Closest to the Human eye?

[virgil]

Another thing I'd like to get sorted out is this.

 

<p>

 

Which do you think is closest to the 'view'of the human eye.35mm or 50mm????

 

<p>

 

Or,is it neither? I think it's about 42mm

[anam_alpenia]

I think 45mm is the answer. But the I am Filipino, so my eyes

are a little sloe!

[jackflesher]

I have to go with 40 - 45 too when normally relaxed, BUT, IMO our

brains can zoom us out to the equivalent of about 800 and withdraw us

to somewhere around 18. My problem when I'm out shooting is matching

the lens to what my brain is seeing, or vice-versa!

 

<p>

 

;-),

[hil]

Never quite understood this statement, "closest to the view of the

human eye". I have always taken it to mean perspective rather than

angle of view, since with both eyes open, most people can "see"

almost 180 degrees.

 

<p>

 

So what are we talking about? Is it which lens yields the least

distortion, so that elements in the picture do not appear lengthened

or widened as they approach the edges of the frame?

 

<p>

 

Or is it which lens yields the most natural looking relation between

near and far objects?

 

<p>

 

In my opinion, it sure ain't 35mm. Maybe 50mm to 90mm looks closest

to "normal" to me. Very subjective, I think.

[jeff voorhees]

By "view" do you mean perspective and the size relationship of objects

within the frame? and does it approximate that of the human eye? If

so, then 42mm would be a "true" normal lens for a 35mm camera. I

suppose 50mm comes closest to the readily available lenses. I can't

remember looking thru a zoom set at 42mm and I know a 45 comes

standard with the Contax G2. Being a long time 50mm user, I have

always liked the perspective of the lens, conversely, I don't care for

the distortion of even the 35 at close distances. I don't know if you

get distortion with a 42, but now I'm curious.

 

<p>

 

If "view" means the angle of acceptance then we should shoot with a

Widelux. :/

[lacey_smith4]

well. if "perspective" is the question, then the classic answer is

the diagonal of the negative (which is clsoe to 42). But, in fact,

that is based on us being trinaed to look at standard things -- in

htis case, an 8x10 at a std viewing distance (I think 16 inches, or

therabouts). Closer or further, or print bigger or smaller,

and "normal" may change.

 

<p>

 

The trick does have to do with magnification. If you look at a

neagtive (for 35 mm, 1 by 1.5 inches), viewed at the focal length of

the lens (50 mm / 2 inches out for a 50, 90 mm out for a 90), all

perspectives will be natural.

 

<p>

 

Of course, if it is your own personal "world view" -- what you see

when you walk into a room and identify as a photo target, that's up

to you, and can change. For years I was certain that the 90 mm

approximated my appreciation of the world, then later the 35 mm on

the M, but now I can even say I really llike the 50 (10-20 years ago,

I never even owned a 50, and thought it ridiculous. Best as I can

tell, my favorite lens/view is the one that gave me my last great

shot.

[MTC Photography]

See article

<a href="http://www.minoxlab.com/PZ051897/peterd.htm">The Eye is a

Minox</a>

[MTC Photography]

Characteristics of eye

<ul>

<li> Focal length about 15 mm

<li> Aperture f3 - f8

<li> Closest focusing distance 20 cm

</ul>

<p> The only camera lens closely parallel to an eye is Minox lens

focal length 15mm, f3.5, close focus to 20 cm

 

<p> No other camera lens comes close

[ralph_barker]

I suspect that the "apparent focal length" (in contrast to the actual

focal length) or "perspective" of the human eye varies between

individuals. Personally, I find that my eyes "see" at something close

to a 50mm lens, but with a horizontal angle of view of about 190

degrees. The zooming effect that Jack refers to is more like

vignetting for me - when I zoom in mentally, the surrounding area gets

reduced by a couple of stops, but is still there.

[art_karr]

This was studied extensively [by real scientists] in the 60's and

70's. As I recall, it was, for 35 mm, somewhere between 70 and

80 mm. This wouldn't reflect what you could see, but what you

would see. Too long ago to have references to the journal

articles. Hell if it was 28 mm everyone would be John Elway. ;o))

 

<p>

 

Art

[jay_.]

There is really no lens which sees like the human eye, because human

vision is a brain function. We see very selectively. That is one

reason why many times we are surprised by the way things look on

film, different from the way we see them "in the flesh". It is not

simply a matter of memory, because you can observe the same

phenomenon with a digital camera where the image appears almost

instantly on the LCD. I can recall one famous photographer, I

*think* it may have been John Shaw, saying that his view of the world

was closer to an 85-100mm lens than a 50. I still consider a 50 to

be "normal" but I can't say for certain whether that isn't because I

shot with a 50 exclusively during my first formative years in

photography. To this day the 50 is like an old shoe, the one lens

I'd keep if I could only keep one.

[Rob F.]

I'd say (have always said) 35mm gives the perspective I see.

Recently, 28mm has been gaining ground with me. That's not to say a

longer lens won't do a better job in some cases.

[glenn_travis5]

The angle of view of a 50mm lens is 45 degrees. This is closest to

the angle of view of the human eye. 43.2666 is the diagonal of the

24x36 film. This diagonal is usually considered to be the standard

for a normal lens.

