November 22, 2014, 09:33:37 AM

Author Topic: naked eye equivalent?  (Read 5416 times)

serendipidy

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1343
    • View Profile
Re: naked eye equivalent?
« Reply #15 on: March 23, 2013, 10:36:33 PM »
The answer is 42   ;D
EOS 5D miii, EOS 7D, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS ii, 100-400mmL IS

canon rumors FORUM

Re: naked eye equivalent?
« Reply #15 on: March 23, 2013, 10:36:33 PM »

TrumpetPower!

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
Re: naked eye equivalent?
« Reply #16 on: March 23, 2013, 10:59:08 PM »
The answer is 42   ;D

You jest, of course...but the answer on 135 format ("full frame") is actually pretty close to that: about 43 1/4.

Now, if only somebody could tell me a decent place to have dinner that isn't at the End of the Universe....

Cheers,

b&

rpt

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2239
  • Could not wait for 7D2 so I got the 5D3
    • View Profile
Re: naked eye equivalent?
« Reply #17 on: March 23, 2013, 11:27:36 PM »

rpt

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2239
  • Could not wait for 7D2 so I got the 5D3
    • View Profile
Re: naked eye equivalent?
« Reply #18 on: March 23, 2013, 11:29:04 PM »
The answer is 42   ;D

You jest, of course...but the answer on 135 format ("full frame") is actually pretty close to that: about 43 1/4.

Now, if only somebody could tell me a decent place to have dinner that isn't at the End of the Universe....

Cheers,

b&
Forty second street ;)

Zlatko

  • Guest
Re: naked eye equivalent?
« Reply #19 on: March 23, 2013, 11:42:23 PM »
As standards go, one can arbitrarily subscribe to either a" wide" or "normal" standard...very lose terms that are filled by the 35mm and 50mm respectively in the full frame world. The "real" normal would actually be a ~42mm for which there was no prime in the Canon full frame lens pantheon....until they released the EF 40mm pancake.

But you are lucky as in the crop field you actually have several primes that will fit all three slots....just pick one.

24mm is a ~38mm field of view (FOV) on crop  (24LII, 24 f/2.8 discontinued, 24 f2.8 IS and the 24 TSE)
28mm is ~45mm FOV on crop (28 f/1.8, 28 f/2.8, 28 IS)
35mm is a ~56mm FOV on crop (35L, 35 f/2, 35 f/2 IS)

Cheers!

Of those, I think the 28mm would be the closest to a "true normal" on a 1.6x crop body, very close to what a 43mm would be on full frame.  I have often used a 28mm on a crop body and it feels like a "normal" lens on that body.

Rocguy

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: naked eye equivalent?
« Reply #20 on: March 24, 2013, 12:31:12 AM »

I would, however, encourage you to spend a lot of time experimenting with the matter. Pick some sort of still life and get really friendly with it. Shoot it from all different positions with all different lenses -- anything and everything you can get your hands on, even if only by borrowing and / or renting. Shoot at different apertures, while you're at it. And, most importantly -- though you might not realize it right now -- play with the light. Just a couple cheap task or work lights, a bulb with a reflector, will do -- and extra bonus points if you can dim them. Move the lights all around the scene as you move around the scene.

The purpose of this exercise, of course, isn't to create great art. Rather, it's to get a visceral, hands-on understanding of what the relationship is between perspective and position and focal length and how light plays together and all that stuff. Don't worry...once you see some of these things, you'll have more than one "ah-HA!" moment, and that'll inspire you to go do something truly creative.

Cheers,

b&

P.S. Your homework assignment: find out the actual dimensions of your camera's sensor, including the diagonal. It's in the manual and on the manufacturer's Web site, along with other places. Then, cut a hole in a piece of paper the same size as said sensor. Now, hold that paper up to your eye. Have a ruler handy so you can see how far the cutout is from your eye, and compare with the numbers on your camera's lens. b&

I appreciate this suggestion very much. I'm right at the point in my learning where I get frustrated because I'm realizing how important the lighting is in my trying to capture what I want. But I haven't played around with it enough to know when/where/how to adjust lighting to get what I want/better photographs.

And I will do the homework assignment!

Dick

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 126
    • View Profile
Re: naked eye equivalent?
« Reply #21 on: March 24, 2013, 01:50:40 AM »
I can't seem to find the answer to my question, which is what lens could I buy for my T4i (or any crop camera) that would give me an equivalent to what the naked eye sees? 24mm? 35mm? Sorry if this has been asked a million times but I'm just curious. I recently got a 50mm, 1.8, and am loving it. I wish my camera had come with this lens! But it has gotten me curious about other prime lenses and I want one that's close to the naked eye.

Thanks for any help or info.

P.S. Is the 50mm the naked eye equivalent for a FF camera?

