1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

focal length of the human eye

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Adobres, Jan 31, 2012.

  1. Adobres

    Adobres Mu-43 Regular

    90
    Nov 25, 2011
    can someone tell me what micro four thirds lens is closest to the focal length of the human eyes. thanks!
     
  2. drewbot

    drewbot Mu-43 Top Veteran

    702
    Oct 21, 2011
    Toronto, ON
    I came across this a while back - 24 mm.

    So, an Oly 12mm f/2.

    Except the eye has macro capabilities! :cool:
     
  3. Grinch

    Grinch Mu-43 Top Veteran

    813
    Jan 9, 2011
    Canada
    The SLR Magic hyper prime 12mm F1.6 with macro capability is closer to the truth, although it is manual focus and I'm thinking the human eye would be AF.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. FastCorner

    FastCorner Mu-43 Veteran

    310
    May 28, 2011
    Do you want a "natural" POV? Wide angle lenses are only natural if your head is really close to the screen/print.
     
  5. Adobres

    Adobres Mu-43 Regular

    90
    Nov 25, 2011
    yeah natural POv, thanks :)
     
  6. KVG

    KVG Banned User

    May 10, 2011
    yyc(Calgary, AB)
    Kelly Gibbons
    I think the perspective is 21mm so 7-14 or 9-18 @10-11mm
     
  7. nrowensby

    nrowensby Mu-43 Regular

    89
    Jan 25, 2012
    Columbia, SC
    I thought a natural POV was closer to 50mm (FF) or 25mm :43:
     
  8. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    The natural perspective from a camera system is very near to the sensor diagonal. With m4/3, this is 22.5mm, so the Panasonic 20mm or Panasonic-Leica 25mm are just about spot on. While the human eye can see wider, the images in your periphery are not really part of the scene. In a photo, one may look at the corners of an image, while with your eyes, you can just *focus* on what's in front of you. You cannot read a book out of the corner of your eye, for example.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Promit

    Promit Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 6, 2011
    Baltimore, MD
    Promit Roy
    That's for one eye. Two eyes are twice as wide, hence 24mm in film equivalent. Consider the aspect ratio of our normal vision: it's much, much wider than even 3:2. 50mm equivalent gives you a nice image that is close to what we perceive naturally.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. nrowensby

    nrowensby Mu-43 Regular

    89
    Jan 25, 2012
    Columbia, SC
    Thanks... Never thought about it like that... 50mm seemed close to what I see, but I have 20/200 vision in one eye, so maybe that has something to do with it. :biggrin:
     
  11. LovinTheEP2

    LovinTheEP2 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    619
    Feb 15, 2011
    Toronto
    20-24 I dont think is really applicable either as the human eye only has the center part of the image in full focus, the other 1/3 all around is very soft focus. We'd be very disappointed with a lens that performs as our eyes do :smile: so trying to get a similar FOV is kind of not possible. I'd be more inclined to saying on a m43 that it's more like 7-8mm.. 12mm FOV isn't equiv to 24mm on FF.. no matter how much crop factor is spoken like that.
     
  12. RichDesmond

    RichDesmond Mu-43 Veteran

    356
    Nov 18, 2011
    Hmmm, I don't think so. :smile: Lot of overlap there. Actually I don't think the one eye/two eye thing has any effect. To me, the "natural" FL equivalent is the one that looks like "normal" distance when you hold the camera up to your eye. (For cameras with a VF, obviously). Rather than the diagonal of the sensor it has always seemed to me to correspond more closely to what the diagonal would be if the sensor was a square of the long dimension.
     
  13. starlabs

    starlabs Mu-43 Top Veteran

    856
    Sep 30, 2010
    Los Angeles
    • Like Like x 1
  14. nseika

    nseika Mu-43 Veteran

    260
    Nov 22, 2010
    Jakarta, Indonesia
    Lois
    IIRC, a documentary mentioned that we only consciously perceive a small spot in our vision (like a rangefinder patch ?). The outer part is mostly designed for movement sensing and not details.
    Our eyes are constantly moving to scan the scene and then the brain just play "fill the blank" of what we think is supposed to be outside that small area based on experience and memories. That's why we have to focus on something to get the real time details.

    Probably this is why some peoples have wider view of the world (20~35mm?) and some peoples have narrower view of the world (60~90mm?). It's on how much they fill in their "perceived" field of vision.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  15. speedandstyle

    speedandstyle Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    The 50mm on 35mm/FF is about the same angle of view as the average human eye That is why they call them "normal" lenses. For instance if you fit a normal lens to your camera - look through the view finder and then drop the camera away from your eye the view is pretty much the same. If you fit a wide angle to your camera you will see more and it seems further away than normal and if you fit a tele you see less but it seems closer. Since the m43 is a half crop to the FF then a 25mm would be normal.

    In movie and video production they use wide screen formats to simulate the much wider than taller view our eyes see. The current video widescreen is 16:9 or 1.77:1 but movies are actually a bit wider at 1.85:1 or the extra wide 2.40:1. Older movies were 1.37:1 or 4.11:3{which is why they were easy to convert to the old TV standard of 4:3}. The widest format is Disney's CircleVision 360 as seen at Disneyland and Disneyworld , the screen is literally 360 degrees around you.
     
  16. Adobres

    Adobres Mu-43 Regular

    90
    Nov 25, 2011
    great, well this explains why i have been so pulled towards the 25mm 1.4 i think i will go with my instinct and get this lens. it was a battle between that and the 20mm 1.7. im wondering, how is it using a wide apeture (1.4) in the sunlight? do you need Nd filters for this. any experience? i have an epm1

    thank for the comments guys
     
  17. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    A normal lens is a lens whose focal length is equal to the diagonal of the format. The normal lens for 35mm is 43mm, not 50mm. The 50mm standard lens for 35mm was an accident of history.

    Normal lenses do not have the same angle of view as the human eye, but rather the "correct" viewing distance and "standard" viewing distance is the same giving a image normal perspective when you view it at the standard viewing distance. The two criteria for the perspective in an image is the object distance the image was taken at (True Perspective) and the viewing distance of the print/display (Apparent Perspective).

    Standard viewing distance is the same as the diagonal of the print or display image. Correct viewing distance is proportion to the focal length of the lens and image magnification to the final display size.

    For more on this:

    Optics in photography - Rudolf Kingslake - Google Books
     
    • Like Like x 3
  18. speedandstyle

    speedandstyle Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    f1.4 in bright sun light might require ND filter , depends on what your shutter speed is and what ISO setting.

    You are right that a perfect normal is more like 43mm{I had heard it was 45mm}. But there are very few 45mm lenses out there. In FF they actually consider 40mm a "normal" as well as a 57mm so anything in the range of 40-57mm is normal. In m43 that would be 20mm - 28.5mm. A 24mm or 25mm would be the average.
     
  19. supermaxv

    supermaxv Mu-43 Veteran

    273
    Sep 20, 2011
  20. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    Gordon
    The closest for MY eyes was a 45mm lens in panoramic mode on an Xpan. So basically a lens with a field of view of a 24mm (35mm film) and the perspective of a 45mm (again 35mm film). Most human vision is made up of scanned sections (mostly left to right) built into a single composite image. I would think that 16:9 aspect at 20-25mm would be as close as you'll get on m4/3.

    Gordon
     
    • Like Like x 1