[david_smith12]

Virgil,

 

<p>

 

Lively discussion. The original post asks which is the "view" of the

human eye. As one poster correctly points out, the eyeball, or

globe, or uvea, is about the size and aperture of a minox. At least

the anterior portion of the eye back to the film plane. (inside a

sphere in the case of the eye ball)

 

<p>

 

But you must consider more than the lens portion to make a "view".

For without film, or a ccd chip, there is no view. Just photon's

passing through a hole and a medium to bend the rays. (lens)

 

<p>

 

And the view is the essence of the question. The created image.

 

<p>

 

The image for a human is created by the interaction of the human

film, (retina) and the developing materials, paper, and light. (In us

humans this would be the rods, cones, occipital cortex etc.)

 

<p>

 

Since all us humans are different in our anatomy, color perceptive

abilities, and life experiences, we "view" what we see differently

from each other. Our CPU's vary. And I surmise that's why some find

the "normal" to be nearer to that of a 28mm lens, and others like the

image created by the 80mm lens.

 

<p>

 

I think the answer also depends on the scene one is trying to

capture. Our brains betray us regularly. Consider the moon illusion

as an example of the difference between what we see, and what we

perceive of the "view" of the rising moon. Physics tells us the

rising full moon is the same size as the moon overhead, but our brain

tells us otherwise. I think this is why some scenes seem more normal

with a 28mm lens and other with a 80mm lens. But enough of the

psychobabble.

 

<p>

 

A great physician once told his students that you have to learn to

see from behind the eyes. Bringing together the visual and tactile

components of the physical exam is the trick when doing physical

diagnosis. (Expecially before the advent of Radiology) Same with

enjoying photography--and that's what makes photography so great.

There's a little something for everyone from each picture that makes

the image unique to them.

 

<p>

 

Hence the variety of opinions on the "normal" lens.

[msitaraman]

I've never understood why people try to match the field of view of

the human eye with a 50 mm lens. After all, humans have two eyes, and

the field of vision is (in my view) panoramic.

 

<p>

 

What becomes even more problematic in this regard (seeing as the

camera does) is that we use only one eye, of course, in the

viewfinder, even in a panoramic camera.

 

<p>

 

So the whole vision/normal lens equivalance thing is akin to trying

to fit a very oblong peg in a somewhat less oblong hole, IMHO.

[andy_piper2]

Two thoughts:

 

<p>

 

1) About 1970 somebody took a 35 SLR and went back to duplicate (as

closely as possible) some Dutch scenes painted by the Old Masters. It

turned out that a 105 came closest to getting the perspectives

represented in the paintings.

 

<p>

 

2) Tomorrow morning when you first wake up, stare up at the wall and

ceiling of your (or her, or his) bedroom. Then use your peripheral

vision to 'see' the other four walls of the room. You'll discover that

your eye is really a fisheye lens - at the edges of your vision the

straight lines will start curving.

 

<p>

 

For normal vision the mind 'crops' your total visual field - and in

fact the part you actually see in focus is smaller than this posting

box - as I look at this WORD everything more than 2 lines up is too

fuzzy to read. In terms of visual field the 'sharp' area is about like

a 600mm.

 

<p>

 

To me the 35 or 28 best reflects how I see the world and people and

events in it - and a 90 best reflects what I see when my attention is

focused on a detail. Which may be why I don't find much use for a 50 in

taking pictures.

[nesrani]

I think it's at least 24. When I looked through a friend's 12 mm

viewfinder once that seemed to me the closest to just seeing stuff.

In practical terms 35 is probably the best compromise.

[harry1]

I bet you wish you hadn't bothered ah Virgil?

 

<p>

 

This is what happens when you get a bunch of boring no-marks

together,they all have to come up with 'clever' answers.Who gives a

toss anyway which lens is closest?

[virgil]

No Harry,I'm glad I asked,we got some interesting answers.

 

<p>

 

So,the answer could be anything between 15mm and 90mm

 

<p>

 

I put a zoom lens(24-120)on an SLR last night and zoomed in and out

with both eyes open until the viewfinder image seen with my right

eye 'matched' my left eye.They came together at about 45mm.I like to

know if everyone gets the same result?

[Niels - NHSN]

Virgil, <br>

Re. your last observation, you also have to factor the viewfinder

magnification in. Which is likely to be less than 100% on your

camera.

[virgil]

I used a Nikon F5 which has 100% mag'n

[greg4]

No it doesn't.It has 100% available vision in the finder.

[virgil]

Yep,you are correct.It has x0.75 mag'n.........oh well,that's that

theory blown out of the window!

[MTC Photography]

Mani pointed out human vision is two eye vision, all cameras, except

steroe cameras have only single 'eye' vision.

<p> That is a correct observation.

<p> Therefore, if you really want to see what the camera really saw,

you MUST use ONLY ONE EYE to view your enlargements, preferably

at the same perspective of the camera, then your brain will

reconstruct almost 3D view from a 2D picture.

<p> By 'same perspective' I mean viewing at a distance =

magnification of enlargement x focal length of lens. For example

if you are viewing a 8x10" print from Summicron 50, then view at

a distance of 8 x 5 cm = 40 cm

<p> "almost 3D" means it is not real steroe 3D, however using only

one eye, the human brain will try to interpret the view as 3D.

[harry1]

You lot are sad beyond belief! Do you ever actually sit and read some

of what you have written? Who cares which lens is closest to the

human eye?,just go out and take some photographs will you.You must

have huge butts.