> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Carlo > Terlizzi > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 11:26 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: EOS [OT] 35mm/50mm versus human eye's perspective... > > > Here's a question that has been bugging me for a while... > > A lot of photography books state that the 50mm lens is the normal > lens because > it best approximates the human eye's "perspective". However some > other folks > have mentioned that a 35mm lens is a better alternative. > > However, when I look through the viewfinder and then look up and over the > camera, the only time the viewfinder view matches my peripheral > vision is when > the lens is at about 24mm. Even a 28mm lens won't cut it. BTW, > this is being > tested with a camera that has a viewfinder with 94% coverage and .77x > magnification. Am I missing something here? Is the difference > between a 94% > viewfinder and a 100% so large that it would take a 24mm lens to > make up the > difference? No, but that combined with a .77X magnification is. 77% of 94% of 35 is about 26mm... Chuck Skinner * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
