Closest to the Human eye?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread
Another thing I'd like to get sorted out is this.

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

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

-- Virgil (leicavirgin@hotmail.com), February 08, 2002

Answers

I think 45mm is the answer. But the I am Filipino, so my eyes are a little sloe!

-- Anam Alpenia (aalpenia@dasar.com), February 08, 2002.
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!

;-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), February 08, 2002.

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.

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?

Or is it which lens yields the most natural looking relation between near and far objects?

In my opinion, it sure ain't 35mm. Maybe 50mm to 90mm looks closest to "normal" to me. Very subjective, I think.

-- Hil (hegomez@agere.com), February 08, 2002.

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.

If "view" means the angle of acceptance then we should shoot with a Widelux. :/

-- jeff (debontekou@yahoo.com), February 08, 2002.

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.

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.

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.

-- lacey smith (lacsm@bellsouth.net), February 08, 2002.

See article The Eye is a Minox

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), February 08, 2002.
Characteristics of eye

The only camera lens closely parallel to an eye is Minox lens focal length 15mm, f3.5, close focus to 20 cm

No other camera lens comes close

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), February 08, 2002.

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.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), February 08, 2002.
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))

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), February 08, 2002.

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.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), February 08, 2002.
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.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), February 08, 2002.
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.

-- Glenn Travis (leciaddict@hotmail.com), February 08, 2002.
Virgil,

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)

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)

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

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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

-- David Smith (dssmith3@rmci.net), February 09, 2002.

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.

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.

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.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), February 09, 2002.

Two thoughts:

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.

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.

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.

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.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), February 09, 2002.

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.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), February 09, 2002.
I bet you wish you hadn't bothered ah Virgil?

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?

-- Harry (harryblat@hotmail.com), February 09, 2002.

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

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

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?

-- Virgil (leicavirgin@hotmail.com), February 09, 2002.

Virgil,
Re. your last observation, you also have to factor the viewfinder magnification in. Which is likely to be less than 100% on your camera.

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), February 09, 2002.
I used a Nikon F5 which has 100% mag'n

-- Virgil (leicavirgin@hotmail.com), February 09, 2002.
No it doesn't.It has 100% available vision in the finder.

-- Greg (gredtomlinson@aol.com), February 09, 2002.
Yep,you are correct.It has x0.75 mag'n.........oh well,that's that theory blown out of the window!

-- Virgil (leicavirgin@hotmail.com), February 09, 2002.
Mani pointed out human vision is two eye vision, all cameras, except steroe cameras have only single 'eye' vision.

That is a correct observation.

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.

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

"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.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), February 09, 2002.

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.

-- Harry (harryblat@hotmail.com), February 09, 2002.
Harry,

You are free to keep the insults to yourself. Don't read and don't post if you find yourself in disagreement with the topic.

Find another playground. No one's listening.

Tony, I think Harry needs to stand in the corner for a while with his pointy little cap on.

-- David Smith (dssmith3@rmci.net), February 09, 2002.

Just another internet fool.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), February 09, 2002.
"Find another playground. No one's listening"

Well you are David and so is Rob,and you both seem to be responding.I really don't care what you think.

-- Harry (harryblat@hotmail.com), February 09, 2002.

I think everyone is making a mistake to take the bait that a comparison can be made. The eye and 35mm cameras both have lenses, and that's where the similarity ends. They both function in **entirely** different ways, and one of them is backed by a mind that constantly changes the angle of attention (not the angle of view) depending on the task--are you driving in heavy traffic, or threading a needle?

If we even allow the validity of the question, which I'm not, I still think the answer is completely personal, and probably relates to this: given a picture of a certain size, how far away would you stand to view it comfortably, and then which lens, from that position, would frame the picture precisely. I suspect this would differ depending on the person, the picture, the lighting, and many other factors. I just did this with a few paintings of various sizes hanging on my wall and came up with 50mm, which probably accounts for my personal fondness for using a 50mm lens in most circumstances. I suspect others will come up with different results.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), February 09, 2002.

I guess it may also depend on what viewfinder option you are using (.58 .72 .85) assuming you are talking about shooting with an M. There is a difference between perspective and angle of view. i guess if we are talking perspective it would be at about 50-60mm (as backgroudn objects are at a similar distance to your eye). I fit is about angle where we are conciously scanning a screen with little effort, it would probably be a 35mm which is why it is my favouritre lens.

-- Kristian (leicahsot@hotmail.com), February 09, 2002.
Minox COMPLAN lens is a master piece of bio emulation There is no other lens so closely emulate the human eye

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), February 10, 2002.
I used the wrong html code

Minox COMPLAN lens is a master piece of bio emulation

  1. 15mm focal length resembles that of the human eye
  2. apeture f3.5 resembles human eye
  3. depth of field resemble the eye
  4. Complan lens sees just as close as human eye, 8", not closer ( most other lens close focus only to 2', macro lens focuses much closer than eye does.)
  5. Curve film plane resembls retina
  6. The lens stays inside, well protected, like the eye stays in the socket, all other camera has lens protruding outside the socket
  7. Minox shutter IN FRONT of lens, just like eye lid over eye ball, most if not all other camera either has shutter behind the lens or inbetween the lens elements

There is no other lens so closely emulate the human eye

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), February 10, 2002.

Hi, all:

I think Martin has brought some rather educative material to this forum and I have no doubt he (and Minox, by the way) is right. Concerning physics, it is.

But I fully suscribe Michael Darnton's opinion on what actual photographic experience is concerned. Maybe that is why now I also prefer a 50mm lens(which I would have never admited some years ago when I used SLRs and 35/70 and 70/210 zoom lenses only).

Thanks for the thread, Virgil

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), February 10, 2002.

Closest to the human eye is a lens of my own glasses.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), February 11, 2002.
(I don't know what this is going to do, but I hope to get the centered text back to the left rim.)

-- Oliver Schrinner (piraya@hispavista.com), February 11, 2002.
Another try.

-- Oliver Schrinner (piraya@hispavista.com), February 11, 2002.
(And now for contents)

The eye is more or less spherical, so its focal length is equal to the diagonal of the light-recording area; so the standard focal length for any given format should equal the diagonal of the negative (43.2mm for 35mm format), right? IMHO bionics of this style really screws it. Yes, such a lens reproduces perspective precisely as we see it--but each lens does so! It's only the angle of view that changes; and as the other contributors have pointed out, each of us has a different, individual, angle of view which she/he perceives as normal, ranging from the full 190° the human eyes cover (horizontally) to the approx. 20° we perceive to be fully in focus simultaneously.

-- Oliver Schrinner (piraya@hispavista.com), February 11, 2002.
I took pictures with a 19mm lens because that was my view and I took pictures with a 90mm lens because that was my view in other words : I made a choice of lens to photograph in function of what I saw. I think some people has 15mm eyes and/or 500mm eyes, in other words : it is very individual how people look at things. But : there is light at the end of the tunnel : there is a program on Belgian Radio 1 that answers that kind of questions, I'll try to contact them

-- Clem Desimpelaere (CLEM.DES@PANDORA.BE), February 14, 2002.

Minox Eye



-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), May 28, 2002.

Centenary of EagleEye Tessar

Carl Zeiss is celebrating the centenary of Tessar lens designed by Paul Rudolph in 1902

Eye of Eagle-- Alderaugen Tessar



-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), May 28, 2002.
Moderation questions? read the FAQ