50mm "Normal" Lens... Ok, but "Normal" on FF or APS-C Sensor?

Started Nov 10, 2012 | Discussions thread
Barrie Davis
Barrie Davis Forum Pro • Posts: 21,460
Re: Not the 50mm myth again. That one is tough to kill!

JulesJ wrote:

Barrie Davis wrote:

JulesJ wrote:

I sort of have to disagree with you here. If what you are seeing through your lens (and hence are photographing) is exactly the same as you see with your eyes, then I think that IS as standard as you can get.

Why? You do realise that the smaller the screen, the longer the lens you would choose after Size-match, don't you?

As you are fully aware, the rendering of perspective is the same for all f-lengths shooting from the same point is space....

.... so it doesn't matter which f-length happens to match your other eye's vision for SIZE as such... which will be different from one viewfinder system to another, or if you put on spectacles... (reading type glasses magnify AND reduce field of view.)

So, having dispensed with image SCALE as it appears through the viewfinder, all ELSE that varies as you zoom is Field of View... which, as I'm also sure you are aware, can't be pinned down in human vision, because it changes constantly depending on what you're looking at....

... like a room full of people scanned for the one you are there to meet, (wide angle)...

... or that very narrow section of road-width ahead that you are really REALLY concentrating on because you are flying towards it at 70mph. (telephoto)

And anyway, what if you are looking at a 3" LCD, or a waist-level finder as in a Rollieflex or Hasselblad, instead of an eyelevel finder?

Does the lens in use suddenly become NOT a 'normal' one because the viewfinding image as rendered on your retina is now vastly smaller than it was when the camera was pressed against your eye? I mean, viewfinder SIZE has changed hasn't it?

Indeed, its retinal size HAS changed, strictly because of viewfinding conditions, nothing else. The actual lens had no influence whatsoever.

It is a good job the viewfnder characteristic has nothing to do with what is, or is not, a normal lens.... otherwise photographic composition would be extremely confusing.

Matching the size and register between your viewfinder eye and the one looking directly past the camera is 10 seconds of mild amusement, and it would be fun if there was more to it in some way useful..

.... but it isn't, sadly

Ah I have to disagree with you here Barrie. The sensor size has nothing to do with what I am talking about. It is to do with distortion, compression of the image as in a wide angles shot and whatever the opposite is called with a long telephoto. The situation I describe is when there is neither compression or stretching (shall we call it)of the image. it is as natural as you you see it. As I said the sensor makes no difference, that would just vary the cropping of what you are photographing.

Hmmm... It is clear you haven't understood what I'm saying, which surpises me. It wasn't about sensor size but about viewfinder size. In fact, I didn't mention sensor size at all....[??]

Never mind.
I think it is best to drop it.
Best wishes.

-- hide signature --

"Ahh... But the thing is, these guys were no ORDINARY time travellers!"

 Barrie Davis's gear list:Barrie Davis's gear list
Konica Minolta DiMAGE A2
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow