede, I don't think this has anything with "field of view", and more with how much info we are able to process at once - which looking strictly through a camera forces one to do.
Just my observation - my eyes may be weird. Or I may be most accustomed to a 50mm lens - I don't claim that these "findings" are in any way absolute
I wonder how much the size of the image in your field of view would affect the outcome of your experiment.
For me a 40-45mm lens has the same perspective my eyes do when looking at a "general" scene.
Our eyes have the marvlous advantage to make the field of view/perspective different when we focus on somethign.
Mama took my APX away.....
It may be completely meaningless, but this is what was told to me 35+ years ago...
The "normal" lens is selected for any camera to offer a 'normal' view of a scene. This 'normal' view would be considered as looking through the camera as it was a plain window. No magnifaction, no reduction.
So, if you look at a scene with your eyes, then through the camera, it looks the same. No magnification and no reduction. The camera just become a window...
Whether or not this is true (seems logical to me), or if the diagonal of the film vs. the focal happened as an optical coincidence, I have no idea... But it's an explanation that stuck with me for a long time...
Originally Posted by Helen B
Good point - the effect with the WA was magnified when looking at wide objects (like a stretched limo, for example) - so I think a part of this is psychological. But over all, it seemed reasonably constant - I found the 50mm to be the least intrusive "window" (to borrow a term from RichSBV).
Of course, then there is the fact that I am using one eye, looking into a viewfinder which is small, etc. Also, I do not have a collection of lenses graduted in small enought increments, and frankly, this was just a fun little experiment which i doubt has any scientific value.
edit - sorry about the typos... no time to really edit.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
How do I calculate what?
Originally Posted by modafoto
If you are referring to the human vision part (the agle of view), I don't calculate it. I "copy" it from books/texts/etc. I beleieve there is a (more or less) commonly accepted way of calculating it taking into account the degree of sharpness in the complete human fov(?) (which is about 180 degrees horizontal and 90 or so vertical)
If you refer to film it is the diagonal of the 35mm frame.
Too many Chiefs not enough Indians.....
Originally Posted by david b
HI, I'm new at this forum.
I won't try to give a technical explanation of any kind- many ppl here are more indicated to - but I would like tell you my personal experience:
a month ago I was studying a particular house to take a picture with an infrared B&W film - honestly I can't shoot more then a few films a year due to lack of time - I was prefiguring the picture first of all with naked eye, without seeing through the camera... by the way, after mounting some lenses to make some tests I found out my eye had previewed the picture like a 85mm and it's a feeling I 've had a lot of times before but it had never been so clear. I don't think it's a question of angle of view but something involving perception: we - expecially male people - are mentally more concentrated on one particular at once rather than on the whole image we can focus on. I guess peripherical view is not used to get details but other aspects of the environment, like the luminosity of the scene, the change in some big shapes, and mainly the movements. Instead when we examine a picture taken with a wideangle lens we can - if the dimension of picture printed is small enough - have the whole image in focus and we can embrace it whole - even thou in some degree it happens the same thing as when we see reality: we see it detail by detail -. That's why I don't think it's correct matching the human view with a wide angle nor with a 50mm.
in few words I substantially agree with Sparky
Last edited by Black Imp; 07-18-2005 at 07:01 AM. Click to view previous post history.
I think we have something here - there is a dual nature to this beast! And yes, sexist as it may sound, apparently the male vision sees things a bit differently as far as areas of primary concentration etc (I can't wait to see the jokes pour in on this one) - but that aside, it seems like so:
1) Human field of vision
2) How much visual information are we comfortable looking at, and therefore, like looking at.
It seems those two have distinctly different answers - and perhaps the old 50mm was some sort of compromise? I still tell you this - walk around looking through a WA lens and you will get dizzy! All of a sudden, you are not just seeing but being forced to register ALL of that huge field of vision (and barrels and pins etc ). So that can't be it. Try it with a short tele (85, 100, 135) and you will feel like you have tunnel vision - even though it will probably match what you would want in apicture... I think that makes it more complicated than simple calcualtions of field of vision, angles, etc.
Personally, right now this human's perpective is getting blurry because I need sleep - what lens is that ??