Definition of “Standard-„ or „Normal-„ lens wrong?!

Barry Twycross said:

Aussibum said:

Barry Twycross said:

Aussibum said:

I would like to suggest a simple experiment to everyone from my own experience: If a lens with a 50mm focal length is used on a camera (regardless of the sensor size)

simply leave the other eye open without the lens-camera system and walk around.

Click to expand...

Quite easily disproven.

Apart from the fact that the image zooms when I change the diopter adjustment, so immediately it's proven false.

Here's a picture with 2 different cameras, with 2 different sensor sizes, both with 50mm lenses, looking at the same target.



The bottom left is the other eye open. The top image is one camera's viewfinder, the right image is another (it is focused if you put your eye to the viewfinder, just difficult to get in one frame.)

Click to expand...

Thank you for this input.

So far I see that the round Logos nearly have the same size = same magnification factor! That is exactly my point!
This would not be possible with e.g. a 35mm lens.

Click to expand...

You seem to be ignoring the other logo from the other format, which clearly is not the same size. This depends on format, and on viewfinder optics. As I said, this changes as I change the dioptre adjustment.

In no way is this an intrinsic quality of 50mm. It is a coincidence if it happens at all, for any focal lengths, for any format, for any viewfinder.

To make it clearer, below is just the logos extracted from the above image, the sizes are 308, 297, and 180 pixels. Even the ones you claim are the same size, are not.

Click to expand...

Barry, thank you for capturing your experiment for everybody to see. Can you please explain your experiment setup and what gear you used? I did not recognize that the logo on the lower right side was representable for evaluation.

What system did you use to make the image here shown? What did you shoot through for each of the three logos shown in the image (counterclockwise beginning at the top). How where the distances from the image plain?

This will help me to comprehend further.

Aussibum said:

Barry Twycross said:

Aussibum said:

Barry Twycross said:

Aussibum said:

I would like to suggest a simple experiment to everyone from my own experience: If a lens with a 50mm focal length is used on a camera (regardless of the sensor size)

simply leave the other eye open without the lens-camera system and walk around.

Click to expand...

Quite easily disproven.

Apart from the fact that the image zooms when I change the diopter adjustment, so immediately it's proven false.

Here's a picture with 2 different cameras, with 2 different sensor sizes, both with 50mm lenses, looking at the same target.



The bottom left is the other eye open. The top image is one camera's viewfinder, the right image is another (it is focused if you put your eye to the viewfinder, just difficult to get in one frame.)

Click to expand...

Thank you for this input.

So far I see that the round Logos nearly have the same size = same magnification factor! That is exactly my point!
This would not be possible with e.g. a 35mm lens.

Click to expand...

You seem to be ignoring the other logo from the other format, which clearly is not the same size. This depends on format, and on viewfinder optics. As I said, this changes as I change the dioptre adjustment.

In no way is this an intrinsic quality of 50mm. It is a coincidence if it happens at all, for any focal lengths, for any format, for any viewfinder.

To make it clearer, below is just the logos extracted from the above image, the sizes are 308, 297, and 180 pixels. Even the ones you claim are the same size, are not.

Click to expand...

Barry, thank you for capturing your experiment for everybody to see. Can you please explain your experiment setup and what gear you used? I did not recognize that the logo on the lower right side was representable for evaluation.

What system did you use to make the image here shown? What did you shoot through for each of the three logos shown in the image (counterclockwise beginning at the top). How where the distances from the image plain?

This will help me to comprehend further.

Click to expand...

I explained what I did above, what's unclear?

Barry Twycross said:

Aussibum said:

Barry Twycross said:

Aussibum said:

Barry Twycross said:

Aussibum said:

I would like to suggest a simple experiment to everyone from my own experience: If a lens with a 50mm focal length is used on a camera (regardless of the sensor size)

simply leave the other eye open without the lens-camera system and walk around.

Click to expand...

Quite easily disproven.

Apart from the fact that the image zooms when I change the diopter adjustment, so immediately it's proven false.

Here's a picture with 2 different cameras, with 2 different sensor sizes, both with 50mm lenses, looking at the same target.



The bottom left is the other eye open. The top image is one camera's viewfinder, the right image is another (it is focused if you put your eye to the viewfinder, just difficult to get in one frame.)