Do you have borders in your vision? I for sure don't and no matter how close I get to objects, no distortion happens either. 50mm on FF appears to be a tele indoors if compared to what your eyes see. Looking through the viewfinder only gives you a small fraction of the view you get when you move the camera off your face. This is what people claim as "naked eye equivalent" for some reason though. I don't think there is a lens that gives you the same framing as your eyes.
EOS 5D Mark III + 8-15L + some boring L lenses + a 35mm Sigma...

canon rumors FORUM

Re: naked eye equivalent?
« Reply #21 on: March 24, 2013, 01:50:40 AM »

Rocguy

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: naked eye equivalent?
« Reply #22 on: March 24, 2013, 09:34:55 AM »
Thank god there are only 6 million websites in existance where you easily can find the answer to such questions....! Jeez, some people are really laaaaaaaazy!

Actually I couldn't find the answer on the 6 million websites which is why I asked here. But thank you for being helpful by replying! I love the kindness of strangers.

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: naked eye equivalent?
« Reply #23 on: March 24, 2013, 09:45:46 AM »
I don't think there is a lens that gives you the same framing as your eyes.

Fisheye lenses get very close.

Rocguy

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: naked eye equivalent?
« Reply #24 on: March 24, 2013, 09:50:35 AM »
I can't seem to find the answer to my question, which is what lens could I buy for my T4i (or any crop camera) that would give me an equivalent to what the naked eye sees? 24mm? 35mm? Sorry if this has been asked a million times but I'm just curious. I recently got a 50mm, 1.8, and am loving it. I wish my camera had come with this lens! But it has gotten me curious about other prime lenses and I want one that's close to the naked eye.

Thanks for any help or info.

P.S. Is the 50mm the naked eye equivalent for a FF camera?

Do you have borders in your vision? I for sure don't and no matter how close I get to objects, no distortion happens either. 50mm on FF appears to be a tele indoors if compared to what your eyes see. Looking through the viewfinder only gives you a small fraction of the view you get when you move the camera off your face. This is what people claim as "naked eye equivalent" for some reason though. I don't think there is a lens that gives you the same framing as your eyes.

I think part of the problem is the semantics. Obviously you aren't going to get a view exactly like what your eye sees when you look through a small rectangular hole in a box. That would have to be a pretty wide lens. And I think someone else mentioned our vision is more fisheye too. But I'm definitely not looking for a super wide fisheye lense. Lol

What *I* mean when I say I'm looking for something "naked eye equivalent" is I'm looking for something that isn't zoomed. Maybe a better way of putting it is true focal distance? If an object is 3 feet in front of me when I look through the lens what will make it appear 3 feet in front of me. Not zoomed in and close up.

But without knowing the exact wording of what I was looking for it seems other people know what I meant. And I appreciate the answers. It seems that the 24, 28, or 35mm lenses are what I am looking for, with slight variations on each of them as to exactly how close to "normal" vision they would give me. I know now what items I can start looking and adding to my wish list so I can start playing around. Thanks again for the helpful answers everyone.

As someone that is new to photography and dslr photography the information on the 6 million websites can be daunting and confusing to sift through. I really appreciate forums like this where I can ask a question to people with more experience and knowledge than I have. It's easier and more helpful to sift through 30 or 40 answers then 6 million websites.  ;D :o :P

agierke

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 360
    • View Profile
Re: naked eye equivalent?
« Reply #25 on: March 24, 2013, 10:55:32 AM »
the field of view of the human eye is near impossible to replicate without introducing change in perspective and compression/expansion of space. the way a camera "sees" vs the way the human eye "sees" is remarkably different.

there is a neat little trick to find a focal length on a particular camera that replicates the "way you see" without consideration to field of view (which is unfair to try to compare). using a mid level zoom, place your camera in a vertical position and look through the viewfinder so that your other eye is not blocked. with both eyes open, zoom the lens in and out until what you see through the lens matches what your other eye sees. take note of what the final focal length was on the zoom. that is the focal length that matches your vision on that particular camera.

 i have seen this number vary depending on the camera system used but it can fall between 45mm and 55mm. on my Mrk2 w 24-70mm attached it falls on 55mm. granted its a narrower field of view than human vision but so are most focal lengths depending on how you frame the argument. this method will match how we see spatial relationship of a scene though.
5D3, 5D2, 5DC, s15mm Fish, 24mm TSE, 35mm F1.4L, 50mm F1.2L, 85mm F1.8, 100mm F2.8L, 24-70mm F2.8L, 70-200mm F2.8L, 580EX, 580EX2, 600EXRT

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: naked eye equivalent?
« Reply #26 on: March 24, 2013, 11:22:30 AM »
If an object is 3 feet in front of me when I look through the lens what will make it appear 3 feet in front of me. Not zoomed in and close up.

