What is your Least Used Piece of Gear?

[scyrene]

While it's a much-debated comparison (and I'm not sure there's any definitive answer), 180º sounds far wider than the usual human field of vision. Stare straight ahead, don't move your eyes and head, move your hands apart until they disappear. For me it seems not much more than 90-100º.

 

[ecka]

While it's a much-debated comparison (and I'm not sure there's any definitive answer), 180º sounds far wider than the usual human field of vision. Stare straight ahead, don't move your eyes and head, move your hands apart until they disappear. For me it seems not much more than 90-100º.

That's interesting . Some say that 99% of what we see is produced by brain. Everyone's brain developed a bit differently, we are all unique. So, we don't have to agree on one number here .
How wide can you see with one eye, while staring straight ahead? From center to the edge. I think it is ~85º. We can't be that much different. Tell me it's at least 70º .

 

[ecka]

I think that human vision is closer to 10mm really, a lot wider than 40mm.
If not, then maybe I'm not human .

Around 80mm, what I see in the viewfinder is the same size as what I see in my other eye... but in regards to my angle... I almost have 180 degrees of coverage... so I think that makes me more of a herbivore than a carnivore...

Yes, I'm talking about FF equivalent focal length. It is close to 180 degrees.
I don't find it boring at all .

You may be confusing angle of view wit perspective. I hope your eyes don't have the same perspective as a wide angle lens...

I don't know really, it doesn't bother me. I guess the brain is correcting all the funny stuff, so we don't perceive it.

 

[Loswr]

You may be confusing angle of view wit perspective. I hope your eyes don't have the same perspective as a wide angle lens...

They would if you focus at the same distance...

 

[Gjako]

Another one here with the 40mm sitting on the shelf. Yesterday I was checking the stats on my library, and i realized that i only took 250 pictures with it since Nov 2012. Now it´s on sale with the 17-40 in order to get the 16-35 f4 :

 

[Deleted member 91053]

My 70-200 F2.8 L IS - simply don't use these focal lengths!

I've quickly checked my camera bag, and it seems there's a spot just big enough to fit YOUR 70-200mm!

If you live in the UK send me a PM.

 

[scyrene]

While it's a much-debated comparison (and I'm not sure there's any definitive answer), 180º sounds far wider than the usual human field of vision. Stare straight ahead, don't move your eyes and head, move your hands apart until they disappear. For me it seems not much more than 90-100º.

That's interesting . Some say that 99% of what we see is produced by brain. Everyone's brain developed a bit differently, we are all unique. So, we don't have to agree on one number here .
How wide can you see with one eye, while staring straight ahead? From center to the edge. I think it is ~85º. We can't be that much different. Tell me it's at least 70º .

Yeah, 85º seems right for each eye alone. Since they overlap a lot, the two together can't be 180º then, right? Even if they didn't overlap at all, it would come to only 170º.

 

[jdramirez]

While it's a much-debated comparison (and I'm not sure there's any definitive answer), 180º sounds far wider than the usual human field of vision. Stare straight ahead, don't move your eyes and head, move your hands apart until they disappear. For me it seems not much more than 90-100º.

That's interesting . Some say that 99% of what we see is produced by brain. Everyone's brain developed a bit differently, we are all unique. So, we don't have to agree on one number here .
How wide can you see with one eye, while staring straight ahead? From center to the edge. I think it is ~85º. We can't be that much different. Tell me it's at least 70º .

Yeah, 85º seems right for each eye alone. Since they overlap a lot, the two together can't be 180º then, right? Even if they didn't overlap at all, it would come to only 170º.

We need a circle to put it heads into... it isn't 180, but it isn't only 85 degrees per eye.

Ok do a rudimentary test while in here in the bathroom stall... with motion, which is current than without motion.

Right eye... looking straight ahead... I have around 155 degrees of vision... looking straight ahead...

Ditto the left.

No it isn't all in focus, but I can see what is too the right and left.

Provided my total angle of vision is 170 degrees, that means there is 20ish degrees that isn't over lapped when looking straight ahead.