Click to expand...

Thank you for this input.

So far I see that the round Logos nearly have the same size = same magnification factor! That is exactly my point!
This would not be possible with e.g. a 35mm lens.

Click to expand...

You seem to be ignoring the other logo from the other format, which clearly is not the same size. This depends on format, and on viewfinder optics. As I said, this changes as I change the dioptre adjustment.

In no way is this an intrinsic quality of 50mm. It is a coincidence if it happens at all, for any focal lengths, for any format, for any viewfinder.

To make it clearer, below is just the logos extracted from the above image, the sizes are 308, 297, and 180 pixels. Even the ones you claim are the same size, are not.

Click to expand...

Barry, thank you for capturing your experiment for everybody to see. Can you please explain your experiment setup and what gear you used? I did not recognize that the logo on the lower right side was representable for evaluation.

What system did you use to make the image here shown? What did you shoot through for each of the three logos shown in the image (counterclockwise beginning at the top). How where the distances from the image plain?

This will help me to comprehend further.

Click to expand...

I explained what I did above, what's unclear?

Click to expand...

Explain your test so that anyone can repeat it at home.
List of equipement used, distances, lenses sensors.

In short - your experimental setup. Best would be a sketch of the positions of the pieces of equipement.

Aussibum said:

Barry Twycross said:

Aussibum said:

Barry Twycross said:

Aussibum said:

Barry Twycross said:

Aussibum said:

I would like to suggest a simple experiment to everyone from my own experience: If a lens with a 50mm focal length is used on a camera (regardless of the sensor size)

simply leave the other eye open without the lens-camera system and walk around.

Click to expand...

Quite easily disproven.

Apart from the fact that the image zooms when I change the diopter adjustment, so immediately it's proven false.

Here's a picture with 2 different cameras, with 2 different sensor sizes, both with 50mm lenses, looking at the same target.



The bottom left is the other eye open. The top image is one camera's viewfinder, the right image is another (it is focused if you put your eye to the viewfinder, just difficult to get in one frame.)

Click to expand...

Thank you for this input.

So far I see that the round Logos nearly have the same size = same magnification factor! That is exactly my point!
This would not be possible with e.g. a 35mm lens.

Click to expand...

You seem to be ignoring the other logo from the other format, which clearly is not the same size. This depends on format, and on viewfinder optics. As I said, this changes as I change the dioptre adjustment.

In no way is this an intrinsic quality of 50mm. It is a coincidence if it happens at all, for any focal lengths, for any format, for any viewfinder.

To make it clearer, below is just the logos extracted from the above image, the sizes are 308, 297, and 180 pixels. Even the ones you claim are the same size, are not.

Click to expand...

Barry, thank you for capturing your experiment for everybody to see. Can you please explain your experiment setup and what gear you used? I did not recognize that the logo on the lower right side was representable for evaluation.

What system did you use to make the image here shown? What did you shoot through for each of the three logos shown in the image (counterclockwise beginning at the top). How where the distances from the image plain?

This will help me to comprehend further.

Click to expand...

I explained what I did above, what's unclear?

Click to expand...

Explain your test so that anyone can repeat it at home.
List of equipement used, distances, lenses sensors.

In short - your experimental setup. Best would be a sketch of the positions of the pieces of equipement.

Click to expand...

Sorry but am I missing some important point here? Why would anybody want to do all this?

Mike

--
out & about on the street
commonplace & ordinary
contre jour

Aussibum said:

Barry Twycross said:

Aussibum said:

Barry Twycross said:

Aussibum said:

Barry Twycross said:

Aussibum said:

I would like to suggest a simple experiment to everyone from my own experience: If a lens with a 50mm focal length is used on a camera (regardless of the sensor size)

simply leave the other eye open without the lens-camera system and walk around.

Click to expand...

Quite easily disproven.

Apart from the fact that the image zooms when I change the diopter adjustment, so immediately it's proven false.

Here's a picture with 2 different cameras, with 2 different sensor sizes, both with 50mm lenses, looking at the same target.



The bottom left is the other eye open. The top image is one camera's viewfinder, the right image is another (it is focused if you put your eye to the viewfinder, just difficult to get in one frame.)

