Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) wrote:
Henning Wulff wrote:
There is no definitive equivalent focal length of the human eye, related
to angle of view.
As a previous poster has pointed out, the eye is not a device like a
camera with a set format. It is part of the eye/brain/eye muscle system
which all
--- Singh, Sarbjit (S.) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1)The effective focal length of human eye
is between 13-16mm, and the effective
numerical
aperture is about f3 to f4.
I would think that since focal length is also a
geometric parameter, the size of the eyeball, which is
not
It is difficult to answer this question as the human eye is backed up by
the powerful image processing provided by your brain.
Your peripheral vision extends out almost 170° so in one way your eye is
almost fisheye like, but the brain can vary the angle that it pays
attention to dynamically
Never really gave it much thought but just off the top of my head I'd say MY
eye has about a 80-90 degree field of view ... I don't know what that would
equate to in focal length.
Our eye aperture varies greatly ... We can open up to probably 1.0 and stop
down to 1/32 or more and since our eyes
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bill Gillooly
... Your peripheral vision extends out almost 170° ...
Mr. Bill
--
I should qualify that in my previous message I said I thought my EYE was
80º-90º. Bill is probably right concerning BOTH eyes
Yup, I've measured it!
B
Michael Stevens wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bill Gillooly
... Your peripheral vision extends out almost 170° ...
*
***
***
* For list
Singh, Sarbjit (S.) wrote:
Does any one know what the human eye equivalent is in lenses (using
the 35mm film as basis of comparison).
I have heard different numbers i.e.
1)The effective focal length of human eye
is between 13-16mm, and the effective numerical
aperture
At 1:48 PM -0800 1/24/05, Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) wrote:
Singh, Sarbjit (S.) wrote:
Does any one know what the human eye equivalent is in lenses (using
the 35mm film as basis of comparison).
I have heard different numbers i.e.
1)The effective focal length of human eye
is between
Singh, Sarbjit (S.) wrote:
Does any one know what the human eye equivalent is in
lenses (using the 35mm film as basis of comparison).
I have heard different numbers i.e.
1)The effective focal length of human eye
is between 13-16mm, and the effective numerical
aperture is about f3
Of Bob
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 5:40 PM
To: eos@a1.nl
Subject: Re: EOS Human Eye Equivalent
I seem to remember a Minolta 52mm lens for a while when the
SRT series was current.
Bob
*
***
***
* For list instructions
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:00:15 -0600, Tom Pfeiffer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote/replied to:
Minolta normal lenses were 45mm, 50mm and 58mm. You're probably thinking of
the 58mm, which WERE porpular in the SRT days. The 58mm f/1.2 was a legend
(but don't tell Jim because it's too fast).
Tom, my first
Tom Pfeiffer wrote:
Minolta normal lenses were 45mm, 50mm and 58mm. You're probably thinking of
the 58mm, which WERE porpular in the SRT days. The 58mm f/1.2 was a legend
(but don't tell Jim because it's too fast).
Tom P.
You're right, it was 58mm. I'll keep quiet about the f/1.2..8^)
Bob
I remember reading an article about this, probably Keppler on the SLR
in either Popular or Modern Photography...
The normal lens for 35mm, the one that gives the perspective most like
the human eye is equal to the diagonal of the 24mm x 36mm frame, which
is 43mm.
However, in the early 35mm
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
James B.Davis
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 6:22 PM
To: eos@a1.nl
Subject: Re: RE: EOS Human Eye Equivalent
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:00:15 -0600, Tom Pfeiffer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote/replied to:
Minolta normal lenses were 45mm, 50mm
Henning Wulff wrote:
There is no definitive equivalent focal length of the human eye, related
to angle of view.
As a previous poster has pointed out, the eye is not a device like a
camera with a set format. It is part of the eye/brain/eye muscle system
which all work together. The eye has a very
Must be why I like shooting with a 24mm lens so much. Back in my FD
days, my 24mm f/2.8 SSC spent a LOT of time on my camera! Somehow, I've
never been quite as happy with my 20-35mm f/2.8 L lens. Maybe I need to
tape it at the 24mm mark.
Mr. Bill
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:21:45 -0600, Tom Pfeiffer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote/replied to:
I probably owned an SRT-201 shortly after you had the 101, and like you, I
couldn't afford the 1.2, in fact I'm not sure I was even aware of it. But I
saved up every nickel and did have a ROKKOR PF 58mm 1.4. Once
17 matches
Mail list logo