 

[mackguyver]

According to Chapter 3, Single focal-length lenses of Canon's EF LENS WORK III: The Eyes of EOS, September 2006, Eighth edition (download link):

15mm Fisheye
Camera lenses have what is called an angle of view, which is the limit within which the subject can be photographed in accordance with the focal length and the imaging format, similar to human vision. The angle of view of standard lenses, which is thought to be near that of the human eye, is approximately 50°, while that of a 15mm fisheye lens is 180° (diagonally across the frame in the 35mm format). This means that almost everything that is in front of the camera is included in photographs taken by fisheye lenses, such as the sky above, the ground below, and surrounding scenery far to the left and right, which would normally have to be looked at by turning the head and would not therefore be visible in normal vision.

14mm
Lenses with an ultra-wide focal length of 14mm can photograph an entire 114° wide-angle view in the 35mm format, equivalent to looking out the windshield of your car and seeing everything in one glance.

20mm
While delivering a wide-angle view of 94°, which puts everything inside the human field of vision into the photograph.

35mm
A focal length that delivers a subdued perspective and natural delineation similar to the human eye.

50mm
Photographs taken with a standard lens have a natural angle of view and an undistorted feeling of distance. And because the lens has about the same angle of view as the human eye, it demands much more from the photographer.

100mm
Compared to the 85mm lens, the 100mm lens is characterised by an angle similar to that when you look closely at an object.

 

[Click]

Human eye

Field of view

The approximate field of view of an individual human eye is 95° away from the nose, 75° downward, 60° toward the nose, and 60° upward, allowing humans to have an almost 180-degree forward-facing horizontal field of view. With eyeball rotation of about 90° (head rotation excluded, peripheral vision included), horizontal field of view is as high as 270°. About 12–15° temporal and 1.5° below the horizontal is the optic nerve or blind spot which is roughly 7.5° high and 5.5° wide.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye#Field_of_view

 

[infared]

My brain.

ROFL!
;D ;D ;D

For me it is the intervelometer. 0 uses in a year and now ML has that built into the firmware.
Other than that, it is the 40 shorty... Somehow the 24-105 seems to be the lens of preference for me.

A little humor is necessary. My second least used piece of gear is my G.A.S. Plug!!!! (please refer back to my 1st least used piece of equipment!).

 

[Click]

A little humor is necessary. My second least used piece of gear is my G.A.S. Plug!!!!

;D ;D ;D

 

[bseitz234]

Human eye

Field of view

The approximate field of view of an individual human eye is 95° away from the nose, 75° downward, 60° toward the nose, and 60° upward, allowing humans to have an almost 180-degree forward-facing horizontal field of view. With eyeball rotation of about 90° (head rotation excluded, peripheral vision included), horizontal field of view is as high as 270°. About 12–15° temporal and 1.5° below the horizontal is the optic nerve or blind spot which is roughly 7.5° high and 5.5° wide.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye#Field_of_view

Either I'm misunderstanding the use of angles here, or this cannot possibly be right. A horizontal field of view of more than 180º would mean I can see stuff that is behind me without turning my head... that's simply not true. I wish it were, because that would be kind of cool.

Alas, with rotating my eyes, I'll grant 180º. Staring straight ahead at a fixed point, with both eyes open, I feel like 120º is a good estimate. With one eye open... 90º?

 

[Tabor Warren Photography]

Human eye

Field of view

The approximate field of view of an individual human eye is 95° away from the nose, 75° downward, 60° toward the nose, and 60° upward, allowing humans to have an almost 180-degree forward-facing horizontal field of view. With eyeball rotation of about 90° (head rotation excluded, peripheral vision included), horizontal field of view is as high as 270°. About 12–15° temporal and 1.5° below the horizontal is the optic nerve or blind spot which is roughly 7.5° high and 5.5° wide.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye#Field_of_view

Either I'm misunderstanding the use of angles here, or this cannot possibly be right. A horizontal field of view of more than 180º would mean I can see stuff that is behind me without turning my head... that's simply not true. I wish it were, because that would be kind of cool.