Click to expand...

Thank you for this input.

So far I see that the round Logos nearly have the same size = same magnification factor! That is exactly my point!
This would not be possible with e.g. a 35mm lens.

Click to expand...

You seem to be ignoring the other logo from the other format, which clearly is not the same size. This depends on format, and on viewfinder optics. As I said, this changes as I change the dioptre adjustment.

In no way is this an intrinsic quality of 50mm. It is a coincidence if it happens at all, for any focal lengths, for any format, for any viewfinder.

To make it clearer, below is just the logos extracted from the above image, the sizes are 308, 297, and 180 pixels. Even the ones you claim are the same size, are not.

Click to expand...

Barry, thank you for capturing your experiment for everybody to see. Can you please explain your experiment setup and what gear you used? I did not recognize that the logo on the lower right side was representable for evaluation.

What system did you use to make the image here shown? What did you shoot through for each of the three logos shown in the image (counterclockwise beginning at the top). How where the distances from the image plain?

This will help me to comprehend further.

Click to expand...

I explained what I did above, what's unclear?

Click to expand...

Explain your test so that anyone can repeat it at home.
List of equipement used, distances, lenses sensors.

In short - your experimental setup. Best would be a sketch of the positions of the pieces of equipement.

Click to expand...

There's nothing special about the setup I used. You just need two cameras with different sensor sizes (as I said), both with viewfinders, both with 50mm lenses (as I said). You place the viewfinders where you can see both images and the target (as I said).

Then you take a picture of the scene. I didn't actually mention, but it seems obvious that you focus on the target (as the target was in focus).

You can play with the diopter adjustment and change the size of the images, either to suit your eye, or to suit the camera taking the picture, the camera has to be some way further back than you'd usually place your eye to get everything in.

As I said, changing the diopter changes the image sizes, so that immediately invalidates your thesis, even without doing all the rest. I wouldn't call it an experiment, it's an illustration of your thesis being wrong.

Edward48 said:

Aussibum said:

Barry Twycross said:

Aussibum said:

Barry Twycross said:

Aussibum said:

Barry Twycross said:

Aussibum said:

I would like to suggest a simple experiment to everyone from my own experience: If a lens with a 50mm focal length is used on a camera (regardless of the sensor size)

simply leave the other eye open without the lens-camera system and walk around.

Click to expand...

Quite easily disproven.

Apart from the fact that the image zooms when I change the diopter adjustment, so immediately it's proven false.

Here's a picture with 2 different cameras, with 2 different sensor sizes, both with 50mm lenses, looking at the same target.



The bottom left is the other eye open. The top image is one camera's viewfinder, the right image is another (it is focused if you put your eye to the viewfinder, just difficult to get in one frame.)

Click to expand...

Thank you for this input.

So far I see that the round Logos nearly have the same size = same magnification factor! That is exactly my point!
This would not be possible with e.g. a 35mm lens.

Click to expand...

You seem to be ignoring the other logo from the other format, which clearly is not the same size. This depends on format, and on viewfinder optics. As I said, this changes as I change the dioptre adjustment.

In no way is this an intrinsic quality of 50mm. It is a coincidence if it happens at all, for any focal lengths, for any format, for any viewfinder.

To make it clearer, below is just the logos extracted from the above image, the sizes are 308, 297, and 180 pixels. Even the ones you claim are the same size, are not.

Click to expand...

Barry, thank you for capturing your experiment for everybody to see. Can you please explain your experiment setup and what gear you used? I did not recognize that the logo on the lower right side was representable for evaluation.

What system did you use to make the image here shown? What did you shoot through for each of the three logos shown in the image (counterclockwise beginning at the top). How where the distances from the image plain?

This will help me to comprehend further.

Click to expand...

I explained what I did above, what's unclear?

Click to expand...

Explain your test so that anyone can repeat it at home.
List of equipement used, distances, lenses sensors.

In short - your experimental setup. Best would be a sketch of the positions of the pieces of equipement.

Click to expand...

Sorry but am I missing some important point here? Why would anybody want to do all this?

Mike

Click to expand...

Kind of the point I was trying to get across. It's so trivially obvious the original thesis is wrong that it doesn't need that.