That is a different question and depends on the viewfinder of your camera but does not affect the photos you take.

I guess, what you really wanted to ask  ;) is which FL will give you the same view when you look at the print or at the photo on your monitor. And that depends on the viewing distance, as simple as that. Stick your nose into a large print, and the answer is a 15mm fisheye. Hold a 4x6 print at 60cm viewing distance, not something unusual, and the answer would be 144mm.

TrumpetPower!

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
Re: naked eye equivalent?
« Reply #27 on: March 24, 2013, 11:33:09 AM »
with both eyes open, zoom the lens in and out until what you see through the lens matches what your other eye sees. take note of what the final focal length was on the zoom. that is the focal length that matches your vision on that particular camera.

Eh, not so much.

All you're doing there is measuring the magnification of the viewfinder -- something that varies from camera to camera and has much more to do with viewfinder coverage area (only 100% in high-end models) and how far away from the viewfinder you can hold your eye and still see the whole thing.

Oh -- and modern viewfinders generally suck royally compared with the days of classic manual focus SLRs such as the Pentax ME-Super.

Cheers,

b&

canon rumors FORUM

Re: naked eye equivalent?
« Reply #27 on: March 24, 2013, 11:33:09 AM »

Sporgon

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2023
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • View Profile
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: naked eye equivalent?
« Reply #28 on: March 24, 2013, 12:38:41 PM »
There have been some very good points made here, and some confused ones. The whole subject of " what the eyes see" is of great interest to me because we spent a long time at Building Panoramics creating a technique called "Eye's View" for our pictures which we generally take of ancient monuments, both preserved and ruinous.

As I said in my earlier post, the eyes do not see. The brain sees. The reason people can have hallucinations, or see ghosts is that the brain sees these things. To the people topping up on magic mushrooms what they see is real - to them.

The eyes have a field of view, yes, but it is difficult to define as our peripheral vision is a little ill defined - literally. Because a camera ( normally ) takes one exposure with one lens to record a scene, it is in fact very limited when it comes to try and record the view we see, because we are looking around us, subconsciously mapping the info, so our brain then fills in the missing info - a little like the principle of how a tv cartoon works.

You can test this for yourself. If someone takes you into a place strange to you with your eyes closed, and then, once there you open your eyes and look straight ahead you will find out that your actual field of vision is less wide than you have come to accept. Because you have no reference to what is on either side of you your brain cannot fill in the detail to your field of view. it's a bit weird actually, but in a view seconds you will involuntarily glance around.

It the same thing with perspective. People say ' ah-ha, when I look at something really close up I don't get the distortion of an ultra wide lens. No you don't because your brain knows what it should look like, but again you can try and test this for yourself. Find something that sticks out such as a door knob or someone's nose etc. Put you eye right up to it real close, close your eyes and try and empty your brain of though. ( Some will find this easier than others - those who post about 6 million pages etc should find it real easy ). Now open your eyes and look at the object and you may briefly see the very distorted perspective from being so close.

The picture of Beverley Minster below is a good example of this. The nave and transept look like the angle between them is less than 45*, ie V shaped. 'This is perspective distortion from the wide angle lens ' you say. But actually we didn't use a wide angle but a 50mm, shot in our 'eye's view' technique. The V shape is the result of how close we had to be to the subject. When you go and stand there you don't see this V because you know it's a 90* turn. However if you stand there with your eyes closed, let you mind go blank, and then open your eyes you will see the V before your brain adjusts to correct everything.

Digital has made it possible to replicate how we see things, but it takes a lot of post processing. The picture below was taken using our 'eyes view' technique, which was done by not only stitching, but also exposure and lens focal length stacking to get both the field of view and perspective the same as we see it.

I've added another copy with the 28mm framing added, so you can see just how wide a shot this is, as well as the 50mm framing which was done in various parts of the picture. This takes a lot of work in putting it together. ( Not these focal lengths refer to FF). The result is really like being there.

But to cut to the chase, as others have said: on your APS-c about 30mm will give the perpective as you see yourself, and about a 22mm will give a field of view close to your direct vision.

Hope this is of interest: try and find this on 6 million websites  ;D



rpt

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2239
  • Could not wait for 7D2 so I got the 5D3
    • View Profile
Re: naked eye equivalent?
« Reply #29 on: March 24, 2013, 09:38:38 PM »

Oh -- and modern viewfinders generally suck royally compared with the days of classic manual focus SLRs such as the Pentax ME-Super.

Cheers,

b&
+1000

I would kill to get the AE1 viewfinder on my 5D3!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: naked eye equivalent?
« Reply #29 on: March 24, 2013, 09:38:38 PM »