Alas, with rotating my eyes, I'll grant 180º. Staring straight ahead at a fixed point, with both eyes open, I feel like 120º is a good estimate. With one eye open... 90º?

I think you may be misunderstanding one of the two. If you place your hands on your temples and extend your arms straight out away from you, this is *approximately* 180°, if you wiggle your fingers while looking straight ahead, you should be able to see your fingers on both hands. Not all of us will, but most of us should. If you then keep your head straight and rotate your eyes left your right, you will indeed see past your hand, essentially behind you. If you begin to take your arms backwards, you will notice how far we can actually see behind us. I do not reach close to the 45° mark as suggested, however, I would estimate being closer to 30° past my hand, therefore, I would estimate my potential field of view to be closer to 240°.

Oh yea! and my least used lens is the 17-40L, hands down. I also dropped it last June and it doesn't focus properly anymore...

Cheers,
-Tabor

 

[RGF]

Humm, I'm going to say, my Sekonic light meter.

Just recently sold mine (surprised but Adorama bought it)

Now it is the 300F2.8. I use the longer glass - this is for my wife to use if she wants a mini-great white

 

[Phenix205]

Now it is the 300F2.8. I use the longer glass - this is for my wife to use if she wants a mini-great white

Man, you've got a great supportive wife. My wife would say "why do you need another lens"?

 

[TeT]

Human eye

Field of view

The approximate field of view of an individual human eye is 95° away from the nose, 75° downward, 60° toward the nose, and 60° upward, allowing humans to have an almost 180-degree forward-facing horizontal field of view. With eyeball rotation of about 90° (head rotation excluded, peripheral vision included), horizontal field of view is as high as 270°. About 12–15° temporal and 1.5° below the horizontal is the optic nerve or blind spot which is roughly 7.5° high and 5.5° wide.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye#Field_of_view

Either I'm misunderstanding the use of angles here, or this cannot possibly be right. A horizontal field of view of more than 180º would mean I can see stuff that is behind me without turning my head... that's simply not true. I wish it were, because that would be kind of cool.

Alas, with rotating my eyes, I'll grant 180º. Staring straight ahead at a fixed point, with both eyes open, I feel like 120º is a good estimate. With one eye open... 90º?

I think you may be misunderstanding one of the two. If you place your hands on your temples and extend your arms straight out away from you, this is *approximately* 180°, if you wiggle your fingers while looking straight ahead, you should be able to see your fingers on both hands. Not all of us will, but most of us should. If you then keep your head straight and rotate your eyes left your right, you will indeed see past your hand, essentially behind you. If you begin to take your arms backwards, you will notice how far we can actually see behind us. I do not reach close to the 45° mark as suggested, however, I would estimate being closer to 30° past my hand, therefore, I would estimate my potential field of view to be closer to 240°.

Oh yea! and my least used lens is the 17-40L, hands down. I also dropped it last June and it doesn't focus properly anymore...

Cheers,
-Tabor

Can see my left hand fingers wiggling but not my right, probably wiggling them incorrectly.

 

[c.d.embrey]

My least used gear are my Canon DSLRs and lenses.

 

[scyrene]

Wait, are people moving their eyes while they do this? I thought we were talking about the field of view of one or other eye. You can move a lens and cover more of the world, but not in one shot!

As for seeing your fingers waggling with arms held at 180º apart - unless my eyes are unusual (and I've no reason to think they are in that sense), no way. 150-160º for the barest movement, but much less to register what it is that's moving. Of course, it's quite unlike a camera in the sense that a detailed full colour image is only made in the middle (at the fovea), getting less distinct towards the edges (with no moving of eyes or head, remember).

 

[mrsfotografie]

Of course, it's quite unlike a camera in the sense that a detailed full colour image is only made in the middle (at the fovea), getting less distinct towards the edges (with no moving of eyes or head, remember).

Yes I have distinct corner softness. In fact I think the MTF is probably still disappointing some way towards the center.